Book Review

Douglas J. Slawson. The Department of Education Battle, 1918–1932: PublicSchools, Catholic Schools, and the Social Order. Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. 352 pp. Cloth $43.00.

The dominant theme in the history of American education has been theextension of compulsory, affordable public schooling. Although thisemphasis is understandable, Douglas Slawson’s new book provides animportant supplement to the major drama by analyzing the role ofCatholics and their schoolsFand their own national lobbying effortsFin opposition to the controversial campaign for a federal Departmentof Education from 1918 to 1932. As such, it supplements theinterpretations presented in such landmark works as David Tyack’sThe One Best System (1974), Lawrence Cremin’s The Transformation of theSchool (1961), and, most recently, Patricia Albjerg Graham’s SchoolingAmerica (2005).

Most histories of American education give some attention to themid-nineteenth-century Catholic opposition to Horace Mann’scampaigns on the grounds that ‘‘public schooling’’ was thinly veiled‘‘Pan Protestantism.’’ Slawson picks up the thread of that Catholicdiscontent after World War I by telling the story of the fourteen-yearbattle that ensued between the National Education Association and theCatholics. It includes fascinating insight into the roles of someunexpected proponents of reform, including the Southern Jurisdictionof Scottish Rite Masonry and the Ku Klux KlanFas both wereadvocates of 100% Americanism and compulsory public schooling. Byanalyzing the xenophobia and rural animosity toward urban immigrants,the book explores both visible reactions to federalization of educationand the underlying motives of both sides. It is a detailed study thatappeals to those interested in the history of the involvement of thefederal government in education, the culture and political atmosphere ofthe early 1900s, the heritage of American Catholics, and the impact ofimmigration.

The genesis of the federal proposal was a progressive educationaltrust from the Teachers College of Columbia University that joinedforces with a powerful lobbyist, the National Education Association, topush forward the Smith bill in 1918. The legislation proposed to create adepartment of education whose annual appropriations of $100 million(present-day $1.25 billion) were to include sums earmarked for literacyprograms to Americanize immigrants, improve public schools,consolidate rural systems, and provide physical education and teachertraining. Resources were to be divided among the states based on theirproportion of illiterates and numbers of foreign-born. It also stipulated

History of Education Quarterly Vol. 48 No. 2 May 2008 Copyright r 2008 by The History of Education Society

that to qualify for funds, states would have to match funds and get priorapproval for implementation plans.

Little wonder, then, that it is not a saccharine story. Slawsonconcludes with what he calls ‘‘the triumph of home rule’’ (p. 207) inthe battle between 1918 and 1932 to establish (or fight against) a separatefederal department of education. Ultimately, unwillingness to allow thefederal government to intrude on the authority of state and localeducation organizations, as well as the rights of parents, played a largerole in the defeat of the bill to create a department of education,presented in various forms over the period of the battle. Slawson relieson the public forum provided by Jesuit Paul Blakely, editor of Americamagazine, who spoke against federal involvement in education, evenafter the original bill that called not only for a department, but alsofederal aid as well, was watered down. Blakely’s view was that ‘‘the newmeasure, lacking as it did a subsidy, was like the camel that just wanted toget its nose under the tent. Soon the whole animal would be inside’’ (p.148). During the post-World War I and Depression period, PresidentsHoover and Coolidge were both concerned with trying to shrinkgovernment expenses and favored restructuring existing departments,rather than creating another costly cabinet-level department. Thisdisfavor from the top also contributed to the demise of the bill.

The sticking points were multiple: first, states would lose controlFostensibly, a violation of the Tenth Amendment; second, therequirement that English be the only language of instruction in bothpublic and private schools; and, third, that no federal funds go to privateor parochial education. Catholics saw this first legislative attempt, aswell as the subsequent watered-down versions, as a threat to parochialeducation and fought for years against all subsequent efforts throughtheir own powerful lobbyist, the National Catholic Welfare Council(later Conference). What followed was a battle over religion, a battleover state rights, or a battle over Americanization, depending on thecombatant’s point of view. Although the forces that fought for thecabinet-level department lost the battle waged during the early 1900s,they ultimately won the war. By the time the U.S. Department ofEducation was officially established in 1980, federal funding ofeducation and its resultant regulation had long been in place. On theother hand, Catholics were effective in creating in urban areasnationwide a strong parochial school system that thrived alongside thepublic schools.

Slawson has conducted meticulous archival research. He is theauthor of several other works related to Catholicism, including booksand articles regarding the foundation and early activities of the NationalCatholic Welfare Council (NCWC), later the National CatholicWelfare Conference. The NCWC grew to become the most important

338 History of Education Quarterly

national organization in the American Catholic Church during themid-twentieth century. It was the principal lobbying arm for the churchwith the federal government and fought diligently against billsproposing federal aid to education. Slawson’s writing leans toward theperspective of the CatholicsFwhich is not surprising, as the book is partof the Notre Dame Studies in American Catholicism and sponsored bythe Charles and Margaret Hall Cushwa Center for the Study ofAmerican Catholicism. Although he does focus on the Catholicperception of the issue, Slawson articulates well the attitudes andconcerns of all sides in the volatile contest.

This balanced, thorough book will be useful to historians,especially those interested in the politics of education, particularly thehistory of federal involvement in education. Readers interested inlearning about the culture and political atmosphere during the post-World War I period and the Great Depression would find the bookappealing. It is an excellent source to introduce graduate studentsto ways in which educational policies have intersected with thehistory of American Catholicism and concerted efforts to shape theAmericanization of immigrants.

NANCY TAYLOR AND JOHN THELINUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

Book Review 339