Will Machines Replace Humans? Why This Question (and Others) Are Not New For Progressive Educators

Original text by Truman Reed with an introduction by Amber Strong Makaiau

In two previous blogs, The Progressive Education Association 1937 – On Teacher Happiness and Excerpts On Progressive Education from “The Contribution of Education to the Improvement of Human Relations” By Mary Shattuck Fisher 1937, I recounted my story of discovering a number of “Progressive Education Booklets” published by the Progressive Education Association (PEA) in the late 1930s. Established in 1919, the PEA was a networked group of individuals who were dedicated to the spread of progressive education in American public schools up until 1955. This included expanding the reach of progressive education philosophy and pedagogy and engaging members in critical discussions about the social and political issues of the day. In my November 5, 2024 blog, I shared how each booklet contained the transcripts of speeches given at national PEA conferences, and how they each had this similar inscription (with small differences depending on the date and location of the meeting the booklet was documenting) explaining:

The speeches contained in this booklet were taken down in stenotype as delivered by the speakers at the National Conference of the Progressive Education Association in St. Louis, February 25-27, 1937. They were edited and submitted to the speakers for their approval before publication. In the effort to place this report of the meeting in the hands of subscribers as soon as possible, only those changes necessary to make clear the meaning of the speakers were made. This fact will account for any apparent imperfections of style that may appear in the printed form of the speeches.

In this blog, I share excerpts from Truman Reed’s 1938 PEA speech to illustrate how the questions being asked and addressed by progressive educators at the time are very similar to the questions progressive educators are currently grappling with. 

For example, Truman Reed explains that Americans in the late 1930s were seriously wrestling with the question, will machines replace humans? In our current age of rapid innovation and advancement in the field of artificial intelligence, this particular part of the speech stuck out to me because of the plethora of press coverage related to the “dismal” future being projected for recent college graduates:

Image AI-generated by author using Canva’s Text to Image feature, June 26, 2025.

In sum, all of the articles project that “AI could ‘upend entry-level work’ for new college grads by automating jobs ‘previously performed by low-level employees’...And it may get worse. AI could ‘wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs’ in the next few years [causing] a ‘white-collar bloodbath’...Most Americans are ‘unaware that this is about to happen’ (Mathis, J., 2025). And, while the language in these recent articles seems shocking and thought-provoking for educators of today, they are not new for progressive educators. In his speech, you will see how Truman Reed addresses the social and economic implications of similar questions and issues, as well as possible impacts on education and schooling.

You might also observe the differences between the Depression Era 1930s America and today’s context. For example, it does not seem that the popular sentiment of the current era is being characterized by the same sort of despair and hopelessness referenced in Reed’s speech, which resulted from the Great Depression (1929-1939). Another distinction is that the speech mentions youth attitudes towards WW2 and the draft. With these differences aside, there are still many important and relevant lessons that can be gleaned from what progressive educators were philosophizing and putting into practice during this particular time period in US history. Among them, a major thesis of the progressive education movement: Schools must take an active role in supporting youth in learning about, adapting to, and living well in a changing world. 

More specifically, Truman Reed closes the speech by calling on progressive educators to use schools as sites for supporting youth in facing the uncertainty of the times by:

  • Educating themselves on contemporary issues, so that they can help students be informed. Educators must know “from personal contact and intimate knowledge the kind of a world that youth is facing. They must know, also, which particular field of specialization will be of value in helping youth adjust to the world.”

  • Building up self-efficacy in students, so they are equipped to face life’s challenges. This includes cultivating and nurturing in students the belief “that they can do something about [the difficulties they face and that] probably their best chance is through cooperative action–hence the school must give them command of this important instrument through practice.”

  • Creating a safe space for students, so that they know what it feels like to be a part of a caring and supportive community of adults and fellow learners. Address students’ social-emotional well-being by helping them “with their educational, vocational and personal problems.”

  • Empowering youth to engage in authentic, real-world work. Give “young people an opportunity to make decisions, share responsibility, and work cooperatively toward a common goal.”

Truman Reed concludes the speech by alluding to the idea that the questions and problems of any given time in American history (and the present for that matter) can be a window into the health and well-being of our democracy. He explains, “We cannot assume that democracy is safe if young people do not have real help from all institutions in solving their [and society’s] major problems.” Deeply aligned to the progressive education movement’s commitment to the role of schools in a democracy, he asserts that teachers can be powerful levers of change, working alongside youth to tackle the difficult questions of our times in an effort to make a better future society.  You can view the full text in a pdf here.

Excerpts on Progressive Education from “Youth and the Future of America”
By Truman Reed 1938

Surely the topic that has been assigned to this panel is broad and inclusive enough to satisfy all of us! In my judgment, youth is the future of America and its problems are of concern to more than educators. Youth and its problems concern all of society. The difficulty is that only educators are actively interested in the problem. The rest of society is going about its business only casually interested and seemingly unaware of the fact that business and all other activities have significance and future security in terms of the solution to the youth problem today. The problem is not a new one. Society has always had a youth problem. But the depression has given the problem an emphasis that is new and different.

Under the older conditions in our society it was possible for young men and women to carve a future for themselves on the frontier. It is always interesting to me as I read the history of our country to note that the men and women who developed it were young people. When a person had reached the age of sixteen or eighteen, he was expected to hold his own in the world. When a man had reached forty, he was looked upon as “a man full of years” and ready for retirement from the hard work of the world. Contrast this with the situation today. We regard eighteen as a tender age and many parents are more disturbed about sending children of this age away to school than an older generation was in watching youth set off across the plains in a wagon train. We are fearful to put youth on its own because the frontier has changed. There is a new frontier of applied science, of laboratories, of factories filled with machines. This new frontier makes a different demand on youth than the old one did. When we discuss the problems, we must take all these things into consideration. 

It will be helpful if we have an opportunity to get before us some statistics of the youth population of the country. [In the original text, Truman Reed uses the paragraphs that follow to describe a number of statistics about the number of youth in America, rural versus urban, the economic status of families, etc. He then asks:] What do these facts hold for educators? Does home background have any bearing upon the objectives of education? To the curriculum? Does the cultural background of homes have any relation to the efforts of educators? Does home background have any bearing upon training for citizenship? For recreation? For training for leisure activity? 

[Next, in the original text, Truman Reed gives a description of the health statistics for American youth. He asks:] Of what concern are these facts to educators and others who are interested in the youth problem? Do these facts have any relation to curricular offerings? To the guidance function of the high school? To the development of a thoughtful citizenry in a democracy?

[In the original text, Truman Reed then expands on the impact of the Depression on youth employment in America. The final paragraph in this section concludes:] Six out of ten of these high school graduates are either unemployed or earning less than their keep.

This is a very brief and wholly inadequate picture of present-day youth–its educational status, health, occupational training, and employment status. Now what about the future? In discussing the future of youth we must take into consideration more than youth itself. We must consider the kind of society that youth must adjust to. An important element in our society is the matter of the concentration of wealth in this country and its effect upon the opportunity to obtain employment. [Truman Reed expands on this in the original text.]...The general result of this activity has been the reduction of the opportunity for young people to find jobs. Some people in the audience may feel that we are placing too great an emphasis upon the matter of jobs–but I do not think so. Jobs are more important to youth than the money they earn. Having a job builds up the morale of youth. It gives them the opportunity to live as normal people; to satisfy the natural craving of young people to establish a place for themselves in the world.

Image AI-generated by author using Canva’s Text to Image feature, June 26, 2025.

Another aspect of this problem is that of technological unemployment. One of our best weekly journals (The New Republic) carried an article recently on the technological development in the steel industry. As a result of new and improved methods of producing steel 15,000 men can now do the work of 100,000. Eighty-five thousand men are out of a job. And, of course, a similar number of young men cannot look forward to jobs in this important industry. In 1933 I met a man who was working in the thread industry. He told me that his firm had just installed a machine operated by two girls who earned $12.50 a week that replaced 650 girls who had been earning from $17 to $27 each per week. Two girls had jobs and 648 were put on relief! This story can be repeated in various forms in every field of industry and commerce. In the oil industry the old wasteful method of developing an oil field is now being replaced with orderly procedure that conserves oil but displaces men. All of us rejoice over the conservation element but we are still faced with the problem of jobs. In the mid-continent oil areas hundreds of boys and young men have anticipated careers and jobs in the oil business which cannot be realized due to the changed methods of development. 

No one familiar with modern business and industry believes that technological progress will be impeded. All the facts seem to point in the opposite direction–to a greater acceleration of technological improvement. Do schools have a responsibility to their students to inform them of this condition? Should students leaving high school have some definite ideas about modern business and industry? Do the new inventions create new opportunities? In what fields? What training is necessary? Many questions of this nature are confronting youth today and some institution must assume the responsibility of clarifying the situation for young people. 

[In the original text, Truman Reed uses the next two paragraphs to elaborate on the changing landscape of farm work in the USA.]

What is the attitude of adults toward the problems of youth? They vary, of course. There is one group that adopts the attitude so well expressed in Middletown in Transition. “There is no such thing as a youth problem. It is up to every boy and girl to solve his own problem in his own way.” Too many adults belong to this group. They choose to ignore the problem and have no concern in the matter. There is another group which wants to do something for young people but not knowing what to do becomes sentimental about the whole problem and would create a cult of youth. This group is inclined to hold endless conferences but do nothing. They refuse to face the fundamental economic, social, and financial facts that we have just reviewed and they cannot see that youth does not want things done for them–they want to do things themselves. If clubs, churches, and other groups would stop talking about “doing something for the young people” and instead would give the young people a real chance to do something for themselves it would do a lot for both morale and morals of youth. 

What is the attitude of youth itself? This varies also from one individual to another. Those of us who are in close contact with young people are disturbed by at least three additional reactions. One is summed up by the boy who in response to a question as to his future said, “It doesn’t matter much what I do just so I make some money. Money is the only thing that counts in the world and I’m going to get mine.” This attitude is echoed in Middletown in Transition by a businessman who said, “Our young businessmen who have jobs are harder than nails, harder boiled than the older generation. They know they have to be good and they’re not taking any chances by giving anyone an unnecessary break. They’re fighting for every advantage and holding onto it like a vise when they get it.” A second attitude is one of hopelessness as expressed by a young college graduate in Middletown. “Our group feel we’re thoroughly stopped. There’s just no future for our generation.” “They’re just getting used to the idea of there being no jobs,” commented a high school teacher (in Middletown) “and there isn’t much explosiveness.” Mark May regards this as the most serious problem of all. He is “convinced that the danger in the present situation is not that these youth will start a revolution or a new political party, but they will stagnate emotionally, lose their driving force and become wards of their communities.”

A third attitude was given to me by a high school boy the other day. He was not doing very well in school and I was talking to him about his work. His reply startled and disturbed me. “It doesn’t make very much difference whether any of us get along well in school. I would like to prepare myself for something useful but before I can ever do so all of us will be in the army. You read the papers and magazines and you know, probably better than I do, that a war is coming and that we are the ones that are going to fight that war…[and the original text elaborates, stating that this was the perspective of many young people in the late 1930’s.]

How should I have replied to this boy? What can youth counselors do to counteract the attitude of hopelessness and stagnation? What can we say to the “hard-boiled” individual who is going to “get his”? 

How shall we sum up this all too brief and sketchy presentation? What can schools do to help youth adjust to its environment?

It is the duty of the school first to help young people clarify the economic, social and industrial problems that are confronting them. This demands a type of teacher and a quality of teaching that we now do not have in abundance. Teachers must know from personal contact and intimate knowledge the kind of a world that youth is facing. They must know, also, which particular field of specialization will be of value in helping youth adjust to the world.

Second–We must help them get the problem of jobs and other phases of normal living in this new setting. They must be convinced of the challenge of the future upon which Lincoln Steffen was so insistent. Instead of regarding themselves as victims of circumstances–as pawns of a weird game, they must feel that they can do something about it. Probably their best chance is through cooperative action–hence the school must give them command of this important instrument through practice. 

Third–The school must give them the opportunity for real guidance service that will help them with their educational, vocational and personal problems, and will make them self-directive citizens. Personal problems vary with the individual. Enough is known about mental hygiene today so that no boy or girl should leave school with a sense of fear, frustration or childish methods of escape.

Fourth–The school must assume, in realistic fashion, the responsibility for creative citizenship in a democratic society. It is one of the important functions of the school to help induct youth, as prospective citizens, into democracy. This can be done best by giving young people an opportunity to make decisions, share responsibility, and work coöperatively toward a common goal. The school must be very sure that all the pupils have a clear and comprehensive idea of the democratic ideal both as a method of government and “a way of life.” We have not been doing these things in the past. We have assumed that democracy and democratic institutions were inherited. The events of the past few years should have convinced all of us that democracy is never inherited–but must be achieved in each generation.

We cannot assume that democracy is safe if young people do not have real help from all institutions in solving their major problems. The dictators of Europe came largely because there was a great body of youth, disinherited, defeated, despairing and looking for a savior. When the program of Facism was presented with its promise of jobs and opportunities for action, the youth of the countries enlisted en masse. I believe that our youth would like to see a democratic solution to their problems. I believe that all of their instincts and their prejudices are in that direction, but they cannot go on indefinitely feeling defeated and unwanted and without a real place in the scheme of things. Surely democracy has more to offer youth than Fascism! We must all work toward the accomplishment of this purpose.

Works Cited:

Areas for Educational Exploration. Progressive Education Booklet No. 10. Proceedings of the 1938 National Conference of THE PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. United States Section of the New Education Fellowship. AMERICAN EDUCATION PRESS, Inc. 400 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Amber Strong Makaiau is a Specialist at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Director of Curriculum and Research at the Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education, Director of the Hanahau‘oli School Professional Development Center, and Co-Director of the Progressive Philosophy and Pedagogy MEd Interdisciplinary Education, Curriculum Studies program. A former Hawai‘i State Department of Education high school social studies teacher, her work in education is focused around promoting a more just and equitable democracy for today’s children. Dr. Makaiau lives in Honolulu where she enjoys spending time in the ocean with her husband and two children.