Original text by Mary Shattuck Fisher, with an introduction by Amber Strong Makaiau
In a previous blog, 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.
This summer, after spending more time reading through the PEA booklets, I aim to re-publish and circulate some of the original text found in the publications.
This will start with a speech given by Mary Shattuck Fisher in 1937 titled, “The Contribution of Education to the Improvement of Human Relations.” With a little bit of research from the Vassar archives, I learned that over the course of her career, Mary Shattuck Fisher made many “highly anticipated and sought-after appearances across the country” and published “numerous articles..on child and family psychology.” She “was both highly respected—and highly respectful—in the field of child psychology.” At the time she authored and delivered the 1937 speech, she was a professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York.
Mary Shattuck Fisher was born in 1899 in Cleveland, Ohio. She attended Vassar College and then graduate school at Columbia University where she received both Master’s and Doctor’s degrees in psychology. I’m assuming that this is where she was influenced by the work of Dr. John Dewey, who spent 26 years at Columbia as philosophy professor and faculty at Teachers College, from 1904 until his retirement in 1930. Her doctoral work examined “Language Patterns of Pre-School Children” and was not only published in academic journals but also referenced in TIME Magazine. In both her professional and personal life:
[Mary Shattuck Fisher] promoted the principle of what she called “Democracy at Home,” which, as she explained in a 1939 speech, posits that: “Democracy not only begins in the home, but is kept alive and nourished there. Democracy is a faith, a way of life, and not a system. It can survive and exist only in a nation of free, individual and cherished homes. Only children who have been valued and respected- for democracy is founded on a belief in the worth of the individual- can themselves treat other people with real respect and understanding. Wherever one individual is used by another for his own purposes, democracy is denied (Vassar Encyclopedia, 2025).
It is also noted that she “wrote and spoke extensively on the role of women in society and the family, taking the still mostly unpopular stance that women are just as capable as their male counterparts in areas of work and education, and that men are, and should be, just as capable as their female counterparts in the home” (Vassar Encyclopedia, 2025).
While Mary Shattuck Fisher makes references to her democratic convictions in the 1937 speech to follow, I’m most interested in sharing her ideas because she captures so many of the wonderful nuances of progressive education philosophy and pedagogy in her writing. In addition to seeing her describe the underlying purpose of schooling in a democracy, she eloquently articulates hallmarks of the progressive education tradition such as: cultivating intellectually and emotionally safe communities of inquiry, teaching to the whole child, focusing on student questions to drive learning, teaching students to use personal reflection and evidence from the world around them to construct knowledge, teachers as scientists who study children and make instructional decisions based on data from multiple sources, and looking at each individuals’ unique growth over time to measure whether learning has occurred. This list goes on! I hope you enjoy her eloquent articulation of progressive philosophy and pedagogy as much as I do.
To access the full text of Mary Shattuck Fisher’s 1937 Progressive Education Association speech, view a pdf here.
Mary Shattuck Fisher Langmuir
Excerpts on Progressive Education from “The Contribution of Education to the Improvement of Human Relations” By Mary Shattuck Fisher 1937
The most important contribution which education can and must make is to create in our world today a working definition of democracy–and, may I also say, a workable definition of democracy.
Democracy seems to me to be an intention about human life. That is, it is essentially a faith, not a political system; it is a faith based on fundamental rights for, and belief in the worth of, human life. Because it is a faith, it is dynamic, not static; that means that it must be recreated and rediscovered by each generation. If it is not a static political society, it isn't something we can force people into or force them to accept. This generation must take its chance that the next generation will rediscover democracy.
What does that mean? That means that each generation must be made fit; we have to make it possible for the next generation to rediscover this thing which seems to us so important. You may say, “Well, can we take a chance on it.” Dare we take a chance that the next generation will rediscover a democracy? I think we cannot do anything else, for each generation has to take its chance with life, and we cannot deprive the next generation of that.
It is important for us not to confuse education with an educational system, just as it is important not to confuse democracy with democratic society. I’m not talking about education formally conceived, that is, as limited to the so-called educational or school system. I am talking about education as what happens to human beings. We have to feel there can be education; we have to believe that we can, through all the educational means at our disposal, all of the educational means which we can possibly develop, do something about this whole problem of human relations.
If there is going to be a democracy, it is going to be expressed in what we may call a tissue of human relationships. We want to make it possible for this generation and the next generation to create as desirable and vital tissues of human relationships as possible.
What I would like to do is to discuss as concretely as possible, without, of course, going into the details, the following questions. (a) What in human knowledge should be made accessible? and (b) When should it be made available, or accessible? (c) How may it be done most effectively? (d) How may we know whether we are doing it or not? (e) Who is responsible for it?
We will start with the “What” first. The “What”, of course, means, “What in human knowledge should be made accessible?” That is, what do people of each generation need to know and to understand if they are to achieve or to rediscover democracy? I am going to answer that question quite simply. To begin with, we need to understand man. We need to understand his physical, his emotional, his intellectual and his spiritual needs. We need to understand man in relation to his physical environment, in relation to his past, and we need to understand man in relation to his present which he has voluntarily and involuntarily created, and, most important of all, we need to understand man in his relations to man.
If we feel more comfortable using subject-matter labels, all of this means that we must create a new synthesis, a new science of human relations, out of data, the insights and methods of biology, physiology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, economics, anthropology, philosophy, and religion to name a few of them…[this is elaborated on in the original text]...In suggesting that we need a new synthesis, or new science of human relations, I am not suggesting that there should be no specialists…[also elaborated on in the original text]...Certainly they were needed, but they were needed in relation to other needs of the child. We have, in effect, taken the child apart and have not put him together again. We have lost sight of him as a functioning whole.
We know a great deal about the laws of learning and of specific learning, but we are only just now beginning to ask this fundamental question: What else did the child learn except what I thought I was telling him? My child can learn history, may pass a good examination, may even be able to get into college. At the same time, if she has disliked history, if she has disliked the teacher what good has the history done her? Those of us who teach in colleges have students who come to us and say, “But I have had Shakespeare.” Just think what that means. We have had Shakespeare; we have had biology. The question isn’t whether you have had biology, or whether you have had Shakespeare, or any other subject. The question is, “Have you had it in connection with anything important to you?” [An example is then elaborated on in the original text.]
The answer to our first question is that the information which should be made available is anything that pertains to man, to his understanding of himself, his fellowmen and the environment in which he lives. It should be made accessible, and accessible in its vital relationships. For a moment we leave that question. Our next question is: “When should this information, this knowledge, this insight, be made accessible and available?” It should be made available and accessible all during the life span, from the child’s first days to the man’s last days. It should be accessible whenever he wants to know, whenever he needs to know, whenever his experience of life has brought him up against a problem on which he needs new data. That is, each individual must have the facts to think with when he is faced with a problem which he must solve. We can’t always wait until the individual asks the question; we can’t always wait until the individual is faced with the problem. It is part of our responsibility as parents and educators to anticipate the problems which we know the individual is going to meet as he passes from one stage of development to another. We have to prepare him as well as we can for the confusions and discussions he is going to meet, not only by giving him facts, but by giving him attitudes which will sustain him. [An example from her own family is elaborated on in the original text.]
We know a great deal about the normal stages of human development, but we are not effectively doing very much about it. How can we make available this information which we feel to be the right of all individuals? I am going to make certain suggestions which I think apply to all of these situations. Whenever we are trying to make this knowledge available, at any time in the life span that seems to be relevant, we can do it–at least it will help us do it–if we, first of all, create the environment in which the child can ask the question and make known his needs and, second, help him find the sources, if there are any. We can help him see the relationships; we can help him recognize the implications and the contradictions. We can help him adjust to the uncertainty. We can help him get some orientation in time. These answers aren’t known, and can’t be known in advance, but it does help to anticipate them and it is important to try to understand and try to help the child to find out the answers.
If we want to make this knowledge available, make it possible for the child himself to see the relationships, it will help if we try to keep him in touch with his world–that is, the world in which he is actually living. We can start where he is. If he is not in his world, we can try to bring it back to him, or bring him back to it, and increase his world. I wonder sometimes whether or not it is really so important to some of these children to know how the Indians lived, when they know nothing of how their contemporaries are living. I am not suggesting we start these children in by taking them to see the slums, but I am suggesting they be given knowledge of living in their own times. We must try to help the child keep his faith in himself and in society, and if we cannot answer his questions we should say so plainly. We should tell him why we cannot answer his questions. You may say if you tell him why you cannot answer his questions, you may lose your job. We do not have to say things necessarily in the bluntest way, but what we say should be essentially honest; it should essentially represent the facts. That is, it is important not to say to the child “You shouldn't ask those questions”, or, “We can’t discuss those questions”, or, “No nice person asks those questions”, or, “What would your mother think of you if she knew you asked that question?” or, “What would other mothers think of you?” We must remember that we must apply what we know about the stages of human development; we must know that each stage brings with it its own problems and its own questions and that these questions which the children ask are not put into their heads. They are in their heads; that is why I have suggested to you that we must create an environment in which the child can ask his questions and make his needs known–because the ideas are there, because he is human, because he is developing, because he is trying to find himself in this world, trying to find out who he is in relation to other people. We must help him answer these questions. We must let him know, by the way we treat him, that there is no question which he may not honestly ask. We may have to teach him, or make him see, that there are times and places and ways in which he can ask his question, but we must not force him to try to answer the questions by himself or get the answers from his contemporaries, who may not know very much about it.
It probably isn’t necessary to suggest to this group how much anxiety, how much real confusion results in all groups of children from the fact that they are trying the best they can to help themselves, to struggle through questions which are away beyond them. That is, we are withholding from them the facts to think with, when it is much better for them to have these facts at the time they need to know. Perhaps we can call this another “how”, perhaps it is a “how not”. Not all teachers and all parents have to be all things to all children. That is, we do not have to answer all these questions. We do not know enough, we cannot know enough, but we can be willing to let the child ask his question; we can try to help him find the answer and we can try to make him see. Here is where the specialist comes in. We want to use our specialist for all children, not only for our children who are having difficulties.
This can perhaps be stated in another way. If we can remember we are teaching children, and not subject matter, a great deal of the “how to do it” will take care of itself. That is, if we are teaching children, we will study those children, we will know those children, we will try to interpret their behavior. We will, then, because we are in a dynamic, real situation, find materials; we will use our community resources–and we must not forget that there is the radio, there is the movie, there is literature, there are all these materials that represent the stuff of life. The children are using this material, and we must bring it into relation to the problems and needs that children have. There are untold natural laboratories afforded by every community which we have not even begun to use. This does not necessarily mean expensive equipment. In fact, such equipment sometimes gets in our way, rather than helps us meet the needs these children have.
How can we tell if we are succeeding? I think we will have to go back to the old question: What has the child learned? Has he learned to be more himself? Has he learned to be increasingly effective and competent? We must not judge the child by any one moment in his time. If we want to find how this child is doing, we will compare his behavior today with what it was a year ago, a week ago, or at any other period. We will not compare him with other children, because one of the things that is reassuring, which we do know–and need to make known to the children–is that there is such a wide variation in normal behavior and normal growth. This is very important for children to know, and they will know it if we know it. They should know that some people arrive at goals in life sooner than others, but that there is no way that is best. If we have this in mind, then we can ask ourselves: Is this child more effective, more competent than he was? That is one way of telling whether we are helping him. Another is: Has this child kept his readiness for life; is he still interested, does he still want to find out, or has he given up this interest? Has he learned that teachers and others in the community are more or less allied against him, or has he learned they are on his side? Has he learned that they understand him? This means, has he learned how to coöperate, has he learned how to lead, has he learned to integrate what he learns with what he does? (That is something most of us haven’t done. It is going to be hard to teach the children to do it.) Has the child learned to enjoy life? Has he learned to be more courteous and more tolerant; more sympathetic; more understanding?
It is very important to come back again to the normal stages of life, to see the child develop, to learn that there are certain times in a child’s life when it is very easy for us to appeal to his sympathy. There are certain times and certain stages of development when it is very important for the child to be given the material that is going to help him be idealistic, to give him the feeling there is something he can live for and work for.
We have to know when those stages are. We have to be sure we do not present that material before the child is ready for it. At least we must not judge the child too harshly if he does not respond. We have to remember, in all of this questioning, what he has learned. We must remember that the child can only learn that which he accepts to learn, or is ready to learn. This means that a great deal of this material is going to have to come in over and over again. While the child is learning, or not learning, as the case may be, he is building up a background. Something that wouldn’t “take”, as it were, at one grade, one period in life, will suddenly come into life for that particular child. It is important for us to be ready for this readiness of the child.
We must be very careful not to present material always in the same way to all children. We must be ready to make it easy for the child to ask us what he wants to know, because if we keep that line of communication open, the child will give us the clues; the college student will give us the clue; the adult will give us the clue, to the problem upon which he or she needs help. Possibly, this is a trite way to try to sum up again how we can judge whether we are successful or not, but I think it is important for us to remember that all human beings, at all stages of development need certain things. They are going to need them expressed in different ways, but they all need them all the time, and our problem is to find out just what that balance is.
What are those things? All children need to be loved. They need to be responded to. They need to be accepted for what they are. That means we must not compare them to their brothers and sisters, or to the other students. That means we must help each child get self-respect and keep it.
What else does the child need? He needs recognition. He needs a feeling that there is something he can do, and can do well. The situation will be different for different children, and at different times. The important thing is not so much what gives the child satisfaction, but that each child is getting satisfaction. Is he getting the feeling that he can do something, and can do it well; that he is making a contribution? If we want these children to grow up able to create a democracy, each child must have the capacity within him.
What else does he need? He needs variety and experience. He needs to feel there is something in life for him–something ahead, something to look for. The variety of experience which children need is pretty much determined by the next stage of development. We all know adolescents need a great variety of experience and security. Do we give it to them? We do not. What is the variety of experience they are looking for when they come out of adolescence? It is the security and experience of being accepted as an adult, experience of finding someone to marry. How many adolescents today can look forward with any certainty or any hope to the fact they are going to have jobs and that they are going to have homes?...[This is elaborated on in the original text.]...We cannot place hundreds and thousands of our young people in that position and expect them to take their part and be a part of the new generation that is going to discover democracy.
Who is responsible for this? Who is going to see to it that this new science is created and made available to everyone? Well, it is the responsibility of every one of us who claims to be an adult and a citizen of a democracy–of parents, and teachers, and of every member of the community. Because we must see to it that the specialists see that our children find out what they need to do. We must see to it that every community attends to its own children. We must see to it that the children of our own community do not grow up without a chance to look ahead, to work, without a chance to look forward to human companionship. These are the things that may be done by individuals, by small groups. Let us help each other here...[Elaboration is given in the original text]...
We have said that democracy is a faith. Have we that faith?...[An example from the times is provided.]...We must remember that growth is slow and that we must rebuild. We do not need to have it all in ruins if we can learn how to rebuild. That is, we must have faith in ourselves and in our children, and I think anyone who really knows children, anyone who has really seen what can be done when we give children a chance to ask the questions and find out the things they need to know, will not despair of the future.
There is very much for us to learn; all of this isn’t going to happen, probably in our generation. That is one of the handicaps of our time: we are so used to speed, we are so used to philosophy, we are so used to perfection, that we can’t wait to let the human child and human adult go through the necessary stages. We must learn how to ask the questions that are not in the book. [An example from her own family is elaborated on in the original text.]
We have got to see to it that part of the material we are going to make available is how men and women can learn to use their resources and how they learn to grow and work together. That is, we must do a great deal of learning along with the children. I would like to submit to you that this is the new frontier; this is a challenge the like of which probably has never been presented to the human race. We must feel we can meet it, and must make our children feel that they are living in a time when man can solve these questions which trouble his mind.
Works Cited:
The Contribution of Education to Democracy. Progressive Education Booklet No. 3. Proceedings of the 1937 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.
