VITA I. Personal Data Name: Home Address: Place of Birth: Date of Birth: II. Educational Background University of Utah Utah State University University of Utah University of Oregon III. Areas of Special Interest LLOYD W. COLVIN Tropic, Utah Hatch, Utah November 23, 1931 Bachelor of Science, 19 54 Library Certificate, 19 59 Master of Science, 19 62 Doctor of Education, 19 64 Educational Administration and Supervision Curriculum and Instruction Educational Research IV. Professional Experience Teacher, Bryce Valley High School, Garfield County School District, Tropic, Utah, 1959-1960 Teacher, Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah, 1960-1961 Re search Assistant, University of Oregon, 19 62-19 63 Supervisor of Student Teachers, University of Oregon, 1963-1964 A HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON by LLOYD WILKINSON COLVIN A THESIS Presented to the School of Education and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education August 1964 A PPROVED (Dr. Clarence Hines, Adviser for the Thesis) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Clarence Hines, I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the inspiration, guidance, and assistance he has given me, and to the other members of the advisory committee, Dr. Paul B. Jacobson, Dr. Hugh B. Wood, and Dr. William O. Shanahan, I express those same feelings. Also appreciation is extended for the counsel and advice of Dr. Egbert Wengert prior to his death in 19 64. Staff members at the University of Oregon Library and the Dean of the School of Education and his staff have been most helpful in guiding me to sources of data. For their help I am appreciative. I also wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Miles C. Romney, Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for his counsel and inspiration throughout my doctoral program. To my wife, Ella, and our two daughters, I am humbly grateful for their tolerance, understanding, and support. during the project. L.w.c. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE SHELDON ADMINISTRATION Chapter Page I. FOUNDATIONS OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION. . . . . . 2 Early Oregon Education The Normal Schools Teachers' Institutes Reading Circles The University of Oregon The Need for a Separate School of Education II. THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, 1910-1932. . 29 The University Crisis, 1910-1913 Administrative Succession, 1910-1914 Changes and Trends from 1914 to 1932 Teacher Training, A Scattered Responsibility Specialization Brings Departmentalization Accreditation General Organizational Changes Administrative Relationships With Various Agencies The School and the University Relationships with Other Institutions Relationships with the Public Schools The Development of the Physical Plant During the Sheldon Administration The Oregon Building Two New Buildings for the School of Education and University High School Sheldon's Retirement and Death Chapter III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) THE STAFF AND STUDENTS, 1910-1932 .. Employing and Discharging Staff Members During the SJ::i.eldon Administration Aims of the Faculty Problems Confronting the Faculty Faculty Achievement During the Sheldon Administration The Students During the Sheldon Administration Student Personnel Policies and Practices Student Enrollment ' Certification Requirements Other Standards and Requirements Student Activities and Organizations Page 73 THE CURRICULUM, 1910-1932 . . 115 Courses Offered in 1910 Changes in the Curriculum National and Local Determinants of the Curriculum Effects of National Trends Upon the Curriculum, 1910-19 32 Effects of State Trends Upon the Curriculum, 1910-1932 The Improvement of instruction Graduate Work Adjuncts of the School of Education The Summer School The Correspondence School University High School Bureau of Educational Research The Placement Bureau During Sheldon's Administr 'ation PART II. THE JEWELL ADMINISTRATION V. THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, 1932-1947 .. 161 Vl Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) The State System of Higher Education in Oregon Beginnings of the State System A Period of Strife The New System of Higher Education Becomes a Reality A New Administration Succession Difficulties Trends from 1932 to 1947 Teacher Training Remained a Scattered Responsibility Greater Staff Control More Specialization Curricular Organizational Changes Administrative Relationships with Various Agencies The School and the University Relationships with the State Relationships with the Public Schools The Physical Plant Dean Jewell Retires Page VI. THE STAFF AND STUDENTS, 1932-1947. . . . . 189 The Faculty During the Jewell Administration Employing and Discharging Staff Members During the Jewell Administration Aims of the Faculty Problems Confronting the Staff Faculty Achievements During the Jewell Administration The Students During the Jewell Administration Personnel Policies and Practices Student Enrollment Certification Requirements Other Standards and Requirements vii Chapter VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) THE CURRICULUM, 1932-1947 . The Curriculum in 1932-1933 Curriculum Changes National and Local Determinants of the Curriculum National Effects Upon the Curriculum During the Jewell Administration State and Local Effects upon the Cur- riculum During the Jewell Administration Attempts to Improve the Curriculum Adjuncts and Areas of Curricular Expansion Supervised Student Teaching Summer Sessions and Extension Work Higher Education Graduate Work The DeBusk Memorial Clinic University High School The Curriculum Laboratory Bureau of Educational Research VIII. THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION Page . 21 7 OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, 1947-1964 •. 256 A New Era Administrative Succession, 194 7 Trends from 1947 to 1964 Continuing Trends New Programs and Developments Relationships of the School of Education with Various Agencies Relationships with the University Relationships with the State Relationships with other Institutions of Higher Learning Relationships with the Public Schools The Physical Plant During the Jacobson Administration viii Chapter IX. x. XI. TABLE OF CONTENTS- -(Continued) THE STAFF AND STUDENTS, 1947-1964. The Faculty During the Jacobson Administration Employing and Discharging Staff Members During the Jacobson Administration Aims of the Faculty Problems Confronting the Faculty Achievements of the Faculty The Students During the Jacobson Administration Student Personnel Policies and Practices Student Enrollment Certification Requirements Page . 299 Other Standards and Requirements for Students During the Jacobson Era Student Organizations THE CURRICULUM,- 1947-1964. Changes in the Curriculum During the Jacobson Administration Determinants of the Curriculum National Effects upon the Curriculum State and Local Effects Upon the Curriculum Improving Methods of Instruction Adjuncts and Areas of Curricular Expansion Bureau of Educational Research Student Teaching in the Curriculum The High School Eliminated The Curriculum Laboratory Graduate Work SUMMARY AND TRENDS Four Periods of Development Events Leading to the Establishment of the School of Education ix . 334 383 Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) The Sheldon Administration The Jewell Administration The Jacobson Administration The Future BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . I II Ill IV Names and Dates of Service of Faculty Members in the School of Education 1910-1963 ........... . Organization Chart . . Organization of the University for Teacher Education . . . . . . ' . . . Suggested Supervisory Organization for Student Field Experiences, 1964-1965 X Page 401 416 430 • 432 . 434 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Expansion of Public Education in Oregon, 1876-1912. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Normal Course at the University, 1880-1884. 15 3. Normal Course at the University of Oregon, 1894 . . 17 4. Salary Schedule in the School of Education, in 1915. . 81 5. Salary Schedule in the School of Education in 19 20 . . 8 2 6. Enrollment at the University of Oregon, 1910-1912 , 96 7. Enrollment in the School of Education, 1910-1932. . 97 8. 9, Vocations of Education Graduates, 1910-1915 Courses Suggested for Superintendents and Principals, 1910-1911 ........ . 10. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 1910-1911 ............. . 11. Courses Offered by the School of Education, . 1915-1916 ........... . 12. Graduate Division Courses, 1918-1919 . 13. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 1920-1921 ............. . 14. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 1922-1923 ............. . 99 116 117 121 123 124 125 LIST OF TABLES--(Continued} Table 15. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 1928-1929 .............. . 16. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 1 7. 18. 19. 1929-1930 .. • . ........... . Salary Increases from 1945-1946 to 1946-194 7 at the University of Oregon . . . . . . . . University Enrollment, 1932-1947 .... School of Education Enrollment, 19 32-194 7 20. Graduates from the School of Education and 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Their Degrees . . . . Curriculum, 1933-1934 Courses in 1946-1947 . Salaries at the University from 1945-1949 Salary Schedule in the School of Education for each Rank as Compared with Other Departments, 19 60 . . . . . . . . . . . The Degree and Rank of all Full Time Staff Members in the School of Education at the University of Oregon, 1952-1953 ...•. Enrollment at the University of Oregon, 1947-1963. . . . ..... . Enrollment in the School of Education, 1947-1963 ........... . Graduates in the School of Education with Their Degrees 1947-1963. . ."\ ....... . xii Page 128 130 196 208 209 210 220 226 304 306 307 320 321 323 Table 29. LIST OF TABLES--(Continued) Library Course Offerings in the School of Educafion, 1948-1949 . . . . . . . . 30. Courses Offered by the School of Education, 31. 32. 33. 1954-1955 ............. . Library Courses in the School of Education, 1959-1960 ........... . School Psychological Services Courses, 19 60-19 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courses Offered by the School of Education, 19 6 3-19 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Page . 339 . . . . 342 349 . 351 . 353 PART I. THE SHELDON ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER I FOUNDATIONS OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Early Oregon Education The pioneers who settled Oregon had strong convictions about the bearing of education on the individual and the common good. They shared the view expressed in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that 1 11 schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged. 11 But, even though Nathan Dane's prescript was transposed into the territorial government of Oregon, disagreements among the educators and among people imbued with varied religious beliefs and diverse customs prevented quick fulfillment of its precepts. Pioneer education was thought to be a major aspect of the early religious missions, and a close relationship developed between the schools and the institutions of religion. Each of the denominations established schools to conform to its particular beliefs, thus retard- ing growth of a state system of public education. On the other hand, 1Nathan Dane wrote these words embodied in the Northwest Land Ordinance of 1787. 3 the state was not in a position to establish an extensive public educa- tional system for the scattered population; so if the denominations had not emphasized education within their missions, many Oregonians would not have received any formal schooling. Determined opposition to free public schools m Oregon was evident as early as 1848, even though the Federal government had provided inducements for "common schools" in Oregon by the Land Ordinance of 1848. There were perhaps three major explanations for the opposition: ( 1) The scattered population did not lend itself to the building of economically sound educational institutions. ( 2) The denominationalists, who were sincere in their purposes, diffused the responsibility for education. ( 3) Many individualists and single per­ sons thought it unjust that they should be taxed for the education of other people's children. This was a commonly held view at that time about the use of tax monies. At the turn of the century, one of the strongest opponents of public secondary education, Harvey W. Scott, summarized an outlook shared by many Oregonians since 1848. Scott, editor of the Oregonian, reasoned: Give every child a good common school English education at public expense, and then stop. There have been two presi­ dents of the United States who have received less aid than this in their school education; if any want more let those who dance pay the fiddler. This is the cure for drones. It is the way, too, to make the public school a public blessing instead of allowing them to develop into nurseries of imbecility and idleness. 1 4 A hopeful beginning was thought to lead to inevitable progress with the passage in 1849 of the territorial statute pertaining to the educational system. Although the bill was wisely conceived, few communities were ready to avail themselves of its provisions. School- ing did not wait, since the private and religious institutions began to flourish during this period. 2 The statute of 1849 provided for an irreducible school fund, a ·: superintendent for the territory, 3 three school examiners, and a commissioner in each county. The law also defined three directors for each district, the certification and duties of teachers, the formation of school districts, 4 and the duties of those in charge of district meetings. 5 The law provided only the legal framework. Not until several 1Robert C. Clark, History of the Willamette Val_ley {Vol. I, Chicago: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co. 1927}, pp. 614-628. 2charles Henry Carey, History of Oregon { Chicago: The Pioneer Historical Publishing Company, 1922), p. 719. 3The office was abolished two years later not to be established again until 1873. 4 Each community had the opportunity to establish its own school district. 5 Clark, op. cit., p. 61 O. 5 decades later were the people able to fulfill the intent of the law, pro - vide better schools. Schools were some distance apart, and often far from the scattered homes. School buildings were crudely built. Many were made of logs; many had dirt floors. Few textbooks were avail- able. Clark describes one typical school: In 1834-5, the Methodist Mission built a log schoolhouse ten miles below Salem. It was 32 X 18 feet, and some thirty pupils from the families on French Prairie and from the native Indian families attended the school. The purpose was to teach morality, religion, and vocational subjects. The school lacked textbooks , for few books were brought to the new country by the pioneers. 1 In 1854 the Legislature took a strong stand in favor of public schools. Definite boundaries of school districts were set up. The law required each district to make an annual report. County commis- sioners were designated to collect a two-mill tax for school purposes. Since the idea of a state system of public education was now defined, 2 1854 marked the decline of private schools in Oregon. As private schools declined and public schools increased in number and popularity, a state superintendent of public instruction became necessary. Prior to 1873 the governor acted in that capacity. Because of his many duties, he did not have time to give effective state educational leadership, so the county superintendents became h ld . d. 3 t e state ea er s 1n e ucation. 1Ibid., p. 604. 2Ibid . , p. 610. 3Ibid., p. 577. The 1872-1873 Legislature passed important statutes relating to education. The Legislature created a state university, the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and regulated the office of the county superintendent. The statute also de fined the duties of teachers and provided for organization of school districts. Because of these acts, a state system of education finally materialized. After the office of superintendent for the state was established in 1872, growth of public education in Oregon was substantial. The expansion is shown by Table 1. The expanding school population in the State soon forced educa tional leaders to recognize that an institution, or a series of institu tions, was necessary to provide the public system with opportunities for teacher training, summer school, research, correspondence courses, correlation of undergraduate professional programs for teachers, placement, and specialized courses directed toward cur riculum and administration. ^Ibid., p. 612. TABLE 1 EXPANSION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN OREGON 1876-1912a AREA OF EXPANSION Total Enrollment (Public Schools} 26, 091 7 1912 130, 268 2, 350 School Districts . Months of School, 750 4.32 7. 17 5 Average Teachers Employed Value of School Property. Pupils Attending . Private Schools Pupils Attending. No School 765 $433,058 3,090 10, 101 5, 189 $12,389,307 8,409 aMartina H. Thiele, "A Study of the Normal School in Oregon," ( unpublished Master's The sis, Department of History, University of Oregon, 1914), p. 17. bThe figures for 1876 are only approximate ; many county super ­ intendents failed to send their reports to the State Departme nt of Education. Teacher Training in Oregon to 1910 While there was general acknowledgement that teacher training programs were required to provide teachers for the expanding school population, many doubted that these facilities should be at - tached to a university. Thus, Oregon educators employed a var i ety of means to train teachers during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Normal Schools The normal school idea, promoted and advanced by James G. 8 Carter in Massachusetts prior to 1840, found favor with Oregon edu­ cators. Two divergent lines of policy in regard to the location and size of the normal schools had been followed in other states. Some states had established many normal schools each ministering to the needs of a particular geographic section within the state. Oregon fol­ lowed this pattern. Other states had but one centrally located school. A schism between the avowed policy in pedagogy (a system of small schools) and an opposite philosophy (one or two centralized, efficient teacher-training insitutions) aggravated the struggle to determine how teachers should be trained in Oregon. Between 1891 and 1899 four denominational schools -- Monmouth, Ashland, Weston, and Drain - - became state normal institutions to meet increased teacher education demands. They were controlled by a board of regents appointed by the governor. The fir st state appro­ priation for the normal schools was made in 1899. There was a great deal of competition among the schools for prestige, students, and funds. 9 As the competition increased, public objections multiplied. Thiele summarized them as follows: ( 1) The schools lacked uniformity in control, and in the courses of study. ( 2) The work was inefficiently done. ( 3) There were too many schools, and ( 4) the normal institu­ tions were too expensive for the results obtained. 1 By 1903 Governor Chamberlain, considered by some Oregon 2 residents to be the "worst enemy for normal schools, 11 recommended to the 22nd Legislative Assembly that "at least two of the normal schools be abolished on account of the expense and inefficiency of 3 management. 11 The recommendation failed, but in 1907 when no funds were provided by the State for the normal schools, all of them were forced to close. Monmouth reopened in 1911. Despite the militant opposition and lack of funds the proponents of the normal institutions believed the schools had a definite function. A Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction hopefully declared: 1Thiele, op. cit., p. 23. 2 Helen Butler Jones, "The Contributions of Certain Leaders to the Development of the Oregon Normal School, 1850-1930" (unpub­ lished Master 1 s Thesis, School of Education, University of Oregon, 1947), p. 70. 3Thiele, loc. cit. The place of a Normal School in the system of education has been definitely determined. Educators both abroad and in the United States agree that the State should insist upon the proper training of those who are to teach in the people's schools. 10 The sole purpose of the Normal School must be to train teachers, to inspire the student with the spirit of the true teacher, to pro­ vide facilities for the educational study of the subjects of the pub­ lic school curriculum to lead him to discover the principles and aims of education, and to furnish the opportunity for application of the principles thus derived in a well- organized training school. Parallel in importance with the true aim of the Normal School, which is to train for the State teachers of the highest professional skill, is also the purpose to develop the noblest and strongest manhood, and womanhood. 1 As a result of the closure of the normal schools, the state system was forced to use other means to train teachers, and the majority be- lieved that the responsiblity should rest upon the two major state in- stitutions. Teachers' Institutes Teacher institutes were another means of training teachers . They were originated in 18 39 by Henry Barnard at Hartford, Connecticut. The intention was that it become a summer normal or training school. Oregon educators embraced the idea and tried it both on the state and local levels, the approach becoming popular after 1876. The teachers who attended these earliest institutes counted upon 1 Oregon State Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report 1908-1909, 1909, p. 164. 11 them to provide basic teacher training and concerned themselves with such questions as "Should moral instruction be a state exercise, or be only incidentally introduced?'' "Should physical culture be made 1 one of the regular branches of instruction in our schools?" The session, sometimes lasting ten days, usually consisted of lectures by leading educators on various subjects taught in the public schools and entertaining musical numbers or recitations. 2 A more "professional" county institute evolved from the early summer courses and was required by state law in 1887. The duties of organizing it could not be neglected nor avoided by the county super- . d 3 1nten ent. The enlarged county institute' s objectives were as follows: ( 1) to acquaint teachers with the best and latest methods of instruction; ( 2) to increase the efficiency of teachers; ( 3) to insure uniformity of work; and ( 4) to awaken a general interest in education. The institutes functioned to bring new things into education and to inspire the more i Clark, op. cit., p. 614. 2University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. V., No. 8: Teachers Institutes (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, September, 1908), pp. 31-32. 3E. H. Hedrick, "Teachers' Institutes -- Their Status in the United States With Special Reference to Oregon," The Commonwealth Review of the University of Oregon, II (April, 1917), pp; 552 .. 581. 12 backward teachers who went into _the more backward communities. 1 Consequently, the more "progressive" communities outgrew the in- stitutes. The state superintendent in 1900 ou'tlined the major advantages of the institute and its relationship to other teacher training agencies: While we recognize the fact that the normal and other schools of the state are important factors in the preparation of efficient teachers, and are very valuable in the scheme of education, yet they are all either inadequate to reach directly but a small frac­ tion of the number required to teach and manage our schools. Their advantages must necessarily, for many years hence, be beyond the reach of a large number of teachers. The only agency as yet provided for reaching this greater frac­ tion is the teachers' institute. 2 Reading Circles About 1900 another teacher training device developed - - the reading circle. Section twenty-three of the · Oregon School laws pro- vided authority for the county superintendent to organize reading groups. The state superintendent prepared lists of books, brought them up to date, and gave the lists to the' teachers. Unless a teacher 1University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. V., No. 8: Teachers Institutes, op. cit., p. 32. 2 Oregon State Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report 1899-1900, 1900, p. 201. 13 had read at least one of the required books during the school year, his teaching certificate was cancelled. The county superintendent quizzed the teachers and often required written reports to insure that the "homework" had been done faithfully. 1 As might be suspected, several influences were brought to bear on the "approved list" of books. A letter written to Superintendent Churchill implies that Dean Henry D. Sheldon of the University of Oregon had considerable influence i n selecting what books teachers should read. The letter read: 11 The Social Hygiene Society in Portland is trying to secure the adoption of a book on Sex Hygiene in the Read­ ing Circle. I want to talk this over with you when I return. 11 2 The University of Oregon The state university also made an attempt to meet the demand for trained teachers, and as early as 1880 it offered a normal course. Thomas Condon ih his report to the state superintendent indicated the nature of the course: 111 Reading Circle Course, 11 Oregon Teachers Monthly, XVI, October 1911, p. 65. 2 Letter of Henry D. Sheldon to J. A. Churchill, State Superin- tendent, February 17, 1915 in the School of Education Correspondence Files (Oregon Collection, University of Oregon Library, Eugene, Oregon), Typewritten. Cited hereafter as the Correspondence File. 14 One of the three courses of study [ at the University] is styled "normal course, 11 and is especially designed to aid as rapidly as possible teachers who may be unable to take a full college course. This course aims to cover the ground ordinarily occupied by state normal schools, and might easily and economically be made to do this normal work for our state. 1 Condon' s statement was perhaps the first public pronouncement that existing institutions, public and private, could train all the teach- ers necessary in the state. He stated further in the same report that "To the State University the people of Oregon will naturally look for such practical aims and efforts that teachers may ever find in its halls the quickest and best outfitting for their noble work. 112 The First Normal Course at the University. -- Contrasted with the ' two standard six-year courses -- classical and scientific -- the first normal course at the University required no language training, and led to no degree and was generally considered a concession to the necessities. Table 2 outlines the content of the first normal course. Because many believed that ( 1) the course was superficial; (2) there were no consecutive, "disciplinary mind- strengthing courses;" 1 Oregon State Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Oregon to the Leg_is-Assemb~y, 1877-1879 (Salem, Oregon: Oregon State Depart­ ment of Public Instruction, 18 79), p. 202, quoted in John C. Almack, "History of Oregon Normal Schools, 11 ( unpublished Ed. D. dis serta­ tion, School of Education, University of Oregon), p. 103; 2oregon State Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report 1877-1879, 1879, p. 113. TABLE 2 NORMAL COURSE AT THE UNIVERSITY 1880-1884a YEAR IN SCHOOL FIRST TERM SECOND TERM FIRST Arithmetic Eng . Grammar {Freshman) Eng. Grammar Phys. Features Mental Arith. Ele. Algebra Physiology Zoology SECOND Ele. Algebra Geometry (Sophomore) English. Lit. Mineralogy Rhetoric -Hart Phµosophy of Ari th. THIRD Chemistry Astronomy (Junior) Psychology Natl. Philosophy Botany Pedagogics Natural Philoso- phy 15 THIRD TERM Eng. Grammar Ele. Algebra Zoology Trigonometry Ancient Hist. Bookkeeping Botany Modern Hist. Constitution aUniversity of Oregon, Annual Catalogue of the University of Oregon 1880-1881 {Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1880), p. 18. and (3) the normal course duplicated the work that the normal schools could perform, the course was abolished on November 14, 1884. 1 Probably the most important reason was that of duplication. The Second Normal Course. -- As public sentiment became 1 Henry D .. Sheldon, History of the University of Oregon (Portland: Binford and Mort, 1940), p. 5 7. apparent, the objectives of the normal course, which began in 1894, changed from II covering the ground ordinarily occupied by state nor- mal schools" to that of providing training "where the normal school 1 left off. 11 Thus, the University did not compete with the normal 16 schools but supplemented them by providing more advanced and scien- tific courses for teachers. The new course was not intended for the 'young and immature teacher, 11 but as instruction for students who had already achieved all that the normal schools could offer. Normal school graduates were advised to take advantage of the new course at the University of Oregon. An explanation of the course appeared in a University Bulletin: Our object is to provide a course of higher instruction which will meet the needs of those who have obtained all that the Nor­ mal School has to offer. The State University cannot compete with the Normal Schools, in many essential matters; for one thing we have no model school and a so-called normal school without a model school is neither more nor less than a fraud . . . it [ University of Oregon] does not therefore pretend to pro­ vide elementary professional training for teachers. 2 The course content is indicated in Table 3. 1Henry D. Sheldon, University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 1: Education (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1903), pp. 1-2. 2 Henry D. Sheldon, University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6: Our Course in Pedagogy, December, 1894 (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, December, 1904), pp. 3-4. 17 TABLE 3 · NORMAL COURSE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON--1894a FIRST YEAR Rhetoric Hist. of Education Modern Eng. Literature Modern History English SECOND YEAR American Lit. El:izabethan Lit. Geology Economics Philosophy of Edu. English THIRD YEAR Hist. of Philosophy Hist. of Civilization Mental Science International Law English Literary The sis aHenry D. Sheldon, University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6: Our Course in Pedagogy, December, 1894 (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, December, 1904), pp. 3-4. By 1900 the University of Oregon had refined and revised its course for teachers; two courses were p.vailable. A four-year course led to a university degree, while the two-year course led to a certifi­ cate of attendance, but no degree. The two year program was dis- couraging to students because "constantly increasing demands upon professional men and women ... are almost certain to severely handicap those whose training has fallen short of a thorough four years' University course. 111 Because of the discouragement of many students and increased pressure for specialization, a department of education was believed necessary. 1 Sheldon, University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 1: Education, op. cit., p. 5. 18 The Department of Education Emerges. -- More specific varia- tion in courses at the University appeared in 1901, and student re- quirements increased. Thirteen hours in the student's subject-matter field became mandatory and seven in psychology and education. All work done in the course was subject to the advice and control of Henry D. Sheldon as head of the Department of Education. Eight courses were offered in this program: history of method, practical course in high school methods, educational thought in the nineteenth century, American education, school hygiene, supervision and management, 1 application of psychology to teaching, and general method. The revised normal course was intended for three groups of stu- dents: (1) under-graduates preparing for high school academies ( secondary education), ( 2) in- service training for teachers and prin­ cipals who wished to broaden their perspective, and ( 3) non-education 2 students, who later became involved with educational problems. The normal course was not intended to prepare teachers for the primary grades or to prepare teachers of agriculture, manual arts, or 1Bill Arthur Sampson, "A History of Secondary Teacher Train­ ing in Oregon, 11 ( unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Oregon, 1950), pp. 18-19. 2Sheldon, . University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 1: Education loc. cit. 19 domestic science. These subjects were taught by the normal schools 1 and Oregon Agricultural College . In 1904-1905 the University experienced a change because of the rapid growth of high schools in the state at that time. An urgent need developed for teachers who were trained in methods of high school organization and instruction . The University began offering courses specifically des igned for high school teachers and aministrators. Both the number and content of courses were expanded greatly in the next 2 . three years. Prior to the establishment of the School of Education the University of Oregon undoubtedly did more than any other insti- tution to meet the State• s demand for secondary teachers and adminis- trators. Summer School. - - As another means of promoting teacher train- ing, the University of Oregon held a summer school at Gearhart Park near Astoria from July 21 to August 18, 1896 for the in-service train­ ing of teachers. Subsequent to the administration of President Frank Strong, the summer school was expanded and made available to more teachers in the state. The value of summer school training was given in a biennial report in 1909: 1 University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 3: Outline of Work of the School of Education (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1908), pp. 1-65 . 2 Sampson, op. cit. , p. 36. • The University believes this [ improving the training for teachers] may be accomplished in no better way than by pro­ moting the efficiency of the public school teachers by offering instruction during part of the summer suitable to their needs and by placing its [ University's] valuable equipment at their service. 1 20 Correspondence Courses. - - Correspondence courses, introduced at the University of Oregon in 1907, were considered by President Strong and others to be a valuable teacher training device. Five courses were offered that year, and Sheldon advertised them in the Oregon Teachers Monthly. "The growth of correspondence course work has been an important factor in the training of teachers," so 2 wrote one researcher. All instruction in the correspondence courses including the exam- ination was free, although the student paid the mailing costs and bought his own books. Sheldon recommended that small groups or study clubs be formed to "facilitate the borrowing of collections, besides enabling the members of the course to progress more rapidly because of the mutual stimulus . 113 1 Oregon State Department of Public Instruction, Biennial Report, 1908-1909, "Report of the University of Oregon," 2 Sampson, op. cit., p. ·42, 3Henry D. Sheldon, 11 The University Correspondence Course, 11 Oregon Teachers Monthly, XII, (October, 1907), p. 91. The name of the periodical was changed in 1926 to the Oregon Education Journal. 21 Appointment Bureau. - - As an adjunct to teacher training, an appointment bureau was established at the University in 1903-1904. Sheldon was the director of the free service offered only to teachers who were graduates or students at the University. The demand for trained teachers far exceeded the supply. No student was recom- mended if his scholarship record was distinctly below the average of the students of the University. University officials advised students that they would be recommended more strongly if they had planned their courses well and had achieved success in observation and prac- . k 1 tice wor . The Need for a Separate School of Education By 1910 the University was directly involved with the several means for training teachers and administrators. It's involvement became an eloquent argument for the establishment of a separate school of education. It did not stand alone, however, for concur- rently other powerful reasons emerged. Developing as one influential argument for a separate school was a recognized need for specialized instruction in teaching. Swayed by this philosophy, the University began assuming greater responsibility to teach unique educational subjects. As an example, in the 1 Sampson, op. cit., p. 83. 22 fall of 1911 the School of Education offered a course in rural super- vision. This course as well as ma_ny others could most adequately be cond,ucted by a specialized school devoting educational service· to the state and providing a link between the expanding State Department and the University. Another reason why a separate school was believed to be es sen­ tial was for the purpose of offering curricular guidance to prospective teachers. The education student took many subjects in various de- partments at the University. One of the avowed purposes of the newly established school was to correlate such programs. This, as well as other purposes, was indicated in an Annual Cata1logue:: The purpose of the School of Education is to organize and .correlate all the forces of the University which have ·for their ultimate aim the growth of educational efficiency in the State of Oregon. This work is done through the effective grouping of courses in the curriculum, through the summer school, the correspondence school, and through investigation of questions of importance to the State and publication of results in bulletin form. 1 The summer school program, a third powerful influence, gave impetus to the emergence of the School of Education. The summer program's chief aim in 1910 was ·"to furnish superintendents, prin­ cipals,. and high school teachers of the state the courses needful in 1 University of Oregon, Annual Catalogue of the University of Oregon 1909-1910 (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1910), p. 180. 23 their work. 111 Dean Sheldon, head of the Department of Education, was the director of the six-week summer session, which was designed especially for educators throughout the state. According to Sheldon, the Board of Regents created a separate school in 1910 because of its extension connections. 2 Therefore, correspondence courses, a fourth effective stimulus to the creation of a separate school, enabled "energetic principals and teachers at a distance from the University to carry on studies under the direct supervision of the University department. 113 There is little question that these courses were designed for teachers; for students preparing for college or university training, and for administrators throughout 4 the State. As it became an agency to disseminate educational information, the State Department of Education needed an institution to make ed- ucational surveys and to publish the results. An Annual Catalogue implied that this function rested with the School of Education. It stated: "One of the important functions of the School of Education is 1Ibid. 2 Sheldon, History of the University of Oregon, op. cit., p. 1 72. 3Univer sity of Oregon, Annual Catalogue of the University of Oregon 1909-1910 (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1910), pp. 180-181. 4Ibid., p. 205. 1 the publication of studies on educational conditions and problems." 24 Subjects with which the School concerned itself included normal and high school systems in the United States, the c·ounty high school fund plan, statistical studies of Oregon high schools, and a selected bibli- ography for nature study. A last reason for the emergence of the School of Education at the University of Oregon was the need for a teachers' appointment bureau. Since the University had undertaken to provide high school teachers and administrators for the State, an employment bureau was essential to maintain academic records and to recommend candidates for vacancies. There was no University placement bureau, so this responsibility was assigned to the Education Department and later to the School of Education. 2 In January, 1908, President Campbell suggested that the Depart- ment be expanded into a School of Education, and gave some reasons for this recommendation: The rapidly growing demand made on the university for teachers indicates the need of making ample provision at once for the spe­ cial preparation and training of high school teachers. Since such preparation will include both the theoretical and practical sides making necessary a well organized system of actual training in teaching in addition to the usual courses offered in the History and Philosophy of Education, it would seem desirable to follow 1Ibid., p. 181. 2Ibid., p. 182. 25 the example of many of the State Universities, which have en­ larged their department of education into schools of education, giving them larger outlines and providing more ample opportuni­ ties for preparation of the best type for the high school service. The state has a right to expect that its high school teachers will come largely from the State University, and so the University has a special duty to perform in making provision for their thorough training. 1 In the same report, Sheldon suggested a plan of organization for a School of Education which would train high school teachers and supervisors. The aims suggested, the clientele to be served, and the requirements for students were the same that eventually climaxed President Campbell's recommendation that a separate school of ed­ ucation be established. President Campbell reiterated the same request to the Board the following year: I would respectfully recommend that the title of the Depart­ ment of Education be changed into that of School of Education since the department now has under its charge not only the regular courses offered in education, but also a training depart­ ment for high school teachers, the Correspondence School, and the Summer School, if it is continued. The range and nature of these various lines of work constitute a justification for the sug­ gested changes in title and organization. 2 1 University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 3: Outline of Work of the School of Education (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: Unive.rsity of Oregon, January, 1908), p. 13. 2University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. VI., No. 4: Report of the President of the University-(New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, January, 1909), p. 14. 26 Since the Department of Education comprised four distinct divi- sions - - Pedagogy, Training, Summer School, and the Correspondence Department - - President Campbell again recommended to the Board in January of 1910 that it properly should be retitled the School of Education. He also implied that it was desirable for purposes of administration to organize the Department into a School. Campbell . 1 recommended that Sheldon be appomted as Dean of the new school. The Emergence of the School of Education An authorization for the School of Education was not given until February 19, 1910 by the Board of Regents in the regular semi- annual business meeting, although the Department was prematurely designated as the School of Education in the 1907-.1908 Annual Cata­ logue and University Bulletins of 1908. 2 The Board of Regents defined the purposes of the newly established School as being "to establish coherent groups of subjects suitable to high school teachers, superintendents, principals and special teachers of music and physical training." 3 The School was not only to offer 1University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. VII., No. 5: Report of the President of the University (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, January, 1910), p . 13. 2 Sampson, op. cit., p. 44. 3Ibid. , pp. 52- 53. 27 academic subjects necessary for high school teachers but also special courses in methodology of each subject. Dean Sheldon presented a new feature in the program for superintendents and principals in that the requirements could be met in large measure by correspondence. The formal action taken by the Board of Regents to create the School of Education caused little stir in the community; for, as Sheldon remarked, "The schools of the University, with the exception of those of law and medicine, existed for some time on paper before they were made a reality. 111 Aware of this, the Eugene Register reported the Regents' meeting on February 19, 1910, but failed to mention the action taken to establish the new school. The Eugene Guard presented only a short announcement two days after the meet- ing saying: "A School of Education to teach pedagogy and training and to handle the summer and correspondence schools was authorized by the Board of Regents with Dr. H. D. Sheldon as Dean. 112 That the fourth professional school was created by the University was largely due to Sheldon's interest and work during the previous decade. He broadened the scope of the school from mere duplication of the normal schools to that of providing training for secondary 1 Letter of Sheldon to Professor Freeman Daughters, University of Montana, March 29, 1916, .in the Correspondence File. 2 Eugene Guard, February 21, 1910. 28 teachers and administrators through correspondence courses, sum- mer school, and regular instruction on the University of Oregon 1 campus. Sheldon came to the University of Oregon at a time when education as a distinct curriculum was just beginning to emerge from a group of courses that included psychology, philosophy, and pedagogy. His at- tempts to broaden the professional education curriculum and raise the standards of teacher education constituted a major purpose of his early administration. He realized that improved teacher training in Oregon was a useless effort unless instruction in secondary schools underwent a concurrent major improvement. He also kept close con- tact with the University and its developments as a whole, which was salutary to interdepartmental relationships. 111 Story of the School of Education," Old Oregon, XXVI-XXVIII, {Apri~ 1946), pp. 10-11. CHAPTER II THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, 1910-1932 The Period from 1910 to 1914 The development of the School of Education from 1910 to 1914 was slow because of the lack of planning, the state's financial crisis, and frequent changes in the deanship. As indicated in the previous chap­ ter, the authorization of the School in 1910 was based on the rationale that it had become more specialized, with four distinct divisions, Pedagogy, Training, the Summer School, and the Correspondence Department. The School of Education was also responsible for the reading circle work and the principal' s club. Sheldon was keenly aware of these functions and indicated t'heir importance when he said, "There is a tendency to push this outside work more rapidly than the other. 111 He. recognized that the new School needed balance and would not expand successfully without careful organization and planning. 1 Letter of Henry D. Sheldon to Dean W. G. Chambers, University of Pittsburg, July 3, 1915, in the Sheldon Collection. 30 As a method of implementing the development of the School of Education, Sheldon relied upon the recommendations of the University survey of 1915, which not only indicated previous administrative pro- cedure s, but provided incentive for changes in organizational and ad- ministrative practice. Specifically, the survey suggested ( 1) re- organization of the Extension Department to make it a more effective instrument for extension teaching and social service, { 2) interpretation of the University to the people of the State through consistent efforts, ( 3) publication of the proceedings of the Commonwealth Conferences and other important conferences, ( 4) more frequent meetings of the Board of Regents, ( 5) cooperative determination by the Board and representives of the faculty of the educational policies of the Universi­ ty, ( 6) establishment of an academic council or faculty committee to act as a board of advisors to the President, {7) increased salaries for the staff, (8) regularized appointment of members of the faculty and promotion for each staff member after a definite period of satis- factory service, (9) recognition of the value of research and more liberal provision for it, and ( 10) adoption of a group system in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. 1 1s. P. Capen, University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 4: Report of a Survey of the University of Oregon by the United States Bureau of Education {New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, December, 1915), p. 14. 31 Although the School of Education had emerged from the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, it was not operatively separated from that college until about 1920. The University president con- tinued to report the enrollments, graduates, and financial matters of the School of Education with the College, which ·gave the impression 1 that the School of Education was merely an appendage of the College. The deanship of the School of Education slowly developed into an administrative office during this period. At fir st the function of the Dean was that of a minor executive officer, concerned with questions of discipline and routine. The 1915 survey team provided reasons for giving the deans more authority. It reported: It seems probable that the office of dean will in the near future have to be clothed with .larger powers and responsibilities. As the institution grows, a group of executives of the second rank will be necessary to conserve the President's time and to keep him thoroughly informed of the work and needs of the several divisions of the University. 2 The University Crisis, ·1910-1913 In spite of Sheldon's efforts the development of the School of 1 University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. VIII, No. 5: Report of the President of the University, with Reports of the Steward and the Registrar, (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, January, 1911). 2 Capen, op. cit., p. 16. 32 Education was delayed by the difficulty of obtaining public support for the University. This issue was crucial between 1910 and 1914. In 1911 new building appropriations were referred to the voters for approval, but were defeated. Although the public defeated a proposed consolidation measure, which would have merged the University with the Oregon Agricultural College, the financial situation seemed cata­ clysmic until 1913 when several financial measures were passed. The effect of the critical times was implied by Orin F. Stafford: The suspense regarding the outcome of the referendum has been a factor in making things rather slow I think. The fight for the University has been so hard, and the odds seemed so great that at times we have all been despondent. 1 Administrative Succession, 1910-1914 Changes in administrative personnel in the School of Education during the first four years were frequent. Dean Sheldon came to the University in September, 1900 as Professor of Philosophy and Educa- tion. Oregon educators were reluctant at first to accept the leader- ship of the young Ph. D. in public school affairs. Sheldon met with groups of teachers in the State, spoke at institutes and threw himself wholeheartedly into the campaign to upgrade the public schools, and 1 Letter of Orin F. Stafford to Sheldon, December 22, 1911, in the Sheldon Collection. 33 at one time suggested that Oregon was "ten years behind California. 111 The University, largely through his efforts, finally succeeded in h h . . . . bl' d . 2 ac ieving recognition as an aut ontative voice 1n pu 1c e ucation. However, Sheldon was never entirely satisfied with his assign- ment at the University during the first decade. He frequently implied that he wanted more time for research, and at one time even suggested that he had been II sidetracked here in the backwoods. 113 He consigned himself to classroom teaching, although at the earliest convenience he vowed he would seek a position elsewhere where greater opportuni­ ties for re search prevailed. 4 When the opportunity came in 1910 to study the educational systems of England and Germany and to attend Leipzig University, he left Oregon. Concurrently, the University of Pittsburgh offered him a leave of absence at the outset of his appointment on the staff at Pittsburgh. He accepted and confessed 1 Letter of Sheldon to J. H. Perry, December 24, 1900, in the Sheldon Collection. 2Robert C. Woodward, 11 Education in Oregon in the Progressive Era: Liberal and Practical, 11 (unpublished Ph. D. disse.rtation, Department of History, University of Oregon, 19 63), Chapter VI. 3 Letter of Sheldon to Perry, January 29, 1902, in the Sheldon Collection. 4 Letter of Sheldon to H. M. Sheldon, May 8, 1914, in the Sheldon Collection. 34 that the unstable financial condition in which the University was involved at that time influenced his decision to leave. 1 Charles Bennett, an experienced teacher and principal, was Sheldon's successor in 1910. Bennett became ill and was replaced by Fred Ayer in 1913-1914. In the winter of 1914 Sheldon intimated that he might come back to the University, because he was offered a salary increase and the deanship. He was encouraged also by the new taxation plan of 3/ 10 of a mill which would supply about $300, 000 to the University annually. 2 The Education staff was elated about the possibility of Sheldon's re- turn to the campus but President Campbell was apprehensive, thinking that Sheldon had left at a critical time in the history of the University. Members of the staff in the School of Education assured the President that Dean Sheldon had left in 1910 for professional rather than pru­ dential reasons. 3 At least one writer thought that Sheldon's return would benefit the School of Education. He succinctly remarked: Our department of education has been miserably unfortunate since you left us. Bennett, whatever his virtues, had no 1 Letter of Sheldon to Mary Sheldon, May, 1912, in the Sheldon Collection. 2 Letter of Sheldon to H. M. Sheldon, May 8, 1914, in the Sheldon Collection. 3 Letter of Joseph Schafer to Sheldon, February 1 7, 1914, 1n the Sheldon Collection. physical strength to do a thing. . .. If you are to come, my own opinion is that it should be as soon as possible. 1 35 Sheldon was persuaded to return and in 1914 began a long career as Dean of the School of Education. He still retained something of his former attitude toward the deanship. In fact he commented, 11 The status of being a Dean interferes a good deal with studying and writing. You can't entirely sidestep office hours and other time-killing amuse- 2 ments of that sort. 11 Although the Dean wished for more time to write, research was distasteful to him and writing was difficult. He was .ambitious in gathering thousands of notes for prospective books but few were published because they were never finished. 3 His work in liberalism and the history of education in America and Oregon was extensive. Sheldon implied this paradox of finding re search distaste- ful but wanting to write more in the following comment: Sometimes I wish I were a literary man and could write out of my inner consciousness. A history, particularly one dealing with the recent past, involves a vast amount of drudgery in looking up documents. This, you see, must take the place of inspiration or genius. 4 1 Letter of Stafford to Sheldon, May 12, 1914, in the Sheldon Collection. 2 Letter of Sheldon to James M. Hyde, Palo Alto, California, June 9, 1919, in the Sheldon Collection. 3Martin Schmitt, 11 The Papers of H. D. Sheldon, 11 Oregon Historical Quarterly, LII, No. 1 (March, 1951), pp. 57-60. 4 Letter of Sheldon to Rollien Dicker son, Santa Barbara, Cali­ fornia, January 8, 19 36, in the Sheldon Collection. 36 Changes and Trends from 1914 to 1932 Dean Sheldon's return to the University had a II settling" influence on the School of Education. It promoted administrative changes which were essentially forward-looking and developmental. Among other­ problems faced by his administration, those of interdepartmental responsibilities for teacher training, delegation of faculty control within the School, course specialization, accreditation, and organiza- tional changes related to instruction demanded considerable attention and energy. Teacher Training, A Scattered Responsibility Because teachers who were training for high school positions registered with the subject-matter departments, the School of Educa- tion was not autonomously organized. Teacher-training responsibilities were spread over the campus. This coincided with Sheldon's philoso- phy that the most important task for teachers who were preparing for public school positions was a mastery of subject-matter. He once said, "Seven-eighths of the training for a teacher is academic work and subject-matter taught and must continue to be SO. II 1 Only those 1 Letter of Sheldon to Maxwell Adams, University of Nevada, February 5, 1919, in the Correspondence File. 37 students who were planning to become principals, superintendents, or work in other special educational positions registered with the School of Education. All other registrations in the School were optional. This administrative set-up required cooperation with the depart- ments. A series of subject requirements sequentially arranged were developed for the students. Although Dean Sheldon favored the co- operative plan, he conceded it was perhaps not as smooth as the plan adopted in some of the larger institutions where education was organ- ized as an independent professional school. To substantiate his belief, Sheldon declared that an independent school was "pressing the pro­ fessional analogies a little too far. 111 On the other hand the Dean noted a danger because of the scat - tered responsibility for training teachers. He said, "The great danger under the system which we at the present time have is that some of the heads of departments advise each student as if the candidate were planning to be a Ph.D. in that special subject. 112 The problem was not without a solution, however, according to Sheldon. "By campaigns and conferences with the departments, we are succeeding to a con- siderable degree in remedying this [ inter-departmental friction and lack of communications], 11 3 Dean Sheldon reported. His belief was 1Ibid. 38 aptly expressed to a colleague concerned with the same problem. Sheldon wrote, The great objection to the special College of Education is that it invariably engenders a large amount of friction between a department of Education which handles the purely professional training and the other departments. Some of this friction is perhaps inevitable from the difference in point of view but I am satisfied that it is likely to be aggravated by a system of organization which gives the Dean of the School of Education somewhat autocratic powers. In a large city University han­ dling thousands of students, some such clear-cut, mechanical system may be a necessity but in an institution the size of yours and mine, I believe the other plan, while involving the compli­ cations, really is the one which secures better results. 1 The decision to cooperate with the departments was not free from criticism. The feasibility of the School's becoming more auto­ nomous in directing the teacher-training program caused considerable agitation in the 19 20' s. What was happening at Oregon was also hap- pening in other institutions. A letter from one of Sheldon's cor- respondents illustrates the ferment that was taking place throughout the nation in departments, schools·, and colleges of education. It reads: I have been aware for a long time that schools of education are not functioning in the training o,f teachers as they should. In general, they are not on a par with schools of medicine, engineering, forestry, and various other professional and 39 technological schools. Schools of education faculties recognize this but have got into the habit of believing that we must be re­ signed to the fate of circumstances. 1 To determine the selection of prospective teachers and the organiza- tion of their curriculum was the sole responsibility of a school of education, according to some, in both professional and academic sub- jects. Adding fuel to the fiery controversy, several articles appeared in the Oregon ~ducation Journal. One article advocated teachers col- leges on the basis that more adequate professional preparation could be achieved for the secondary teacher. The programs of such schools would be, according to the article, completely organized and inte- f f 1 d d • d • 2 Th grated, both rom the pro essiona an aca em1c stan point. e teacher-training institutions were not preparing high school teachers for their exact jobs, according to a companion article in the Journal. This was largely so, the writer said, because schools of education were not allowed sufficient freedom to organize their teacher-training 1 Letter of Frederick Bolton, Professor of Education, University of Washington, to Sheldon, January 10, 1927, in the Correspondence File. 2 "Tendency Toward Teachers Colleges, 11 Oregon Education Journal, II (June, 19 28), p.29. 40 work on a functional basis. 1 The same article concluded with a scath- ing appraisal of the schools of education in the northwest. There is not a single university or private college of the traditional type which maintains a genuine school of education for thoroughly training the rank and file of high school teachers. But few have practice schools, experimental or demonstration schools, and the whole training is entirely inadequate for the training of high school classroom teachers. 2 Because of the impact of public opinion, Sheldon changed his earlier belief pertaining to the organization of the School of Education. As an initial step, he suggested in 1929 that formal registration in the School of Education by all those intending to teach be required. 3 Sheldon gave the following reasons why the School should be organized as a more autonomous unit: (1) Teachers from teachers colleges fare better than those graduating from the University in obtaining jobs. 4 (2) The competition of private colleges was making the situation about the same in Oregon. "The University should turn out a better teacher," Sheldon maintained, "but this is hard to do because of the scattering 111 New Conception of Teacher Training Nec~ssary," Oregon Education-Journal, II (June, 1928),p.28. 2Ibid. 3 Letter of Sheldon to President Arnold Bennett Hall, March 6, 1929, in the Correspondence File. 4At that time there was an over supply of teachers. 41 of responsibility. 111 ( 3) The control of the courses for prospective teachers was not sufficiently under the supervision of the School of Education. (4) The student should register with the School at the be- ginning of his junior year. This was considered a concession to many, who believed that the student should be required to register with the School as a freshman. Sheldon did not believe that the new organi­ sational system would interfere with a student majoring in the liberal arts field, nor increase the time allotment in professional trainin~ in the School of Education. 2 After much talk and little action, students continued to register with the academic departments and the School of Education officials resigned themselves to cooperate with the departments, rather than form a self-determined unit. Few realized at that time that the decision to maintain scattered responsibility for teacher training would be a great advantage in the following two administrations. More Faculty Control A gradual trend toward more faculty control brought a shift in administrative authority. At first, University activities were 1 Letter of Sheldon to Hall, March 6, 19 29, in the Correspond- ence File. 42 controlled through the president's office, but later the dean and the staff were given greater responsibilities. The method of administra­ tion through committees was organized about 1916 at the University level and about 1919 in the School of Education. How the diffus sion of authority took place and Sheldon's appraisal of the trend was ex­ pressed by him when he said, Whereas, under the old scheme, most of the important com­ mittee assignments were in the hands of about a dozen men, now every member of the faculty has an appointment and no man has more than two. . .. The faculty has considerable power and exerts an influence in the departments, ... I should regard the placing of the entire administration of the institution in the hands of the faculty, or a committee of the same, as a rather doubtful blessing. 1 At first Sheldon opposed the trend of giving administrative functions to the staff. The pressures of the movement had their ef- feet upon his philosophy and by 1919 he admitted, "I believe we have arrived at a sort of progressive equilibrium here where it will be possible for me to delegate a good many of the stunts and chores to 2 the other men." Another indication of greater staff control and more delegation of administrative functions occurred in 19 31 when Sheldon was author- ized to appoint an assistant dean who would be given time to fill 1 Letters of Sheldon to Professor Freeman Daughters, University of Montana, March 29, 1916, in the Correspondence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Hyde, June 9, 1919, in the Sheldon Col - lection. 43 "those committee appointments which are necessary to the smooth operation with the rest of the University and to take charge of some of the subordinate student organizations connected with the School and 1 certain types of papers." Specialization Brings Departmentalization As specialization was encouraged by staff control in the 1920 1 s courses evolving from particular areas of learning, such as educa- tional psychology, school administration, and higher education, multi- plied. This action encouraged additional specialization. Because one executive could no longer administer the entire program, divisions within the School became necessary. Sheldon, speaking of research as a typical area, implied as early as 1924 that departmentalization was coming to the School of Education because of specialization. He reported, As I see it, the chair of School Administration should cover the study bf the general administration of school systems both city and state, including buildings, finance, etc. It should also cover the study of achievement tests in the elementary field, but studies in the actual methodology of the secondary school should be under the direction of that department, just as all 1 Letter of Sheldon to Hall, Mar ch 1 7, 19 31, in the Sheldon Collection. studies in intelligence tests should be in the department of educational psychology and school hygiene. 1 Accreditation As a result of increased specialization of course offerings, 44 greater numbers of students were attracted to the School from through- out the northwest region and the nation. It soon became apparent to educational leaders that if trainees were to secure positions in a great number of different locales throughout the region and the nation, there would have to be some way to insure that the quality of courses taken was equivalent to that of other training institutions. Therefore, an expanded interest developed in accreditation by such agencies as the Northwest Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The University of Oregon School of Education was accredited by that body in 1918. In the same year, accreditation was considered with the Association of American Universities. However, Sheldon opposed it on the basis that if the University were on the accredited list, "it would make all those who had taken graduate work with us eligible 1 Letter of Sheldon to Professor Harl R. Douglass, Stanford University, April 22, 1924, in the Correspondence File. 45 for positions in California where salaries are very much higher and 1 would thus drain the very best teachers out of the state." By 1911 when the U.S. Bureau of Education sent a specialist in higher education to inspect Oregon's higher educational institutions, Dean Sheldon had shifted his opinion somewhat and the University program was approved by the Bureau. Membership in the Association of American Universities came later. University officials had been advised previously that this action would depend upon scientific equipment and upon having a program for granting the Ph.D. degree. Under the leader ship of President Hall, Sheldon revised his previous thinking and argued for membership in 1928. 'We have already granted three Ph. D's, 11 he contended, "and five out of our 22 departments and schools have the right to present 2 candidates for this degree. 11 General Organizational Changes Throughout the period 1914 to 19 32 administrative attention was directed to several organizational problems in the management of 1 Letter of Sheldon to Superintendent L. W. Turnbull, Bandon, Oregon, June 3, 1918, in the Correspondence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to President Ray Lyman Wilbur, Stanford University, October 3, 1928, in the Sheldon Collection. course offerings. Dean Sheldon focused on the areas of ( 1) under­ graduate courses, (2) the quarter system, (3) the possibility of ele- mentary teacher training, and ( 4) the emergence and development of graduate work. 46 Undergraduate courses. -- Specifically, the organization of the undergraduate courses in education was "much too loose, 11 according to Sheldon in 1914. The students took 15 hours in education and could select any educational courses to fill the requirement. The School of Education officials reorganized the curriculum and required specific courses, i.e., secondary education, school management, educational psychology, and student teaching. The reorganization of the curriculum was appraised by Sheldon as follows: 11 This reorganization will not be an easy task as the whole system here is organized on the departmen- 1 tal elective basis, but I think it can be done. 11 In 1917 courses were organized into three divisions: lower, upper, and graduate. The change in organization was explained by a committee as follows: "When a student is promoted to the upper division he shall elect a School or Department, and the Dean of the 1 Letter of Sheldon to Chambers, November 2, 1914, in the Correspondence File. 47 School or Head of the Department shall then become his adviser, or designate some member of the School or Department to act as adviser.'j By 1920 the professional courses for students expecting to be- come teachers were designed for the junior year, instead of the sopho- more year. · This was at least the policy, although enrollments were still listed for freshmen and sophomores throughout the Sheldon and Jewell Administrations. By 1928 the division of junior and senior levels was made even clearer; coniequently the School of Education offered only introductory education courses on the sophomore level 2 and advised students to register in their junior year. Thus between 1914 and 19 28 there was a gradual organizational "tightening" of course offerings and direction toward departmental and class level specializations. The Quarter System. - - World War I helped to bring about a significant change in the academic calendar during the war years. Students found that the semester system made it difficult to enter and leave the University. As a war measure the National Association of 1Committee Report on the Course of Study (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon: School of Education, 191 7), in the Correspond­ ence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Dean Eric W. Allen, School of Journalism, University of Oregon, September 24, 1928, in the Correspondence File. 48 State Universities advocated a quarter system for course content. Therefore, beginning with the school year 191 7 -1918, the University adopted the quarter system for its courses. 1 Although the University intended that the quarter system be used only until the end of the war, the plan persisted. In spite of Dean Sheldon's inference in 19 27 that the quarter system existed only nominally, because most of the courses were given on an annual basis, the move to make the summer session a fourth quarter provoked the is S\_\e of a four-quarter plan. Sheldon argued against the move because the addition of another summer quarter would not in any way change the existing organizational arrangement of courses; and that if a summer quarter were added, a complete reorganization would be 2 necessary. In contrast, President Hall was in favor of the four quarter system, as indicated by his comment to Dean Sheldon: "If fifty out of fifty - two institutions have been able to arrang e it, I see 3 no reasons why Oregon cannot do the same. 11 Sheldon could not 1University of Oregon Bulletin, Vol. XIV, No. 10: School of Education (New Series, Eugene, Oregon: Uµiversity of Oregon, July, 191 7), p. 7. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Hall, November 3, 19 -27, in the Corre - spondence File. 3 Letter of Hall to Sheldon, October 26, 19 27, in the Corre- spondence File. Hall was referring to a report by Fred Stetson, A School of Education staff member. Administrative Tendencies in University and College Summer Sessions. 49 maintain his argument, and by the 1930's a summer session had be- come standard practice as a fourth quarter of University work. Elementary Education Considered. - - The movement toward elementary teacher-training at Oregon was promoted in 1916 by an Oregon Congressman who proposed that the University offer courses for teachers in elementary schools and that normal schools offer secondary as well as elementary training. Sheldon opposed the idea and argued to retain the existing organization of the School of Educa- tion. He reasoned, First, in order to compete with the normal schools in training elementary teachers, it would be necessary for us to have a fairly efficient training and model department. . .. If our graduates went out into the schools without this model and prac ­ tice department, they would for a time do much poorer work than the normal graduates and, consequently, would reflect no great lustre on the institution. 1 Sheldon's second reason was that the normal school graduates would not be competent to act as high school principals and teachers. Third, Sheldon argued, "If it were generally under stood in the state that Oregon Agricultural College and the University were training elementary teachers, it would be a powerful argument against the establishment of future normal schools." 2 1 Letter of Sheldon to Honorable Allen Eaton, Salem, January 17, 1917, in the Correspondence File. 50 After talking the matter <;>ver with the president of the University, the administrators agreed that the interests of the University would be better served by supporting the existing arrangement than 11 by making so radical a change just now. 111 Ill-feeling began to develop between the faculties at the Normal School and the University over the responsibility for teacher-training. This rancor forced Sheldon to reconsider the possibility of elementary training at the University in 1924. The following letter is illustrative: The second issue is whether we should upset the present arrangement here and have the normal school train high school teachers and have us train elementary teachers. I can see some advantages in this from both points of view, but it certainly would mean much larger expenditures both here and at Monmouth, if the present standard of efficiency were to be maintained. 2 As a consequence "the grand row in the Oregon Normal School" had an influence upon the development of a four-year course for elementary t h h U • • 3 I db 1 eac ers at t e n1vers1ty. twas augmente y severa pressure groups, especially in Portland, which had been recommending a four- year training course for elementary teachers at the University. They wanted teachers who had suitable professional and technical education, 1Ibid. 2 Letter of Sheldon to J. A. Churchill, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Salem, August 14, 19 24, in the Correspondence File. 3 Letter of Sheldon from Stanford University to Chambers, June 28, 19 28, in the Sheldon Collection. 51 and who also had a considerable background of liberal education, which they believed could be obtained only at the University of Oregon. 1 By the fall of 19 28 Sheldon was convinced that the University should offer elementary teacher-training. He said in 1929, 11 In my opinion the time has come when the old divisions between the different institutions in the state which prevent the University from offering 2 suitable courses for elementary teachers should be abandoned. 11 Oregon, according to Sheldon, was one of two states in the nation that retained the division of secondary and elementary teacher-training in the states' large universities. Because he felt this was unwise, he immediately drew up a four-year course for elementary teachers, 3 two-thirds of the work being offered in the liberal arts departments. He was assured that the new program was to be initiated; the Board of Regents had supported the idea. Sheldon wrote to a colleague: The Regents had their meeting last week and authorized me to appoint a director of elementary teacher training at a certain specific salary. This makes our four year elementary course an assured event. 4 Since the Board of Regents was replaced by a new Board of 1 Letter of Sheldon to Hall, February 7, 1929, in the Corre- spondence File. 4 Letter of Sheldon to Douglass at the University of Pennsylvania, May 13, 1929, in the Correspondence File. 52 Higher Education shortly thereafter, Sheldon's plan never material ized. The desire of University officials to train elementary teachers lay dormant until 1953 when authorization was again given for the University to carry out this function. Administrative Relationships With Various Agencies Administrators were also confronted with the task of establish ing and improving ameniable relationships with other institutions of higher learning, the state, the public schools, and other departments and schools on the campus to accomplish the objectives assigned to the School of Education. Seemingly an impossible task at times, much effort ahdtime was spent to accomplish it. The following sec tions are typical of Sheldon's administrative behavior and of the prob lems he faced. The School and the University During the first decade of Sheldon's administration, various departments on campus set up subject requirements for prospective teachers. Sheldon allowed this practice to continue at first, but as the School of Education assumed more of this responsibility, he broke with the tradition. A satisfactory relationship developed, however. and "friction ... which seemed to be so chronic in some quarter s 11 was avoided. 1 Sheldon attributed the ameniable relationships with the other departments and schools to a play for power among all the 53 institutions of higher learning which created a more favorable attitude on the part of all University officials toward the expansion of a school . 2 of education. Moreover, the School of Education was fortunate during this period to _have two University presidents who favored the cause of professional education. President P. L. Campbell, himself a past educator, supported the creation of the School in 1910 and gave it his support until his death in 1926. President Arnold B. Hall, a strong ally of the School, was praised in 19 26 by Sheldon who said, "Our new president is taking hold of things with much energy and vim. He is strongly in sympathy with our work in education, particularly with the research side of it. 113 However, without the necessity for all departments and schools on campus to II stick together" and the strong administrative support , 1 Letter of Sheldon to G. Stanley Hall, Professor of Education at Clark University, October 1, 1914, in the Correspondence File. 2Letter of Sheldon to Commissioner David S. Snedden, Boston, Massachusetts, November 2, 1914, in the Correspondence File. 3 Letter of Sheldon to L. R. Alderman, Washington, D. C., December 26, 1926, in the Correspondence File. 54 the School would have suffered from the criticisms and general attitude of many staff members at the University toward ''professional education. II Sheldon implied this precarious balance of attitudes when he said, "My own position as head of the work in Education is somewhat of an obstacle as I must be very careful of all the proprieties in order to work with the men of the College of Liberal Arts. 111 That a pos sibili­ ty existed for the development of ill feeling and that President Hall would support the School of Education was intimated by Hall when he wrote to Sheldon saying, Unfortunately in most institutions there is such a prejudice against the Education Department that any attempt to utilize them in connection with educational policies merely means the doom­ ing of the whole enterprise. I shall have to lean very heavily upon your prestige with the faculty and upon your diplomacy and tact in getting the cooperation of the key men in working out some of the problems that I hope we can attack. 2 Guided by a belief that the School should be completely re sponsi - ble for teacher-training but tempered by the necessity to II get along" with other departments, Sheldon attempted to achieve a balance be­ tween his ideals and his practice. In expressing his philosophy Sheldon said, "There is no doubt but that a clear-cut division between 1 Letter of Sheldon to Harry E. Barnes at January 10, 1922, in the Correspondence File. to synthesizing history with other subjects. Clark University, Sheldon was referring 2 Letter of Hall to Sheldon, July 29, 1926, in the Correspondence File. 55 the School of Education and the College of Liberal Arts would be an 1 advantage. 11 He further suggested that the methods courses given by other departments were frequently antiquated and that the amount of credit given for these courses should be decreased. He prudently added, however, 11 to cut them off entirely would probably produce more antagonism than the reform would be worth. 11 2 Relationships with Agencies of the State Not only concerned with campus relationships, Sheldon typically was aware of major state educational functions and their influence upon the School. As an example of his awareness, before 1914 Sheldon sensed an absence of harmony and attempted to achieve harmonious relationships. He soon realized that his chief obstacle was the attitude of state leaders of government. As a result of such an attitude, the University between 1910-1913 was exposed to the una~rtainties of legislative caprice and it met continued opposition for increased sup- port. In addition the University between 1911-1913 was three times subjected to a popular referendum on its appropriations bills. 3 l . Letter of Sheldon to Bolton, September 29, 1927, in the Corres- pondence File. 2Ibid. 3 Capen, op. cit. , p. 35 After 1914 the situation improved and that at least educators began to believe that the University had a rightful place in the state system, The place of the School of Education in the system was 56 auspiciously expressed by the national survey team in 1915 as follows: The University through its recently organized School of Education supplies to the satisfaction of State school authorities a large ' and constantly increasing percentage of the best trained high school teachers. It has reacted both directly and indirectly upon the educational standards of the State. Indeed it is probable that the School of Education alone has brought the State of Oregon returns in improved educational standards and in the promotion of civic efficiency which are worth all that the University has ever cost the State. 1 When the national survey team in 1915 implied that the relation­ ship between the state and the University was not good and that the University had been held back in its extension service and research, then state and University officials recognized that the attitude of the state toward the University had been unappreciative. After careful study of the report, the School of Education's position was strengthened. Leaders in the School of Education realized that because poor relationships existed with the state, the progress of the School had been hindered and that there was . definite need for some agency to coordinate aspects of teacher-training. An agency was established: the Board of Higher Curricula. It was authorized in 1913 to maintain 57 definite boundaries between the three state institutions and to eiimina.te friction among the schools. The training of elementary teachers was allotted to the normal school while the training of vocational teachers was allotted to the Oregon Agricultural College, and the training of high school teachers, superintendents, and those preparing for ad - vanced work in education was allotted to the University. Sheldon ack ­ nowledged the influence of the Board when he said, 11 As we are bound by its decision, we, therefore, offer no courses with the direct pur­ pose of training teachers below the junior high school. 111 The Board of Higher Curricula made the following arrangement at their meeting on February 7, 1914, pertaining to the School of Education: EDUCATION: The School of Education shall be confined to the State University; except that the State Agricultural College may maintain a department of Industrial Education . . . in accordance with the provisions of the Nelson Amendment of 1907 to the Morrill Act of 1890. 2 The national survey team believed that the establishment of the Board of Higher Curricula was negative rather than positive, prohibi ­ tory rather than prophetic. 3 By the end of the Sheldon Administration 1 Letter of Sheldon to Mrs. O. Shepherd W. Barnum, Alhambra, California, July 14, 1914 in the Sheldon Collection. 2 Letter of Earl Kilpatrick, Assistant Director of the Extension Division to Sheldon, January 7, 1916, in the Correspondence File. 3 Capen, op. cit., p. 4. 58 most educators in the School of Education had lost faith in the board's power to eliminate duplication of courses in the various institutions of higher learning. After a meeting of the Board Sheldon declared, "The reports we were able to pick up the day after and since seem to be favorable and reassuring although I judge that nothing very fundamen­ tal will be done. 111 It must be concluded, then, that the Board was not altogether successful. Because the School of Education could not rely on any formal agency of the state, such as the Board of Higher Curricula, to es­ tablish satisfactory relationships with other institutions of higher learning and with the public, other methods were utilized. Each in- stitution was left to fight its own battle using its own tactics. Relationships with Other Institutions Since no agency seemed powerful enough to eliminate duplication and friction among the institutions of higher learning, the schools were placed in a position of rivalry. Additionally, each had to appeal to the Legislature in the same way for appropriations to carry on its work. These strained relationships created rancor on each campus and de - mantled attention from the administrators and staff of the School of Education. 1 Letter of Sheldon to Harold Young, Portland, Oregon, May 25, 1925, in the Correspondence File. 59 Each institution also developed its own group of partisans in the State who kept antagonisms alive. The aims of the three institutions finally appeared to the public as contrary and competing. Sheldon affirmed the approach taken by each institution for its support when he said, "It is therefore necessary for each institution to get before the public in the newspapers, to make the personal acquaintance of the leading superintendents of schools and principals and in various ways to make itself felt. 111 He indicated a disadvantage of compe tition and also an advantage. 1'There is a good deal of waste in this as you can see, 11 he said, "although it has the compensating advantage of forcing each institution to do something that the public wants. 112 Problems arose when the Board of Regents of the Normal School decided to train commercial teachers, agricultural teachers, and other high school teachers in 1920. This policy was in fla grant contradi tion of the ruling of the Board of Higher Curricula. The presidents of t he three institutions of higher learning in Oregon met in an attempt to solve the problem. Sheldon suggested to President Campbell of the University prior to the meeting that the University could ( 1) S i mply 1 Letter of Sheldon to F. H. Hayward, London, England, Decem - ber 21, 1914, in the Sheldon Collection. 60 allow the matter to go through without discussion or objection. 11 This I think would be unfortunate not only for us but for the state, 11 Sheldon replied, 11 as the work in these state normal colleges is generally lack- ing in academic breadth and in scientific spirit. 111 ( 2) Pre sent the matter to the Board and insist that the previous rulings of the Board be followed. This would be unwise, according to Sheldon, because it would "undercut" the power of the Board. ( 3) 11 That we immediately formulate plans for the creation of a normal department for the train- ing of elementary teachers here in the Univer sity11 was the best pro­ cedure, according to Sheldon. 2 His recommendation was further outlined as follows: When the Legislature meets, we go before the Legislature, asking to have the same privileges for this normal department which the Monmouth Normal School now has, giving the Normal school to under stand that we mean business and that we will make a very active campaign for students. At the present time, the prestige of the University is considerably greater than that of the Normal School. By such a campaign we can probably take away from one-half to two-thirds of their students which, under the circumstances, I should endeavor to do. When the Normal discovers that we mean business and are prepared to very seriously invade their territory, it is possible that we can come to some arrangement by which they will agree to stay in their proper field. 3 1 Letter of Sheldon to President Prince L. Campbell, University of Oregon, October 7, 1920, in the Correspondence File. 3Ibid. See section on elementary education considered at the University. 61 ' Adding further insult the President at the Normal School, "apparently at his old tricks again, 111 wanted to count the three courses taken at the University as worth three-fifths as much as the five courses taken at Monmouth. Dean Sheldon prepared for battle by securing allies and gathering more information. In writing to a col- league he said, You will remember our little pas sage of arms in 191 7. Has there been anything more recent in the relations between your school and his? If there has been, let me know what the exact situation is so that I can take it up. 2 In 1921, the Dean suggested that 11 The University, to protect itself, will undoubtedly have to take some very definite action if the Normal School continues this policy. 113 That the normal schools were attempting to take over the train- ing of secondary teachers, principals, and superintendents seemed to be a trend in most states, at least in the west. After corresponding with Sheldon regarding the problem in Oregon, Frederick E. Bolton, a personal friend of Sheldon, suggested the following reasons why the development had occurred: 1 Letter of Sheldon to George Rebec, Extension Office, Portland, Oregon, June 8, 19 20, in the Correspondence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Rebec, June 8, 19 20, in the Correspondence File. 3 Letter of Sheldon to Churchill, January 8, 19 21, in the Correspondence File. 62 Our university faculties are largely to blame because of their very conservative and reactionary attitude with reference to the training of teachers. If university faculties had begun only ten years ago to establish thoroughly their school of education upon a sound, liberal, professional basis , the development of normal schools now taking place would not have occurred. 1 Creating further concern, Sheldon realized that the Oregon Agr i- cultural College was highly successful in competing for students and that the College's efforts were having a profound effect upon the state. He suggested that a man be assigned to 11 get in close touch with the high schools" as a retaliatory measure. 2 He reported that the Oregon Agricultural College had two or three such men and they were succeed- ing in getting many of the high schools inclined toward the II extreme vocational point of view. 113 The specific problem in Sheldon's judgment was that the Oregon Agricultural College had made definite provisions for the t raining of elementary and secondary teachers from 19 21 to 19 25. Sheldon saw the danger to these provisions in that the 0. A. C. w a s well o r ganized 1 Letter of Bolton to Sheldon, . April 20, 19 22 , in the Cor re s pond - ence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Stetson, on leave at Columbia University, March 16, 19 20, in the Correspondence File. 63 for persuading people in the state to push its enterprise. 1 In his words, "There [ was] no doubt that they need watching . 112 As a result of the aggressive conduct of the Normal School, Oregon Agricultural College, and the University, undesirable relation- ships among the institutions did not soon subside. Though Sheldon was generally considered a peacemaker, he did little to abate frictions during .this period and took advantage of most opRortunities to degrade the work accomplished at other institutions in Oregon. To illustrate, 11 The work so far at the Oregon Agricultural College is not very ad - vanced, 11 Sheldon contended, "and they give their men much heavier schedules than we do here. 113 Speaking of the duplication of courses at the College and the Vocational guidance program, Dean Sheldon averred, 11 The man they are getting from here is quite inferior in general popular effectiveness to the man they lost. . If w e carry out our original plans I believe we will have the m pr e tty well dispos e d f 11 4 o. 1 Letter of Sheldon to Campbell, March 21, 1921, i n the Correspondence File. 2 Letter of Sheldon to Kilpatrick, August 13, 19 24, i n the Correspondence File. 3 Letter of Sheldon to George Ordahl, Eldridge, Cali:{ornia, August 10, 19 25, in the Correspondence File. 4 Letter of Sheldon to Stetson, from Stanford Univ ersity, June 27 , 1928, in the Correspondence File. 64 As an outcome of these rivalries, the issues were taken to the Board of Higher Curricula, April 27, 1925. As a n indication of the seriousness of the event, a University administrative committee chal - lenged about twenty courses which the Oregon Agr icultural College proposed to give in 1925. Sheldon asserted, 11 1£ this [ duplication of courses] is allowed to continue for two or three years longer the Oregon Agricultural College will practically have all the courses of any importance which the University gives besides having a monoploy of its own special work. 111 Continuing, Sheldon said, "It is necessary i n my opinion to convince the Board of Higher Curriculum that we mean business in this matter and do not propose to be pushed to one 2 side by President Kerr's political combinations or a ny other factor. 11 The University of Oregon won a temporary decision since the Board decided to retain the existing allocations of functions. Sheldon had reservations, however, for he observed, "We licked them as far as the decision was concerned, but will probably have some trouble • f • • 3 H • h 1n en orc1ng 1t. e was rig t. The 11war 11 continued until the 1 Letter of Sheldon to Judge J. W. Hamilton, Roseb urg, O regon, April 21, 1925, in the Correspondence File. 2Ibid. William J. Kerr was the Presid e nt of Oregon Agr icul­ tural College. 3 Letter of Sheldon to Ordahl, August 10, 19 25, i n the Cor - res pondence File. 65 Legislature established a unified system some four years later. Even then several years elapse