








































  
 

Schism in the Schoolhouse: The Tenuous Relationship between Social Scientists and  

Educationists within the AHA Commission on the Social Studies (1929-1934) 
 

James Schul 

Ohio Northern University 

 

Abstract 

From 1929 to 1934, the American 

Historical Association (AHA) led a commission 

of prominent scholars from the fields of education 

and the social sciences with the charge of 

comprehensively investigating the social studies 

in American schools.  This paper investigates the 

relationship between the educationists and social 

scientists within the Commission and discusses 

likely causes for the differences between the two 

camps. 

 

Introduction 

In 1929, the American Historical 

Association (AHA) formed a commission to 

comprehensively investigate the social studies in 

American schools. The Commission was a 

collaboration of prominent leaders in both the 

social sciences and education, including 

historians Charles Beard and A.C. Krey, the 

educational theorist, George Counts, and 

curricularist Ernest Horn. Receiving a five-year 

grant from the Carnegie foundation, the 

Commission commenced in 1929 and remained 

an active body until 1935. This collaboration 

resulted in the production of sixteen different 

volumes with many of them published well into 

the late 1930s. However, the Commission‟s work 

became embroiled in controversy, surrounding its 

final summary volume: Conclusions and 

Recommendations (Commission on the Social 

Studies, 1934), written by Krey, the 

Commission‟s chair, Beard, and Counts. A close 

reading of the Commission‟s work finds that the 

controversy sprouted from a myriad of issues, 

including radicalism, but mostly testing. 

However, the controversy about the 

Commission‟s work also revealed a schism that 

resided within the body of the Commission‟s 

membership. This schism revolved around the 

perception that the social scientists and 

educationists had of one another‟s professional 

ranking and emerged within the deliberations of 

the high profile members of the AHA 

Commission on the Social Studies. 

 

Origins of the AHA Commission  

The purpose of the AHA Commission on 

the Social Studies was to streamline social studies 

education at a time when the high school 

curriculum was undergoing a massive curricular 

revision so as to meet the needs of a school 

population that had grown exponentially in the 

first two decades of the twentieth century 

(Kliebard 2002, 45). The American Historical 

Association (AHA), a premier professional 

organization for historians and history educators 

alike, found itself mired in the middle of this 

process of these curricular revisions. In 1899, the 

AHA proposed a sequence of history courses for 

the high school experience which provided the 

underlying message that history alone prepared 

students for the “duties of daily life and 

intelligent citizenship” (Jenness 1990, 67-71). 

This history centered curricula was later contested 

by the National Education Association Committee 

on the Social Studies (NEACSS) of 1916 that 

proposed a high school curriculum that placed 

history into a broader field, called „social studies‟, 

whose “subject matter relates directly to the 

organization and development of human society, 

and to man as a member of social groups” with a 



 
 

52 
 

“conscious and constant purpose” aimed toward 

“the cultivation of good citizenship”(Nelson 

1994, 9). In 1918, the NEA‟s Cardinal Principles 

Report of Secondary Education concurred with 

the NEACSS by proposing “citizenship” as one of 

the primary principles the high school experience 

should revolve around. These two curricular 

reforms by the NEA revolutionized the entire 

secondary curriculum from one with an academic 

bent to one with an emphasis on the nature of the 

student population and the general aims of society 

instead of the exclusive subject-centered history 

curriculum that had been previously proposed by 

the AHA. Historians read between the lines of the 

newer curricular reports and saw history being 

marginalized in the public schools by this new 

found emphasis on citizenship education (Jenness 

1990, 78; Novick 1988, 186-7). Subsequently, the 

AHA reported in 1924 that the social studies was 

in a sense of chaos since social studies teachers 

did not follow any pattern, which may lead 

toward curricular organizations to work at cross 

purposes in future reforms (American Historical 

Association 1924, 84; Beard 1932, vii; Jenness 

1990, 102‟ Watras 2003, 48). It is as result of the 

conclusions of this 1924 report that the AHA 

formed a planning committee that eventually gave 

birth to the AHA Commission on the Social 

Studies. In the winter of 1928, the Carnegie 

Corporation announced that it would fund a five 

year study of the social studies conducted by the 

AHA (Beard 1932, viii-ix). The Commission 

aimed to be a comprehensive study of social 

studies that merged notable historians and social 

scientists with educationists. The Commission 

commenced in 1929 and “was to be the most 

elaborate and comprehensive commission in the 

history of the social studies” (Hertzberg 1981, 

44). It was also the site where academic tribes, 

one from the arts and sciences, and the other from 

education, clashed in how they viewed the future 

of teacher training in the United States. 

 

The Triumvirate 

The AHA Commission counted among its 

members some of the most prominent historians 

and social scientists in the United States during 

the 1920s and 1930s. There were sixteen 

members total on the Commission, each of whom 

derived from various fields related with social 

studies education: historians, social scientists, 

educationists, and school practitioners. The 

Commission was led by A.C. Krey, a medievalist 

historian from The University of Minnesota. 

Appointed by the AHA in the winter of 1924, 

Krey was required to organize the Commission, 

including compiling its members, as well as 

ensure that it was successful in this first 

comprehensive examination of the social studies 

in the schools. As a result, Krey‟s burdensome 

work between the years of his appointment to the 

end of the Commission‟s appointment consisted 

of writing “reports, letters, and requests for 

funding, kept books, cajoled, persuaded, and 

smoothed ruffled feathers” (Dennis 1990, 25). 

While a notable historian in his own right, Krey 

cajoled Charles Beard, arguably the most 

prominent American historian at the time, toward 

membership on the Commission. Beard‟s 

scholarship was so well received at the time that 

the AHA Commission was referred to some as the 

“Beard Commission” (Hertzberg 1981, 44; 

Jenness 1990, 130). 

Beard‟s work on the Commission led him 

to form another longstanding friendship with 

another member of the Commission, George S. 

Counts, who was then a rising figure in the field 

of education. Counts, at the time of the 

Commission, was a faculty member at Columbia 

University where Beard had once worked from 

1904 until 1917, who was best known as an 



 
 

53 
 

educational theorist with a strong belief in the 

school as a transformative agency for society writ 

large (Counts 1934, 3-4). The three, Krey, Beard, 

and Counts, formed somewhat of a triumvirate in 

the Commission, or as Krey liked to refer to 

themselves as the “Soldiers Three” (Krey, 

1934b). During the commencement of the AHA 

Commission, this triumvirate served as the 

driving force of the Commission‟s work as 

evidenced by their collaborative authorship of the 

Commission‟s controversial summary volume.  

 

The Controversial Summary Volume  

 The summary volume, published in 1934, 

was the final installment of the Commission‟s 

sixteen volume study on the social studies. The 

intent of the volume, as its title Conclusions and 

Recommendations implied, was to summarize the 

findings of the Commission and provide practical 

advice for schools with regard to the social 

studies. Although it was a collaborative effort 

between Krey, Beard and Counts, it was shaped 

mostly by Counts due to Krey‟s poor health and 

Beard‟s attention to other projects (Dennis 1990, 

84-6). The summary volume was clearly colored 

by Counts‟ conceptualization of social 

reconstructionism. According to Counts, the 

school, as currently composed, imposed support 

for capitalist and governmental policies and that 

schools and teachers should instead impose upon 

students a commitment to reshape democratic 

society so that it served the good of the whole 

rather than only the wealthy or fortunate. This 

radical philosophy shone through in the summary 

volume‟s second chapter, “frame of reference”, 

the volume aggressively pushed a collectivist 

viewpoint. In the chapter, the summary volume 

boldly declared that “the age of individualism and 

laissez faire in economy and government is 

closing and that a new age of collectivism is 

emerging” (Commission on the Social Studies 

1934, 16). According to the volume, the emergent 

social changes commanded the education system 

to respond accordingly by organizing “a program 

in terms of a philosophy which harmonizes with 

the facts of a closely integrated society, it will 

ease the strains of the transition taking place in 

actuality” (34).There were several members who, 

for various reasons, expressed some concern that 

the summary volume did not adequately represent 

the Commission‟s work. The sternest protest 

came from The University of Iowa‟s Ernest Horn 

who was perhaps the most prominent education 

professor on the Commission‟s membership roll 

aside from Counts. 

 While the summary volume‟s emphasis on 

social reconstruction was a bit problematic to 

Horn, stating that a “collectivist order” was “too 

comfortably set up” (Horn 1934, 3), it was the 

volume‟s condemnation of the work of the 

nation‟s education schools that irked him the 

most. The mid 1920s was a time for innovation in 

education and Ernest Horn was a key figure in 

promoting sound, research-based educational 

innovation. Horn, a professor of curriculum and 

instruction at Iowa, established The University of 

Iowa Elementary School which became known 

for nurturing inquiry-based instruction in its 

teacher education program. He was a key figure 

in promoting sound, research-based innovation in 

education with a primary concern for spelling 

instruction where he aimed to decipher which 

words were most commonly used in life outside 

the school (Stein, 1973). Horn also had a strong 

interest in social studies education and served as a 

member of the National Council for the Social 

Studies. Horn‟s work in the AHA Commission 

culminated in the authorship of a volume of his 

own for the called Methods of Instruction in the 

Social Studies. Horn‟s philosophy of education 

differed from the triumvirate of Krey, Beard, and 

Counts in that he emphasized the science of 



 
 

54 
 

education in his work. In other words, Horn 

believed that innovation in educational practice 

was central to the ascent of the public school‟s 

democratic aims. Furthermore, Horn saw the need 

to nurture innovation in education so as to meet 

the needs of an ever-changing society. In contrast, 

the triumvirate focused more on the nature of the 

subject matter taught in the schools. Horn refused 

to sign the Commission‟s summary volume 

primarily for what he saw as an explicit disrespect 

for the science of education, most notably its 

dismissive stance toward objective (multiple 

choice) testing. 

 In its fifth chapter, entitled “method of 

teaching,” the summary volume condemned what 

it called the “sin of pedagogy” in education 

schools, namely to teach instructional methods 

separate from subject matter: 

 

During the past generation these 

institutions have tended to overload their 

curricula with courses in the mechanics 

of instruction and administration, have 

directed their attention too largely to the 

refinement and super-refinement of 

techniques, have neglected the more 

fundamental problems of purpose, 

thought, value and content and have 

lamentably failed to co-ordinate training 

in teaching procedure with scholarship 

in subject matter (Commission on the 

Social Studies 1934, 70). 

 

The volume essentially expressed concerns 

with education being a separate science. The 

education schools‟ emphasis on method 

dissociated with subject matter and the nature of 

the learner, the volume declared, made education 

“shallow, formal, or capricious, or all three” 

(Commission on the Social Studies 1934, 71). 

These concerns about the education school, 

whether justified or not, undoubtedly derived 

from the history professions‟ long struggle with 

the education school for control over the public 

school curriculum (Novick 1988, 186-7). In fact, 

the summary volume aimed to put an end to this 

curricular struggle by proposing to place the 

training of teachers under the over-arching 

auspices of the social science departments and 

that any robust education department should in 

turn focus on education as a place of “knowledge 

and thought devoted to the organization and 

content of knowledge as a focal point in culture” 

rather than on pedagogy (Commission on the 

Social Studies 1934, 113). 

The summary volume shed light on the 

beliefs and attitudes of the majority of the 

Commission members with regard to the 

education professoriate in general. While these 

public differences may have made it appear that 

the members of these separate camps were cold 

with one another, personal correspondence 

waffled between a polite, collegial tone to one of 

a blatant mistrust among their associated fields. 

For instance, Horn became very upset with the 

treatment given to the education profession in the 

summary volume. As the chairman of the 

Commission, Krey was forced to play the role of 

arbiter between these disputes and consoled Horn 

that he should not take the criticism personally: 

 

I think I can give you a good deal of 

support in insuring a correct 

interpretation of statements which might 

otherwise be used to condemn a lot of 

fine things which you have been doing 

in Iowa. The condemnation was not of 

your work. If all the rest of the 

educational world were doing as fine 

things as you have been doing in Iowa, 

there would have been little occasion for 

much of the condemnation which 

appears in the document, and the good 

which you are doing should not be torn 

down in the wreckage of the general 

condemnation (Krey, 1934a). 



 
 

55 
 

 

Krey firmly believed that the summary volume 

was correct in its estimation of the education 

professoriate. Whether it was political posturing 

or not, it is clear that Krey viewed Horn as being 

mired in a personal and professional dilemma 

when it came to his decision as to whether or not 

he should sign the summary volume. “He was in 

the position of being damned if he did and 

damned if he didn‟t”, Krey said in 

correspondence to Beard.(Krey, 1934c). There is 

no doubt that Krey saw the education 

professoriate as lower in quality and less worthy 

of respect than his own. In a 1933 letter to the 

historian Conyers Read that focused on the 

editorial board of the Historical Outlook, at the 

time a premier practitioner‟s journal for 

elementary and secondary history teachers that 

later became the social studies journal Social 

Education, Krey asserted that George Counts was 

“the only professor of Education whom I would 

consider qualified for this editorial board” (Krey, 

1933a). A noticeable omission in Krey‟s 

assessment of the education field was Horn 

despite his long standing efforts in the field of 

social studies education and worthwhile work in 

the area of spelling education. While Krey may 

have spoken sincerely to Horn about his good 

work in the field of education, he nonetheless 

viewed it as work in a deeply flawed and 

nebulous field.   

Moreover, Krey‟s recommendation of 

Counts for the editorial board of the Historical 

Outlook likely meant that he viewed Counts‟ 

work in educational psychology and philosophy 

as mirroring the social science disciplines than 

that of the education professoriate that he actually 

belonged to. Horn was proven correct to fear a 

public confrontation between the educationists 

and social scientists in the Commission‟s 

deliberations since educationists would “come out 

second best in a debate before social science 

teachers at large” (Horn, 1933). Despite Horn‟s 

professional tact to preserve the civility of the 

Commission‟s deliberations, the publication of 

the summary volume proved to be a public 

damnation of the education professoriate that 

would lead to a notable educationist to directly 

and publicly challenge the volume‟s unabashed 

criticism of the education field. 

 

The Schism Goes Public  

 As the summary volume became 

accessible to the public in the spring of 1934, 

several media outlets emphasized the significance 

that the Commission‟s concluding statement 

would have on the educational landscape. Time 

magazine, for instance, quoted the columnist 

Harry Elmer Barnes who called the summary 

volume “the most revolutionary and significant 

document in American education since the days 

of Horace Mann” (“Surveyor‟s and New 

Society”, 1934). While some media outlets 

focused on the controversy over objective tests 

and others on the collectivist stance of frame of 

reference section, still others ran amuck with its 

praise for the volume‟s condemnatory stance 

against the education profession. As a case in 

point, the Baltimore Evening Sun declared:  

 

As for the „science of education,‟ that is 

probably as inane and dreary a body of 

pseudo-knowledge as has ever been 

gathered together. And the rise of 

scientific pedagogues, the teachers of 

teachers, and gradual extension of their 

control until it is now virtually 

impossible for a would-be teacher to get 

a job without first submitting to a 

stipulated number of months of their 

mumbo jumbo, is a definitely unpleasant 

story. The tyranny which these 

pedagogues now hold over the American 

school system is all but complete. And it 



 
 

56 
 

is high time some reputable body should 

cry out against it (“Challenging the 

Racket”, 1934). 

 

This public backlash against the education 

establishment led one of its own, namely Melvin 

(M.E.) Haggerty, to directly challenge the leader 

of the Commission who also happened to be his 

colleague at The University of Minnesota. 

 M.E. Haggerty was the Dean of the 

College of Education at Minnesota from 1920 

until 1937.  Trained as an educational 

psychologist, Haggerty had dedicated his entire 

professional career to the development of the 

education field both at Minnesota and nationwide. 

As a result he took great offense to the harsh 

overtone that the Commission‟s summary volume 

pointed toward his profession. In response, 

Haggerty wrote a pointed letter to Krey. In it he 

expressed to Krey his resentment toward what he 

saw as a direct attack on his entire life‟s work: 

“Since this the past volume either directly or by 

innuendo condemns practically every activity in 

which I have engaged in the last twenty years” 

(Krey, 1934d). Haggerty went on to chastise the 

Commission for what he saw as their lack of 

academic rigor and objectivity: 

 

The document is a loosely worded 

discussion that bears all the marks of 

the kind of propaganda with which, in 

other fields, the public has become 

familiar in recent years. Such 

intellectual challenge as rises from it is 

clouded in an atmosphere of emotional 

appeal. The detachment that one 

expects from sound scholarship is not 

evident (Haggerty 1935, 274). 

 

He went on to say that “damnation” was accorded 

in the volume to “almost every endeavor that 

during the past half century has been made to 

improve teaching and to add to our knowledge 

about education” (275). 

Upon reading Haggerty‟s pointed letter, 

Krey complimented Haggerty‟s articulation of his 

concerns stating that “for out of just such serious 

discussion must arise that clearer understanding 

toward which all of us strain with whatever 

strength and wisdom we possess” (Krey, 1934d). 

While Krey believed Haggerty‟s rebuttal of the 

summary volume was a thoughtful one, he 

nonetheless remained firm in his disagreement 

with many of Haggerty‟s claims. At the heart of 

Krey‟s rebuttal was an emphasis that the 

summary volume was intended to be a conclusion 

and was not designed to provide substantive data 

to back up findings. Krey was also quick to point 

out that several volumes in the Commission‟s 

report were yet published and therefore not 

available for public critique, which may be at the 

core of some of Haggerty‟s concerns. However, 

later in the letter Krey strayed away from 

Haggerty‟s critique of the summary volume and 

focused more on the professional concerns 

brought forth by Haggerty, namely his statement 

that the summary volume was actually a 

condemnation of his entire career‟s worth of 

work: 

 

I can recall nothing except the most 

sympathetic appreciation of my own 

efforts and aims and the heartiest 

cooperation between us both in helping 

to realize our common aims. Such 

cooperation it seems to me would have 

been impossible between persons who 

differed fundamentally and widely as 

you imply we must – especially over a 

period of fifteen years more or less 

(Krey, 1934d). 

 



 
 

57 
 

Krey did not focus on his own personal views of 

the education professoriate as a whole, but instead 

focused on his respect for the individual professor 

as he had done earlier with Horn. “I have always 

thought that you and I were in fundamental 

agreement,” Krey emphasized to Haggerty, 

“perhaps more agreed than any other two 

individuals on the campus” (Krey, 1934d).  

Knowing that he needed to ensure a positive 

working relationship with Haggerty, Krey was 

less harsh in his portrayal of the education 

profession with Haggerty than he was with Horn, 

whom he had earlier consoled as being one of the 

few education professors who was engaged in 

“fine things” throughout the country (Krey, 

1934a). Rather than point out Haggerty as being 

an exceptional scholar in a deeply flawed field, 

Krey instead spoke of the turf battle that had 

haunted the Commission‟s deliberation and was 

at the source of their disagreement, namely the 

“conflict between arts and education or between 

the academic and the applied fields, especially in 

education” that he conceded to be “the greatest 

tragedy in the educational world during the past 

generation” (Krey, 1934d). Krey proceeded to 

wash the Commission‟s hands clean of the claims 

that Haggerty made against it, saying 

“partisanship in this matter was in no wise the 

intent of the Commission” The proverbial olive 

branch that Krey offered to Haggerty was an 

admittance that the professional differences 

between one another‟s fields was indeed 

unfortunate: “This schism,” Krey conceded, “has 

hurt both immeasurably” (Krey, 1934d). 

 

Discussion  

The schism amongst members of the AHA 

Commission may be used as case study for a 

larger and historically rooted schism that took 

place between the education colleges and the 

remainder of higher education, particularly the 

Arts and Sciences. The summary volume‟s call to 

abandon what it called the “science of education” 

and to reunite education “with the great streams 

of human knowledge, thought, and aspiration” 

would not have likely been written by an 

education professor since it placed the 

representatives from the field of education in an 

unenviable position of defending its own 

existence (Krey, 1934c). However, it was 

authored by an education professor in George 

Counts. So, why was the Commission‟s summary 

volume so critical of teacher education programs? 

The answer to that question likely lies somewhere 

on a spectrum between the changes that were 

taking place within the field of education and 

between the field of education and academia as a 

whole.  

The summary volume proposal for 

education to be a separate field of cultural study 

rather than as a bastion of pedagogical training 

may actually be a response to a trend that began 

to take shape in the early twentieth century when 

the University of Chicago‟s laboratory school 

paved the way of educational innovation. The late 

nineteenth century saw John Dewey rise to 

prominence in American culture through his 

leadership at Chicago, whom he worked for from 

1894 until 1904. The University of Chicago, at 

that time, was very influential in the shaping of 

teacher training throughout the country since its 

education department was the “most rounded and 

comprehensive in the country” (Dykhuizen 1973, 

91). Dewey‟s experimentalist approach toward 

education was broad, encompassing not only a 

consideration of the nature of the leaner, but also 

of the subject matter to be taught in conjunction 

with the general aims of the democratic society. 

Subsequently, the laboratory school at The 

University of Chicago served as a model of 

Dewey‟s theory of education that was to be a 

model for the entire nation. However, when 



 
 

58 
 

Dewey left Chicago in 1904 for The University of 

Columbia, the emphasis on experimentalism in 

Chicago became secondary to its new found 

emphasis on social efficiency. When Charles Judd 

became a member of the education faculty at 

Chicago in 1909, the education department 

emphasized the science of education, based on 

survey and research. Under Judd, the field of 

education came to be viewed as specialized field 

that was totally separated from subject matter 

(Herbst 1989, 183-4). This transition of education 

from a broad field to a specialized vocational field 

was likely at the root at many of the differences 

that surfaced amongst the members of the AHA 

Commission. Interestingly, it was one of Judd‟s 

former doctoral students in education, George 

Counts, who articulated this dissent against the 

path that Judd had blazed for the field of 

education. However, Counts‟ training as a 

sociologist of education fit more closely with the 

Deweyian perspective of examining education as 

a broad field. The fact that Counts was trained by 

Judd and may have inadvertently undermined the 

work of his mentor in the summary volume is a 

curious issue worthy of an investigation in its 

own right.  

While the change in the nature of teacher 

education likely led to contention between social 

scientists and educationists, the relatively new site 

of teacher education may have played a role in the 

schism as well. It is important to note that the 

AHA Commission convened at a time when 

schools of education were first becoming 

embraced by the university setting when the 

normal school began its rapid decline toward 

extinction, as signified by the fact that the total 

number of normal schools in the United States 

fell from 170 to 66 and the number of state 

teachers colleges rose from 46 to 146 between the 

years 1920 and 1933 (Labaree 2004, 29). “As 

early as 1915,” according to Ellen Lagemann, 

“300 of the 600 colleges in the Unites States 

offered courses in education, and for the next fifty 

years, there was unprecedented growth in 

educational study, especially at the doctorate 

level” (Lagemann 2000, 20). This inclusion of the 

education school into the broader university 

setting brought with it territorial and tribal 

disparity within academia. Curricular historian 

Hazel Hertzberg (1981) noted about the 

Commission that the divisions within it “were not 

between social scientists and educators but rather 

between people more directly involved in the 

world of public affairs and those largely within 

academia” (53). What Hertzberg failed to realize 

in her assessment of the Commission was that the 

a part of the cause for the divisions between the 

social scientists and educationists was in fact the 

territorial broach that the practical field of 

education had made in academia, which at the 

time was not amiable with fields that focused on 

the practical over the theoretical. A major concern 

that the social scientists likely had with the 

burgeoning field that their fellow commission 

members represented was that its assimilation 

into academia served as a peculiar fit in the 

predominant paradigm in higher education. The 

education school diverts from most of academia 

primarily because its curricular focus revolves 

around the application of practical knowledge to 

its students whereas academia mostly values 

theoretical knowledge (Abbott 1988, 54-5; 

Labaree 2004, 33). Moreover, other members of 

academia may either ignore or subtly dismiss the 

education school because its existence infers that 

the primary job of most professors in academia, 

namely to teach, requires careful study and 

professional training. The divisions within the 

AHA Commission were among the first signs 

within American academia of an unhappy 

marriage between the education school and the 

Arts and Sciences that remains today.  



 
 

59 
 

References 

 

American Historical Association. 1929. Annual 

Report 1924. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.   

Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An 

Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Beard, C. 1932. A Charter for the Social 

Sciences. Part I: Report of the Commission 

on the Social Studies. New York: Charles 

Scribner‟s Sons. 

 “Challenging the Racket.” 1934. Baltimore 

Evening Sun. May 21. 

Commission on the Social Studies. 1934. 

Conclusions and Recommendations of the 

Commission: Report of the Commission on 

the Social Studies. New York: Charles 

Scribner‟s Sons. 

Counts, G. 1934 Oct 1. “Orientation,” The Social 

Frontier. 

Dykhuizen, G. 1973. The Life and Mind of John 

Dewey. Carbondale and Edwardsville: 

Southern Illinois University Press. 

Dennis, L. 1989. George S. Counts and Charles 

A. Beard: Collaborators for Change. 

Albany: State University of New York 

Press. 

Haggerty, M. 1935 March 2. “The Low Visibility 

of Educational Issues.”  School and Society 

41. 

Herbst, J. 1989. And Sadly Teach: Teacher 

education and professionalization in 

American culture. Madison, WI: The 

University of Wisconsin Press. 

Hertzberg, H. 1981. Social Studies Reform, 1880-

1980. Boulder, CO: Social Science 

Education Consortium, 1981.  

Horn, E. 1933. 31 October 1933 Letter to E.F. 

Lindquist. Papers of Ernest Horn, Special 

Collections and University Archives, 

University of Iowa Libraries. 

_____. 1934. “Reason for Dissent of the AHA 

Commission Summary Volume.” Papers of 

Ernest Horn, Special Collections and 

University Archives, University of Iowa 

Libraries. 

Jenness, D. 1990. Making Sense of Social Studies. 

New York, MacMillan Publishing 

Company. 

Kliebard, H. 2002. Changing Course: American 

Curriculum Reform in the 20
th

 Century. 

Columbia, Teachers College Press. 

Krey, A. 1933a. 18 August. Letter to Conyers 

Read. August C. Krey papers, University 

Archives, University of Minnesota, Twin 

Cities. 

_____. 1933b. 23 October 1933. Letter to Charles 

A. Beard. August C. Krey papers, 

University Archives, University of 

Minnesota, Twin Cities.   

_____. 1934a. 27 March. Letter to Ernest Horn. 

Papers of Ernest Horn, Special Collections 

and  University Archives, University of 

Iowa Libraries. 

_____. 1934b. 19 May. Letter to Charles A. 

Beard. August C. Krey papers, University 

Archives, University of Minnesota, Twin 

Cities. 

_____. 1934c. 30 June. Letter to Charles Beard. 

August C. Krey papers, University 

Archives,University of Minnesota, Twin 

Cities. 

_____. 1934d. 23 September. Letter to M.E. 

Haggerty. August C. Krey papers, 

University Archives, University of 

Minnesota, Twin Cities. 

Labaree, D. 2004. The Trouble with Ed Schools. 

New Haven: Yale University Press. 



 
 

60 
 

Lagemann, E. 2000.  An Elusive Science: The 

Troubling History of Education Research. 

Chicago: The University of Chicago. 

Nelson, M. (Ed.) 1994. The Social Studies in 

Secondary Education: A Reprint of the 

Seminal 1916 Report with Annotations and 

Commentaries. Bloomington, Indiana: 

ERIC Clearinghouse for Social 

Studies/Social Science Education. 

Novick, P. 1988. That Noble Dream: The 

“Objectivity Question” and the American 

Historical Profession. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.  

Stein, F. 1973. Ernest Horn’s Ideas on Education 

Within the Context of the Progressive 

Education Movement in America. Ph.D. 

diss., The University of Iowa. 

“Surveyors and New Society.” 1934 Time, May 

21. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ 

article/0,9171,747458,00.html 

Watras, J. 2003. “Relativism and Indoctrination: 

The Critical Reception of the Commission 

on the Social Studies, 1926-1941.” 

International Journal of Social Education, 

18(2): 47-57. 


