




































True Believer: The Progressivism of Willard Goslin 

Whitney Blankenship 

Rhode Island College 

 

Abstract 

Willard E. Goslin‟s support for progressive 

education practices in American public schools 

was a constant theme throughout his many years 

as a nationally recognized leader in public 

education.  Perhaps most well know for the 

turmoil surrounding his dismissal as Pasadena 

Superintendant of schools during the height of the 

Red Scare, Goslin was a true-believer in the 

power of education to create and protect a 

democratic society. 

 

Willard E. Goslin‟s support for progressive 

education practices in American public schools 

was a constant theme throughout his many years 

as a nationally recognized leader in public 

education.  Perhaps most well know for the 

turmoil surrounding his dismissal as Pasadena 

Superintendant of schools during the height of the 

Red Scare, Goslin was a true-believer in the 

power of education to create and protect a 

democratic society; he believed that it took the 

efforts of the entire community to meet the 

challenges facing students at mid-century. He 

believed in the ability of professional-learning 

communities to empower teachers, 

administrators, community members and 

students. Throughout his career he often clashed 

with school boards over his progressive beliefs, 

but he never stopped pushing for educational 

reform. An examination of his writings and career 

reveal Goslin‟s passion for progressive education 

that cements his status as a “true-believer.” 

 

The Early Years: Webster Grove 

 Goslin began his career in the rural school 

districts of Missouri, quickly rising in the ranks to 

become a principal at age 22, followed a year 

later with his appointment as superintendent for 

the Slater, Missouri, school district.  By 1928 

Goslin had moved on to become superintendent 

of the Webster Grove school district in the 

suburbs of St. Louis (Parker and Parker 2006) and 

it is in Webster Grove that Goslin‟s progressive 

ideals begin to take shape.  A 1940 article, 

“Community Relationships – An Integral Part of 

an Educational Program” explains the philosophy 

as he developed during his twelve year tenure at 

Webster Grove (Goslin 1940).  Goslin argued that 

for education to be truly meaningful, the entire 

community should have a stake in creating 

educational programs, and not just a stake in the 

education of the community‟s children, but also 

in their own education.  To facilitate this process 

he argues that “The job of those of us in 

education if we are to be charged the 

responsibility for such a program – and we should 

be – lies in the direction of discovering the 

avenues for bringing parents, pupils and teachers 

into a working relationship” (171). He makes the 

case that although the main focus of such 

collaborations should be directed toward “child 

growth,” he also notes that every “opportunity for 

adults will not be overlooked” (171). Goslin 

contended that the establishment of learning 

communities, where teachers, parents, community 

members, and students work together as a unit to 

determine the educational needs of the 

community, is the key to the creation of a 

successful educational program.   

 The community partnerships proposed by 

Goslin were designed to not only build a 

community of life-long learners, but also to 

provide teachers, parents, and students an 

opportunity to build an instructional program 

around the needs of the pupils in the classroom, 



   

27 

 

rather than on a set of generalized standards. 

Through their participation in the educational 

process parents “will begin to see themselves as 

an integral part of the educational program 

surrounding their own children” and eventually 

parent participation would lead to a more nuanced 

understanding of their “responsibility in relation 

to the growth and development of all the children 

in the community” (Goslin 1940).  Goslin 

critiques “business as usual” in other districts. He 

pointed out the struggles between parent/teacher 

groups and administrators, laying the blame for 

these scuffles at the feet of administrators‟ failed 

leadership. Goslin also notes that many 

community members are left out of the process 

when districts solicit input only from parents of 

enrollees (173), arguing that the potential for 

increased opportunities for service learning (he 

mentions housing projects, creating bird 

sanctuaries, and beautification projects) are 

limited when community members are left out of 

educational decisions (174). The ideas postulated 

in this piece lay the foundation for the rest of 

Goslin‟s career as a progressive education. 

Toward the end of his tenure at Webster Grove in 

1943, Goslin published a second article in the The 

National Elementary Principal outlining the 

changes made to the system of in-service training 

beginning in 1937. The key elements of Goslin‟s 

philosophy, outlined in the 1940 article, played a 

prominent goal in those changes.  

 Goslin acted upon his conviction that 

school districts needed to move away from a 

strictly “top down” administration in which 

administrators were isolated from classroom 

teachers and secondary teachers were isolated 

from elementary teachers. He initiated a systemic 

change in teacher in-service training based on 

collaboration between teachers and 

administrators. Extending over several years, the 

needed changes were made through a democratic 

process. Prior to the beginning of the 

collaborative process, Goslin noted that steps 

were undertaken to be sure that teachers felt 

secure in the jobs-reasoning that the only way for 

growth to occur would be if teachers felt that their 

jobs were safe. In particular, paid sick leave was 

introduced along with health insurance, a teacher 

credit union and extended contracts so that 

teachers would be “encouraged to feel that their 

part in the school system is something more than 

merely teaching their daily classes” (Goslin 

1943).  

  Goslin‟s next step was the formation of a 

research committee composed primarily of 

teachers from all levels to act as an advisory body 

to the administration. The goal of the committee 

was to identify the training teachers felt they 

needed, and the development of a system for 

identifying and addressing problems within both 

the district as a whole and in individual schools.  

This initial stage of the program took nearly two 

years to complete with the first full committee 

meetings taking place during the 1939-1940 

school year.  As a result of committee 

discussions, three questions were posed for study: 

“In what areas of our school system do you feel 

that real progress had been made within the past 

few years? What improvements do you think 

should be made in our school system? and How 

do you suggest that we as a faculty go about 

making these improvements” (Goslin 1940). 

Goslin‟s final appraisal of the project noted that 

there were weaknesses in the process including 

the slow pace of change, time constraints on 

faculty members and the anecdotal nature of the 

problems identified by faculty early in the 

process. However, Goslin points out that these 

weaknesses were to be expected. The “thoroughly 

democratic fashion” in which the in-service 

training was revised was more important that the 

weaknesses inherent in the process (Goslin 1943). 



   

28 

 

If teachers, parents and community members 

were to be truly empowered in the educational 

system, it must be conducted through democratic 

processes.  

 Toward the end of his tenure at Webster 

Grove Goslin made another plea for cooperative 

action in public schools, arguing that “America 

needs now as it has never needed before a 

generation of citizens who are able to actively 

participate in democratic processes – citizens who 

have a appetite for democratic living because they 

have had a taste of it” (Goslin 1944). [emphasis in 

original].  In order for this to become a reality 

teachers must experience democratic processes in 

their daily lives, at home and at school.  

 Goslin‟s belief in democratic schooling 

would continue to grow as he moved from the 

suburban Webster Grove district, to the urban, 

and much larger, Minneapolis system. One might 

think that the democratic processes utilized by 

Goslin in the smaller rural and suburban districts 

would be more difficult to implement in larger 

and more diverse settings; however Goslin 

successfully continued to integrate his vision of 

democratic education in his new role. 

  

Progressive Education in Minneapolis 

 Following his 14 years residence in the 

suburban St. Louis district of Webster Grove 

district, Goslin became superintendent for the 

Minneapolis public schools, a position he held 

from 1944 to 1948.  His arrival in Minneapolis 

coincided with a decline in student population due 

in large measure to the depression and World War 

II (Franklin 1982; Zellie 2005; Parker and Parker 

2006). He launched school surveys to assess the 

student population characteristics and the 

effectiveness of programs already in place 

(Franklin 1982). Based on the surveys (and his 

own belief that schools should teach the whole 

child), the district installed a Common Learnings 

Program.  This consisted of a two-hour class in 

junior and senior high schools taken in lieu of 

English and Social Studies and which would be 

organized around students‟ social and personal 

problems.  The intention of this program was to 

make the curriculum more streamlined and 

efficient, promoting student socialization could 

into their roles as citizens in a democratic society. 

In addition, the extended time students spent with 

a single teacher would facilitate the growth of 

personal relationships between teachers and 

students. (Franklin 1982). To round out the 

Common Learnings Program, Goslin actively 

pursued community participation in the schools in 

much the same way as he had in Webster Grove.  

Goslins ideas regarding democratic, community 

based education continued to evolve along with 

the Common Learnings program.  Taking a 

unique perspective on the role of community 

relations for school districts, Goslin pointed out, 

“If we are successful in enmeshing school and 

community interests, activities, and resources, we 

will not need to go to the community with an 

advertising or selling campaign”(Goslin 1946a). 

By paying attention to “social and civic literacy” 

in addition to academic literacy, the general 

welfare of society would be increased.  This 

argument depended upon students developing 

habits suitable to democratic living, including the 

conservation of resources, and understanding of 

global citizenship. To facilitate the growth of 

democratic, community based education, the 

district made school records transparent, 

encouraged local papers to designate reporters 

specifically to the school beat, and partnered with 

local radio stations to broadcast parent-teacher 

association meetings and student produced 

programming (Goslin 1946a; Franklin 1982)  

 In 1946, the Hennepin County 

Tuberculosis Society awarded a $10,000 grant to 

the district at the request of Goslin. The purpose 



   

29 

 

of the grant was to create and staff a health 

education program as part of two - year pilot 

study. The Minneapolis Board of Education 

would oversee the program. Utilizing a system of 

committees made up of parents, students, 

teachers, administrators, public officials and local 

citizens, the health needs of the community were 

accessed. This in turn lead to the development of 

a program of vision, dental and health screenings 

conducted during the school day, accompanied by 

instruction in health related topics by the school 

doctor and dental hygienist. The program actively 

encouraged the participation of parents and 

students, as well as community volunteers (Starr 

1949).  The development of the school health 

program highlights key features of Goslin‟s 

progressive ideas.  Although focused primarily on 

improving student health, the demonstration 

included the skills, knowledge and resources of 

community leaders and parents. At the same time 

students were learning the benefits of good health 

and hygiene that would safeguard the community 

welfare. Bringing public health agencies into the 

school building allowed for the “enmeshing of 

school and community interests” (Goslin 1946a). 

 The Common Learnings program and the 

health demonstration were just two of the larger 

reforms instituted in Minneapolis schools. 

Teachers, in their role as community and school 

leaders, continued to play a role in Goslin‟s vision 

of democratic schooling. Teachers were actively 

encouraged to participate in community activities 

while principals were encouraged to introduce 

new faculty and staff into the local community. 

Through the faculty and community interaction, 

the community developed a better understanding 

of the needs of teachers and schools and became 

more willing work partners in the city educational 

system (Goslin 1946a; Goslin 1946b).  At the 

same time Goslin encouraged administrators to 

”know your teacher,” an undertaking that required 

more than an “incidental talk in the hall or an 

occasional half-hour conference” (Goslin 1946b). 

Administrators should be aware of teachers‟ 

physical, emotional and financial needs if 

teachers were to truly be partners in their 

education.   

 Goslin‟s commitment to teachers would 

be on display during the March 1948 teacher 

strike. The strike shut down 92 schools sending 

64,000 children into the streets.  The district was 

chronically in need of funds. In 1945, the year 

after Goslin took over the reins in Minneapolis 

the district was attempting to run its schools on a 

1930s budget. The union was striking against a 

recently passed law implementing a tax ceiling 

resulting in a $2 million deficit for the 1948 

school year.  Although a March 24 vote for a new 

charter, providing an additional $4 million in 

funds, had been set, the Teacher‟s Federations 

chose not to wait. Despite the fact that he was in 

Atlantic City to be inducted as president of the 

Association of School Administrators, the public 

did not blame Goslin for the strike. Goslin had 

openly expressed his own distaste for the law, 

although he was unable to do anything about it 

personally (Time March 8, 1948). Ultimately 

Goslin would resign over the lack of funding, 

stating in his resignation letter that “I cannot lend 

myself any longer to the neglect and mistreatment 

of public education which continues in 

Minneapolis” (Time May 2, 1948). 

  Goslin‟s work in Minneapolis and 

Webster Grove led to his being named one of the 

five most outstanding public school 

administrators in the country. He was also elected 

to the board of the John Dewey Society in 1947, 

although his administrative duties kept him from 

active board membership much of the time. 

Subsequently, in 1948, members of the 

prestigious American Association of School 

Administrators elected him to become their 



   

30 

 

president (Van Til 1983; Van Til 1993). At this 

time he was considering job offers from Harvard, 

Columbia and New York universities as well as 

the position of Superintendent in Pasadena, 

California.  After a two - day visit to Pasadena, 

Goslin accepted an offer to become that city‟s 

superintendent (Hulbard 1951). 

 

A Progressive District for a Progressive 

Educator: Pasadena 

  As in Webster Grove and Minneapolis, 

Goslin continued to push the envelope of reform 

upon his arrival in Pasadena. However, unlike his 

previous posting where progressive ideas were 

just beginning to be implemented, Goslin took 

over the reigns of a system that had already 

embraced this educational philosophy, and he 

continued to build upon this base to address 

problems within the system. Many of the reforms 

followed the pattern of his previous appointments 

in that he instituted summer workshops for 

teacher training and brought in well-known 

educators as speakers.  Vertical alignment teams 

linking teachers at all levels were put in place to 

facilitate collaboration among faculty members 

(Hulbard 1951). He pushed for the development 

of relationships between students and teachers 

through the introduction of a core curriculum 

along the lines of the Common Learnings 

program, and campaigned for the community to 

play an active role in the development of the 

school curriculum (Hulbard 1951). Despite the 

similarities, Goslin‟s ideas regarding progressive 

education continued to be refined as he tackled 

other areas of the curriculum. Goslin‟s support for 

child-centered learning, a key characteristic of 

progressive education is illuminating. He strongly 

opposed district requirements that all children 

learn to read at the same age, arguing that 

children developed at different rates and therefore 

the curriculum standards should reflect those 

developmental differences, and thus the needs of 

the children (Hulbard 1951). Goslin‟s ideas 

regarding curriculum standards represent a further 

refinement this stance when he noted in a Phi 

Kappa Delta article, “I have no particular 

objection to reading, writing and arithmetic, but 

you can‟t save democracy with it.” (Goslin 

1949a). He went on to explain that man‟s labor on 

the land and the conservation of natural resources 

went hand in hand. Indeed, democracy was 

dependent upon it as “ideals and freedoms go out 

the window when the stomach is empty” (Goslin 

1949a). He pushed for the development of 

students‟ emotional and physical stamina, and 

called for equipping students with what he termed 

a “kit of tools.” These tools included the basics of 

reading, writing, and arithmetic as well as an 

understanding of the principles of democracy 

(Hulbard 1951). Education for democratic living 

should be the cornerstone of public education, 

and everything that is taught should be 

subservient to that goal.  

 The involvement of the community in 

public education continued to play an integral role 

in Goslin‟s plans for Pasadena. Goslin urged 

school personnel to recognize the “potentiality of 

American education as a great social force” that 

“offers the American people an unprecedented 

opportunity to crystallize their beliefs into 

programs of action.” He called for “the most 

vigorous and dynamic leadership that the 

profession can muster” (Goslin 1949b).  Once 

again Goslin focused on the need for schools to 

help the public understand its educational mission 

and the need for professional cooperation.  By 

this point in time Goslin had honed his 

arguments, identifying the key elements of 

democratic schooling including global education, 

a firm grounding in democratic principles, the 

conservation of resources, and collaborative 

learning (Goslin 1949a; Goslin 1949b). He 



   

31 

 

pointed out the need to take the individual child 

into account through attending to his or her 

growth and development, physical and emotional 

needs. Schools should organize the school day to 

fit the needs of the pupils, promotion policies 

should be re-examined and programs should not 

be dictated by the wants/needs of higher 

education (Goslin 1949b).  Goslin aimed for 

nothing less than a truly child centered 

educational program created to meet the needs of 

the community through democratic processes.  

  

The Red Scare Comes to Pasadena 

 For the first few months of Gsolin‟s tenure 

in Pasadena the board rubber-stamped most of his 

proposed reforms (Hulbard 1951; Time May 

1951; Time November 1950).  However, that was 

not to remain the case for long. At the time of 

Goslin‟s arrival in Pasadena, the community was 

beginning to change from that of a primarily 

upper-class enclave with a small working class to 

a more racially diverse community. The need for 

additional elementary schools to cope with this 

growth and much needed renovations to existing 

schools led to an election to raise the tax levy in 

1950.  At the same time new attendance 

boundaries needed to be drawn up in order to 

balance school populations across the district 

(Hulbard 1951; Zellie 2005; Time November 

1950). The proposed changes to the attendance 

boundaries would require integration of the 

districts schools, particularly at the elementary 

level. The conflict over the boundary changes 

along with the proposed taxes exposed friction 

within the community that would eventually lead 

to open conflict.  The first sign of the pending rift 

was the formation of the School Development 

Council.  

 The Council was originally formed in 

opposition to the increased tax levy. After the 

defeat of the tax levy, the School Development 

Council began to attack Progressive education in 

general and Goslin‟s administration in particular.  

The Council charged that Progressive education 

in Pasadena was indoctrinating students into 

Socialist principles and undermining students‟ 

belief in American democracy (Hulbard 1951). 

Members of the Council charged Goslin with 

favoring a federal take-over of schools after he 

spoke in favor of federal aid to education.  He 

was condemned for favoring “modern pragmatic 

education,” a term that was never defined by 

Council members but which suggested 

Communist overtones (Time May,1951). The 

Pasadena Independent lamented that there was 

“far too much paint-daubing [and] far too little 

discipline”  (Time November 1950).  The Council 

eventually called for a full “ideological 

investigation” of the district, (Hulbard 1951) 

charging that Goslin‟s changes amounted to “a 

campaign to „sell‟ our children on the collapse of 

our way of life” (Time May,1951).   

 After months of increasing pressure by the 

School Development Council, the Board of 

Education moved to terminate Goslin and 

requested his resignation. As news of the boards‟ 

request spread, Goslins‟ supporters in Pasadena 

rushed into the fray and demanded the board 

reconsider (Hulbard 1951; Time December 1950). 

Despite the pleas of supporters the board refused 

to reconsider and Goslin offered his resignation to 

the board and a compensation package was 

agreed upon. Upon presenting his letter to the 

board he reminded supporters that the voters of 

Pasadena and properly elected the board; “We are 

dedicated to representative government. I cannot 

remain in contempt of democratic action” (Time 

December 1950) adding that “I shall take away no 

ill feelings when I leave Pasadena, rather a deep 

regret that I was unable to lead this community to 

a level which would have produced the best 

school system in America” (Time May,1951).  



   

32 

 

This is perhaps the best testament to Goslin‟s 

commitment to progressive ideals, his willingness 

to step down in the face of democratic action. A 

subsequent investigation by the National 

Education Association‟s Defense Commission led 

to the conclusion that although Goslin‟s 

administrative style had caused some tension 

between the community and the school 

administration, there was ample evidence that 

Goslin‟s dismissal was the result of reactionary 

forces drumming up “Red scare” fears within the 

community (Foster 2000; Guthrie 2003). Despite 

his loss in Pasadena, Goslin continued to 

advocate progressive reforms at a time when Cold 

War pressures began moving public education 

away from the progressive ideals of the thirties 

and forties and toward a “return to basics 

movement.” By the end of the decade the space 

race would refocus education on science and math 

and progressive reforms would remain, to some 

extent, only with in the burgeoning New Social 

Studies movement. Goslin, however, did not 

abandon the fight. 

 

Peabody & The Korea Project 

 Soon after leaving Pasadena, Goslin was 

contacted by Henry Hill, then president of George 

Peabody College for Teachers, to head the 

Division of School Administration and 

Community Development. Goslin accepted the 

post, although he did not immediately join the 

faculty. He spent 1951 and part of 1952 in Korea 

as a member of the United States National 

Commission for the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization surveying 

the needs of Korean schools and planning for the 

reconstruction of the Korean school system 

(Truman 1950; Guthrie 2003; Truman April 

1950).  

 Upon his arrival at Peabody, Goslin was 

appointed to the 1953 Yearbook committee of the 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development with William Van Til and Harold 

Benjamin. Along with other eminent educators, 

Goslin contributed a chapter, as well as serving 

on the editorial board. Goslin‟s chapter would be 

the last essay in the volume and was titled “The 

People and Their Schools.” The essay reflected 

his years of thinking about the role of schools in 

American society and within the communities 

they served. A second article in the Peabody 

Journal of Education the year also tackled this 

problem. In essence, these two articles 

represented not only an amalgamation of the ideas 

over the course of his career, as well as his own 

experiences, but they also served as a counter-

argument to the red-baiters‟ contention that 

progressive education was detrimental to 

democracy and the “American way of life.” His 

concern for public education was well - founded 

as his textbook Democracy was blacklisted that 

same year in REaD Reading (a publication 

produced by right wing, super-patriot groups) for 

promoting socialism, undermining democratic 

principles, and extolling the virtues of the United 

Nations (Foster 2000). 

 In “The People and their School System” 

Goslin outlines a counter-argument to anti-

progressive attacks. He argues that the American 

school system is the great anchor to which our 

democracy is tethered.  “No nation has ever used 

education to the extent that we have in America to 

develop our first line of resources–our children–

into citizens of a free society who could carry 

their share of the load regardless of what the 

times might bring” (Goslin 1952).  Goslin 

criticizes society for its lack of support for public 

education, decrying that the “American public 

school system … is being starved to death for 

want of enough money to make it a realistic 

institution that can stand up and face the needs of 

our times” (196) and castigating a public whose 



   

33 

 

“morals are faulty to the point that we will pass 

up the support of the education of our children in 

order to get something that we selfishly want in 

terms of our own adult pleasure and privilege” 

(197). Failure to fully support and fund public 

education will lead to the weakening of public 

institutions “to the point of collapse over a long 

period of time” (198). He concludes that for the 

United States to continue to uphold the ideals and 

institutions upon which it was founded, truly 

democratic education will allow students, 

teachers, parents, and administrators to “practice 

our basic American tradition about how we settle 

problems in this country by standing on a unified 

from in terms of our common commitments and 

agreement while we debate our differences 

around the edges of our common agreement” 

(200). The integration of the principles of 

democratic living into the school system, by 

giving stakeholders a voice, was vital to the 

continuation of American democracy. A society 

that does not practice and teach the ideals upon 

which it was based would be doomed to failure. 

 The yearbook article which followed in 

1953 also contained the themes of community 

based, democratic education. Goslin stated that 

children are the link between schools and the 

community. Too often, Goslin asserted, problems 

between school districts and communities arise 

due to misunderstandings, misinformation and 

distrust, all of which were roadblocks to school 

improvement.  The first step in overcoming these 

roadblocks was bringing in parents as 

collaborators in their child‟s education. Goslin 

further suggested that citizens groups be allowed 

to evaluate the curriculum and recommend 

changes to reflect the needs of the community. He 

was adamant in his belief that public education 

remain in the hands of laity and out of the hands 

of special interest groups. In a more direct attack 

on reactionary forces, he declared that teachers 

don‟t surrender their citizenship rights upon 

entering the teaching profession. Indeed, to deny 

teachers their basic rights as citizens undermined 

their effectiveness in the classroom. America‟s 

public school system was the bedrock of her 

representative democracy and must be 

safeguarded if a free, public education for all 

children was to continue (Goslin 1953).  

 Goslin‟s participation on the yearbook 

committee provided additional opportunities for 

him to expand his critique. The 1953 Yearbook 

was introduced at the annual conference of the 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development through sessions held by the 

contributors.  Goslin criticized the yearbook for 

not going far enough in its identification and 

denunciation of the reactionary forces attacking 

American public schools, however, he believed 

that despite this shortcoming, it was a step 

forward in the battle against the red - scare tactics 

of the McCarthy era (Foster 2000).  

 Through out his tenure at Peabody, Goslin 

continued to publish and lecture in support of 

progressive educational programs. The ideals he 

had espoused throughout his time as a public 

school administrator continued to play a role in 

his life at Peabody. He participated in the summer 

lecture series on “The Great Human Issues of Our 

Times” held each summer on the Peabody 

campus from 1953-1956.  He was also 

instrumental in integrating the campus in the late 

1950s. Through Goslin‟s efforts to institute an all-

black seminar on campus during intersession, 

integration of the regular summer and academic 

year programs soon followed (Drummond 2006; 

Parker and Parker 2006). His work for the Korean 

Education project gave him the opportunity to 

apply progressive education reform to the 

rebuilding of Korean schools, which in turn led to 

an honorary doctorate from Seoul University for 

his work. Goslin practiced what he preached 



   

34 

 

throughout his career. His singular focus on the 

development of progressive educational programs 

was honed through years of experience with 

district reforms, most of which were successful. 

Despite numerous attacks on progressive 

education in general, and on him personally, he 

never gave up the dream. He was a true believer 

in every sense of the word and would remain so 

until his death in 1969. Many of his contributions 

to the idea of a truly democratic education are 

regaining currency in the latest era of educational 

reform. The upswing in professional learning 

communities mirrors the teacher committees 

evident in Webster Grove and Minneapolis; 

advisory periods to allow for the continued 

development of interpersonal relationships 

between students and teachers are also popular. 

Site-based decision-making attempts to include 

parents and community members in the decision-

making processes of their child‟s schools and are 

evident in many districts. Although Goslin was 

not the only progressive educator of his time, and 

certainly not the only one to advocate progressive 

reforms, his practical experience with progressive 

reform proved to him that the results were worth 

all of the hard work. It was through his own 

successes and failures as a progressive reformer 

that Goslin turned  into a true believer, and which 

led to a lifetime of advocacy for progressive 

education. 

 

References 

 

Cook, Robert C., Who’s Who in American 

Education (Nashville: Who‟s Who in 

American Education, Inc., 1949-50): 464. 

Drummond, H. D. (2006). Email. W. G. 

Blankenship. Alberqueque NM. 

Foster, S. J. (2000). Red Alert! Educators 

Confront the Red Scare in American Public 

Schools,  1947-1954. New York, Peter Lang. 

Foster, Stuart J. 2000. Red Alert! Educators 

Confront the Red Scare in American Public 

Schools, 1947-1954. New York: Peter Lang. 

Franklin, B. (1982). "The Social Efficiency 

Movement Reconsidered: Curriculum Change 

in Minneapolis, 1917-1950." Curriculum 

Inquiry 12: 4-33. 

Franklin, Barry. 1982. The Social Efficiency 

Movement Reconsidered: Curriculum Change 

in Minneapolis, 1917-1950. Curriculum 

Inquiry 12 (1): 4-33. 

Goslin, W. (1940). "Community Relationships - 

An Integral Part of an Educational Program." 

Education: 171-174. 

Goslin, W. (1943). "The In - Service Training 

Program of the Webster Groves Public 

Schools."  National Elementary Principal: 

154-158. 

Goslin, W. (1944). "When We Work Together." 

Educational Leadership 1: 221-225. 

Goslin, W. (1946a). "The Man On the Street and 

His Schools." Education: 634-639. 

Goslin, W. (1946b). "Know Your Teacher." 

Educational Leadership 3: 260-263. 

Goslin, W. (1949a). "Educate for Conservation of 

Resources." Phi Delta Kappa International 

30: 314-315. 

Goslin, W. (1949b). "On These Leadership Must 

Takea Stand." Educational Leadership 6: 258-

263. 

Goslin, W. (1952). "The People and Their School 

System." Peabody Journal of Education 29: 

 194-201. 

Goslin, W. (1953). The People and Their Schools. 

Forces Affecting American Education, 1953 

Yearbook. Washington DC, Association for 

Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Goslin, Willard E. 1944, “When We Work 

Together,” Educational Leadership 1 

(January, 1944): 221-225. 



   

35 

 

Goslin, Willard E. 1946, “The Man on the Street 

and His Schools,” Education, 66 (June, 1946): 

634-639. 

Goslin, Willard E. 1953. The People and Their 

Schools. In Forces Affecting American 

Education, 1953 Yearbook.  Washington DC: 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development. 

Guthrie, J. W. (2003). Goslin, Willard E. (1899-

1969). Encyclopedia of Education. J. W. 

Guthrie. New York, Thomson Gale: 943-944. 

Hulberd, David. 1951. This Happened in 

Pasadena. New York: The Macmillan 

Company. 

Jenkins, Christine. International Harmony: Threat 

or Menace? U.S. Youth Services Librarians 

and Cold War Censorship, 1946-1953.  

Libraries and Culture 36 (1): 116-130. 

Parker, F. and B. Parker (2006). Willard Goslin, 

(1899)-1969). Franklin Parker Publications: 

Weblog. 2006. 

Starr, H. M. (1949). "Health Demonstrations in 

Two Minneapolis Schools." American Journal 

of Public Health: 1156-1162. 

Time (December 1950). Education: Quandary 

Resolved. Time. New York, Time, Inc. 

Time (March 8, 1948). Education: Minneapolis on 

Strike. Time. New York, Time, Inc. 

Time (May 2, 1948). Education: Shock 

Treatment. Time. New York, Time, Inc. 

Time (May,1951). Education: Pasadena Revisited. 

Time. New York, Time, Inc. 

Time (November 1950). Education: Quandary in 

Pasadena. Time. New York, Time, Inc. 

Truman, H. S. (1950). Presidential Appointments 

Calendar. Washington DC, Truman 

Presidential Library: Thursday, April 13, 

1950. 

Truman, H. S. (April 1950). Remarks to Members 

of the U.S. National Comission for UNESCO. 

Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. 

Truman, 1945-1953. Washington DC, Harry 

S. Truman Library and Museum. 

Van Til, William. 1983. My Way of Looking At It: 

An Autobiography. Terre Haute, IN: Lake 

Lure Press.               

Van Til, William. 1993. “The John Dewy 

Society: A Memoir of the Middle Years, 

1947-1973,” Educational Theory 43 (3): 261-

278. 

Zellie, C. (2005). Minneapolis Public Schools 

Historic Context Study. St. Paul, Minneapolis 

Heritage Preservation Commission. 

 

 

 

 


