As an ideal, public school education is more in harmony with the precepts of democracy than education in private schools, and President Conant's alarm at the growth of dual secondary school education in this country is justified. The more private secondary schools supported by government funds, the greater is the danger to a system of education which--if perfect--should provide equal education for all.

But this is the ideal situation. Contemporary public school education on the secondary school level certainly is not markedly good. President Conant seems to realize this when he states that "the founding of a new independent school in a locality is a challenge to those connected with public education...I feel sure in many cases they would never have come into existence if the management of the high school had been wiser."

This point deserves far greater emphasis, however, for if the public school were satisfactory, there would be no rational need for the private school. The theory of better private schools has always been to provide more advanced education to the gifted student. Public schools are seldom able to offer comparable training. Rural secondary education in, for example, Alabama or Oklahoma makes it painfully apparent that President Conant's ideal of public schooling is far from realization.

Public school administrators, Conant maintains, must recognize the validity of some arguments directed against their schools in view of their failure to provide adequate education to the gifted. This is quite true. But in many localities school administrators have been fettered by politics in their attempts to reform education. Cambridge citizens continually complained about the mediocre quality of secondary school education; their protests finally became so violent that the politicians knew something had to be done. Out of the dispute came the Simpson Report, drafted by a member of the faculty of the School of Education and advocating extensive reorganization of the educational set-up. But the hefty report was merely filed away, with only a few of its more conservative recommendations even considered.

Even if the public school is lacking in certain aspects, Conant argues, there are other, more important considerations: public education provides "the ideal of a democratic, fluid society with a minimum of class distinction, the maximum of fluidity, the maximum of understanding between different vocational groups." This is a rather naive notion. There are almost as many class distinctions in the public school system as there are between private and public secondary schools. A public school in a wealthy suburb, Wellesley for example, certainly represents in broad terms one class just as a public school in the poorer sections of East Boston is dominated by another.

Even in localities with varied classes, the effectiveness of public schools in combatting class distinctions is debatable. Perhaps it is inevitable that within any group there will be fraternities, cliques, and clubs which, by their very nature preserve social distinctions.

And while there are isolated segments within the public school system, one wonders whether diversified education within the country as a whole will harm democracy as much as the President feels. Perhaps variety in the educational system aids democracy just as much as strong public schools would. Of course, there is no "yes" or "no" answer to this dilemma, but it does seem that a more effective public school system would not have to worry about competititon from parochial and private schools.

Admittedly President Conant could not delve into all the intricacies of this issue, but he still has left many large problems untouched. There is, for instance, the question of federal aid to public and private colleges. Although President Conant concerns himself only with secondary school education, this issue requires consideration at the same time. If one denies tax assistance to private secondary schools because they hinder the growth of public schools, then one must answer the problem of tax aid to private colleges, which are theoretically competing with state colleges.

And in his statement "a system of schools where the future doctor, lawyer, professor, politician, banker, industrial executive, labor executive, and manual worker have gone together at age fifteen to seventeen is something that exists nowhere in the world outside of the United States," President Conant makes no attempt to explain why he picks ages fifteen to seventeen. If he believes that the public school should influence the developing minds of future citizens, it would seem that the pupils' earlier years, probably in grammar school, would be more conducive to the class understanding President Conant desires.

These are just a few of the issues President Conant has raised. On an idealistic level, we endorse his idea of a strong public school system, for it is only through an effective educational system available to all that a democracy can last. President Conant is wise in taking an unequivocal stand on this issue. But at the same time we feel that he has stated his case inadequately and perhaps so idealistically that it becomes naive. President Conant should not be afraid to explain further his concepts, and in so doing, to grapple more fully with the paramount issues facing the public schools at present.