By far the oldest theory of the mutual relations of the school

and the social order, and the one most widely honored in
practice, is that the school should conserve the existing social
order. This culture was won only at a great cost of time and
suffering. Confronted with the enigmas of life, mankind has only
laboriously and at great sacrifice accumulated a stock of
solutions. It would, obviously, be a great pity if any of these
were to be lost through the school; there is no way to shorten
the period of trial and error which is incident and precedent to
social progress.

Especially, is it important for the school to perform this

conservative function if other social institutions neglect to do
so? Formerly, each institution like the family, church, and state
tended to persuade its own mores. Latterly, however, these mores
have become too more complex for informal translation, and these
institutions have become too busy to attend to their educational
duties adequately. Hence, the evolution of the school as a
residual institution to catch up and preserve social patterns
otherwise in danger or loss or neglect.

Such a description of the conservative function of the school

should lead one to be wary of inferring that, therefore, the
roles of the school is recreationary, it may have been so in
times past. But, ‘conservative’ and ‘recreationary’ are not
synonymous terms, though they sometimes treated as such. To treat
them as synonymous is to confuse the difference in degree they
represent. Proceeding on the conservative theory, it is entirely
possible for the school to preserve social systems of the left as
well as those of the right, radical as well as reactionary
patterns of culture. Indeed, with this qualification, it is
perhaps too much to assert that nearly all educational
philosophers agree that, to some extent at least, the school must
be conservative in function.

There are several difficulties with this normative aspect of the

conservative function of the school. At the outset, one must
beware in simplifying the school environment so that it becomes a
pallid attenuation of the real society it represents or of
purifying it so that it becomes an impractical realization of the
status quo. But next, if there is to be a norm, the question
arises, what shall be the norm, what kind of mesh shall the
school use to screen the social culture. It is one thing to say
that school and college have a function, but it is quite another
to gain general agreement on any particular direction. Perhaps
most general acceptance would go to a screen that is
representative of the values of status quo. Then whether the
status quo is democratic or fascistic, capitalistic or
communistic, there will be relatively little ambiguity on the
norm of conservation.

Conservatives offer little or no objection to the normative

function of the school so long as it seeks to approximate a more
purified form or ordeal of the status quo. The major difficulty
arises when the school adopts a norm radically different from
status quo. Nevertheless, there are liberals and progressives who
think that the school is not just a remedial institution to catch
up and maintain things as they are but a vehicle by which to
forge ahead as well.