lem that comes to us through any one of these sources is set the decrea vision of social work which, at its best, sees life whole, and through its pr grams offers us the means for the reflowering of the waste places.

I can, perhaps, be permitted to end this discussion with an incident i the train coming here a dear old lady wished on me some religious tracts. gru me a sure routing to the heavenly city. The tragic implications, to me, diz effort, were that she represents the point of view of millions of people in land, possessed of a cultural outlook thousands of years old. Against the entrenched habits on religious thought, no less than against the bulwarks & the undisciplined democracy, the commercialism, and the barbarous science our day must be cast the whole burden of the message of social work, remains our habits and our institutions, so that we may tentatively approach, a litte more nearly and a little more quickly, that far-off goal of human endeav Finally, if the academic mind in our universities is not to contract beyond accustomed narrow limits, the significance of social work must be set forth z no less than these broad terms; and when we have shown that it is not mere another new trade seeking academic indorsement, we can set to work uns mayed at the grave task of recruiting and educating men and women worthy of the profession.

THE RELATION OF SCHOOLS OF SOCIAL WORK
TO SOCIAL AGENCIES

M. J. Karpf, Director, Training School for Jewish
Social Work, New York

As I see it, there are at least four very important aspects to the problem of training social workers, in which social agencies and the schools for social work have common interests. These are: first, the curriculum; second, the faculty, third, the students; and fourth, teaching material. I shall, therefore, discuss these items in this order.

The curriculum.-The problem of what to include in a course designed to prepare for social work is one of the most important problems facing the schools and agencies-a problem which deserves much more common thinking and discussion than has thus far been given it. Without going into a detailed discussion of the difference between "education" and "training" for social work, a subject which has been very suggestively treated by Professor Tufts, and without necessarily accepting his conclusions in this regard, we may well say that curricula of training schools for social work must be based on the determination as to whether we aim to "train" or to "educate" people for social work. The problem of curricula goes even deeper than that, in my judgment. It seems to me that it goes back to our very conception of social work, its basis, its methods, and its future. If we look upon social work as an art, having its basis in, and deriving

its methods from, the experiences of its practitioners, then our curricula must be of one kind, and its future must be, of necessity, very limited and circumscribed. If we look on social work as having its basis in a science of human behavior, then it follows that its methods must be based upon the application of such science and scientific principles of human behavior as may be available to us, and we must build quite a different type of curricula. Incidentally, also, the future of social work takes on a very bright and promising aspect.

To me there is very little question but that the second view is the only view which the representatives of schools of social work can hold. To accept any other view seems to me to be inconsistent with the most fundamental principles underlying the idea of the need for, and purpose of, training schools. For, if social work is not to be based upon a science of human behavior, then the schools can have nothing but ungeneralized and unsystematized experience to impart to their students, because once attempts are made, even by the schools, to classify, systematize, and generalize the subject-matter which they are teaching, they are, willy-nilly, building up a science of human nature, and it might perhaps be better for the progress of such a science if we left this to those who can concern themselves with this problem exclusively. The imparting of ungeneralized experience does not require schools. That can best be done on the job, and the logical conclusion would be for us to return to the apprenticeship method of training for social work, a consummation devoutly not to be wished, to misquote a well-known phrase. Even the social agencies themselves would not want this step backward.

I am aware, of course, of how little knowledge there is with regard to the problem of human behavior which may be called science. I am also aware of the relatively low repute (and perhaps even disrepute) into which some of the would-be sciences of human behavior have fallen among social workers and even among teachers in schools of social work. However, in my opinion, a program of training or work based upon the assumption that there is or can be no science of human behavior, which some of our schools and agencies seem to have accepted, is not only inimical to the best development of social work, as I have tried to show in another connection, but it argues for the elimination of schools for social work. Let us assume, then, that social work must be based upon scientific principles of human behavior, that curricula of training schools will have to be organized with this as a basis, and let us ask ourselves what the relation between schools and social agencies should be in this connection.

To my way of thinking, this problem has at least three aspects. There is, first of all, the need for the discovery and formulation of the scientific principles; there is, secondly, the problem of developing, testing, and applying these principles; and thirdly, there is the utilization of these applications for the treatment of human problems. Accordingly, it seems to me that there is need for three groups of people. There should be, first of all, the social scientists, people who will carry on the necessary research for the discovery of the laws or prin

ciples of human behavior. These may be people who are interested in pure science, and will no doubt consist of the teachers of the social sciences in the universities. Secondly, there is need for a group of technologists, people who will interpret the findings of the first group and develop the applications of these principles to concrete human situations. This group may well consist of the teachers in the schools of social work. Finally, there is need for a group of practitioners, people who will apply the methods developed to the everyday problems with which social work is concerned.

I know that this view is not altogether new, although it is still startling to a great many people. The two groups who are to be the technologists and the practitioners are dissatisfied with the rôle which they have to play. Some consider that such an arrangement leaves them a relatively unimportant rôle. There are two considerations which may be urged here: the first is that the work which remains for them to do is of tremendous importance of such importance, in fact, that it lends purpose and gives point to the work of the pure scientists, besides providing the touchstones for verifying the truth of their discoveries. The second consideration which I should like to urge is that the relation which I suggested is in actuality the one which obtains, although it may not be generally recognized, and although we may not be taking advantage of it. There can be little question that we must look to the social scientists for the formulation of the principles of human behavior which social work needs for its greatest effectiveness; there can be little question also that the social worker, the person who is engaged in handling problems which require all of his attention and energy, will not be able to keep himself informed, intimately and up to the minute, on the latest discoveries, and work out their application. It is not humanly possible for him to do all this. There will have to be an intermediate group, a group which will be the carrier and interpreter of truth and experience. What more positive and worthwhile rôle can we have as teachers? Is it not the age-old function of the teacher to be the carrier of knowledge and truth and to transmit them to those who will use them for the benefit of mankind?

I submit that a division of labor such as the one I am suggesting would make not only for a broader development and greater usefulness of social work, but that it would provide the basis for a logical relationship between the three groups, and would be productive of an intensified concentration upon the solution of human problems such as we do not have at this time. It would form a chain each link of which would be of equal importance to the strength of the whole, for the entire chain would be no stronger than its weakest link. It would enable each group to contribute to the knowledge and effectiveness of the others, and there would be a give-and-take relationship such as we are sadly lacking now, and for the want of which our work suffers. It would provide an opportunity for that circular interaction which social thinkers and theorists have been emphasizing.

With this in mind, we may approach the question as to what should be the relationship between the schools of social work and the social agencies with regard to the curricula. It is not my purpose here to outline what a course for the adequate preparation for social work should consist of. Obviously it must be based upon an adequate knowledge of the fundamental social, biological, and natural sciences, but it is just as obvious that the schools should have the means for developing the applications which I have already mentioned. This cannot be done unless the schools and the social agencies work together. Unless the applications which the teachers in the various schools develop are tested and applied by social workers there can be little value in them. Social agencies have a right, it seems to me, to expect the schools to develop a body of transmittable information which should be helpful to the young social worker who is taking a course in preparation for social work. Social agencies have a right to ask that the student be initiated into the problems which he is likely to face in the field, and that he should have a point of view which will enable him to cope with the many disappointments which he is likely to meet in his daily work. The schools, on the other hand, have a right to insist that the curriculum must include more than the mere technique which social workers are inclined to ask for. The schools must recognize and make it known that curricula aimed at preparing for social work must be so organized as to give the students not only the methods and techniques of social work, but also the principles on which these methods are based.

Accordingly, it would seem that there should be a very conscious collaboration between the schools and the social agencies on the matter of curricula. There are bound to be differences of opinion in such a collaboration. The socalled "practical" people are likely to insist that curricula include only practical and useful courses. Some of them are most likely to insist that people be trained for "jobs," so that there may be irritations and conflicts in some instances. But if we are to have that fluidity for which Professor Tufts pleads, and which he thinks is the saving grace and the greatest promise of social work among the other professions, differences of opinion are essential, for otherwise we shall become as static and unprogressive as are some of the older professions.

It was this view that we maintained in the organization of our school. Our Committee on Curriculum consists of teachers, social workers, and lay people. We felt that each of these has a contribution to make to the problem of training. While our curriculum is by no means perfect, its defects are due mainly to the limitations of the moment, and we are confident that ultimately we shall have a sound course of study from all points of view.

The faculty. The kind of faculty a school is to have naturally depends very largely on the type of curriculum which the school aims to build up. If it aims to be a trade school, if it wants to prepare people who are to be adept at the routine of social work tasks, its faculty must consist of people who are expert in those tasks and who can, therefore, present to the students the basis for their

own expertness. Faculties of such schools should then be recruited directly from the ranks of social workers. But if it wants to prepare people in line with the view of preparation for social work which I tried to indicate, then its faculty must consist of people who have a thorough grounding in the social sciences and who have experience in the problems and tasks of social work, so that they may develop the applications already mentioned. It will not do to have pure academicians teach in schools of social work any more than it will do to have empirical social workers do the teaching. Professor Steiner, in his suggestive study on Education for Social Work, points out that the methods of instruction and attitudes toward practical work prevailing among university instructors are frequently not applicable to schools of social work without considerable modification. He suggests that, just as curricula of schools of social work in the past have emphasized practical work and methods of procedure, and have consequently induced a disrespect for, and a distrust of, intellectual studies and their proper place in a curriculum designed for professional education, even so do methods of instruction, aiming purely at abstract considerations of social work and its procedure, fail to equip the future social worker with that which he will need for the work. It follows from this that the faculty of a school for social workers must be in part academic and in part practical; or, better still, it should consist of persons who have had a good academic background, who are thoroughly conversant with the progress of the social sciences, and who have had a good deal of practical experience, so that they may know the need, possibilities, and limitations of the applications of social science to human problems. The practice which is frequently current in schools of social work, of people teaching courses dealing with concrete social work processes without their ever having participated in or worked at them, cannot and should not be acceptable to the social agencies. They may well say that theoretical presentations should be limited to the theoretical aspects of social work, and that the practical aspects should be dealt with by persons who know the field as it actually is.

The students.-The student body, too, is the common concern of the schools and social agencies. The students admitted into schools of social work are ultimately to be employed by the agencies. If the development of standards is to be constantly maintained, the agencies will have to employ these people in order to secure people with training.

Just now social agencies and social workers have practically no voice with regard to the admission of students to schools for social work. Nevertheless, they are the ones who will have to employ these same students upon graduation. It is not as if the students were being trained for private enterprises. They are being trained for a socialized profession, the work of which is the common concern of the schools and the agencies. Is it too much to assume that social agencies and social workers have a point of view and experience which may be helpful in the selection of proper candidates for admission into training schools? Would