The Classical Analysis Story

Edward J. Dodson and Harry Pollard

[What follows is an interview with Harry Pollard, long-time Director of the Henry George School in Southern California and developer of the "Classical Analysis" program for teaching political economy. In this interview, I explore with Harry how he came to embrace the principles espoused in the writings of Henry George and his commitment to teaching of these principles to others. His introduction to Henry George's writings -- and to those who sought to promote them -- began six decades ago in England. He first came to Canada and eventaully settled in southern California to teach and raise his family. This interview took place via e-mail during September and October of 2006.]

EJD: I know you came to Canada in the early 1950s from Britain. Did you learn political economy by taking courses at the Henry George School in London?

HP: I was a Liberal Council Candidate and already a strong free trader, when I noticed something in the Liberal Policy Booklet -- the rating of site-values.

I asked a fellow Liberal -- Charles Aitken -- what it meant and he suggested I take a course at the Henry George School (Charles taught there).

I never finished the basic course -- indeed, I didn't read Henry George's Progress & Poverty until I taught my first course. I was smitten by George's analysis of Ricardo's Law of Rent. Free Trade would increase the size of the pie; now I saw how the pie was being divided -- why the "poor shall always be with us".

I went to the Great Smith Street headquarters of the Henry George School practically every day for a sandwich lunch and haunted the place at other times. And why not? I had probably what were three of the best Georgist teachers in the world: Arthur Madsen, Vic Blundell, and Peter Stubbings. They are to blame for my Georgism -- including the amendments I've made to some of Henry's basic ideas. The arguments were fast and furious as we delved ever deeper into this fascinating inquiry.

EJD: And, how did you get interested in teaching political economy yourself?

HP: Back then I was Chair of London's Young Liberals. On my Executive were such well known Georgists as Roy Douglas and David Mills. It's no surprise that the official policy of the London Liberal Party was "Free Trade, Land Value Taxation, and Co-Partnership in Industry".

I taught a Henry George class or two but was not impressed with the program or the results. However, when I got to Toronto I missed the School. There were several older Georgists in the city including those stalwarts, Ernest and Arthur Farmer, but no activity, so I decided to set up classes. I taught four classes in Fall 1954 and this is where I made the first changes. No classes were free, they were 29 sessions long using four of George's basic books and they were directed to the production of Georgist teachers.

I used $462 of my own money to advertise -- a lot in 1954 for a new immigrant to lose -- so I sweated a lot!

I shouldn't have worried. The 58 hour courses (plus post-class coffee shop) did their job. We made a profit, and we produced Georgists rather than land-value taxers and several teacher recruits. We also formed the Alumni Group -- a highly successful organization.

So, I seriously began my teaching of Political Economy in 1954 in Toronto. I had changed the methods of teaching. I was later to change curriculum and other approaches.

EJD: The early 1950s was still a pretty successful time for the Henry George Schools. There were many extensions still functioning and many "graduates." The annual conferences were organized by the schools as well. Did you discuss with people like Bob Clancy, Bob Tideman and others what you felt were advantages to the "new" approach you were taking? Did any of the Georgist educators try out your methods and strategies?

HP: Unfortunately, Bob Clancy was really not a bit interested in anything new. At the time plenty of people were enrolling in the free classes so why should any changes be made?

Bob Tideman had the best organized School among us. He set up a great alumni organization that benefited from the doctors in Marin County. Doctor Val Jaros was an early graduate and a great teacher. He roped in something like a quarter of the local doctors in Marin.

These were mostly pretty well off, very able, and enthusiastic. The San Francisco Henry George School looked most like a real school. However it was an expensive operation and soon Bob's time was almost entirely spent keeping everything running.

This must be contrasted with the Ontario Alumni Group which was a loose organization that managed to achieve more publicity, more radio time, more 'Georgists' than any other School -- by virtue of its system.

Bob Clancy wanted some financial information from me on one occasion and I told him the Alumni Group were running the School and handled the books and he was somewhat affronted at the thought that I wasn't doing it. (He should have asked how was this possible.) Bob was not open to new ideas and came into conflict with some other Directors.

However, as Bob Tideman said: "Whatever we may say about Bob Clancy, at least he has kept the School Georgist."

A carefully planned organization looks restrictive to the 'loose' planner -- a loosely planned organization frightens the careful planner.

Meantime, the San Francisco Board grew dissatisfied with the time Bob Tideman spent micro-managing and essentially demoted him to education director and brought in Cathy Covell to handle management. Bob promptly (and properly) resigned and the School lost one of the best Georgists we have ever had. Cathy lasted a few months then left San Francisco to go east. The San Francisco School then slipped downhill to its present situation.

Back then, School Directors were expensed to the annual conferences and we always got a good turnout. This was ended in the Weinstein period -- without doubt one of the many false economies she instituted.

Based on my Ontario experience with the School of Economic Science I came to several conclusions:

The School's orientation is to offer a short course in land-value taxation. In the post-war period, a free course in reforming the property tax was very acceptable to many people and classes would be well attended and most would graduate with the view that LVT was a good idea.

Graduation meant attendance at 7 of the 10 Basic Course sessions.

However, few would appreciate the Georgist philosophy. Only a very small number would continue the study with the advanced classes. They were the few who were likely to become teachers, supporters, and life-long Georgists.

As the heady post-war period came to a close, Georgist classes in the UK as well as the US fell into a routine. A promotion would attract a small bunch of people to the first class. Then, as the weeks went by the class would dwindle often to a very few -- even as the actual reading of Progress & Poverty seldom occurred.

This was bad enough in New York. It was much worse for the morale of the regional Directors. Coming each week to a failed class of perhaps 3-4 remaining students made them feel they weren't very good at their job. They usually kept going by sheer grit.

Financing the School was supposed to come from graduates, but this was not a significant amount. Better were the contributions of our ancient Georgists who gave money, or left bequests.

At least two outside companies surveyed the school. Their conclusions were that the regional schools got together enough money to run classes. Not many graduates were counted, little money came from contributions and nothing much happened until enough money was gathered to run another class promotion.

I had seen a similar situation in England where at one time classes achieved about 1,000 graduates a year, but were now down to a trickle.

Another UK episode influenced me. A young English woman had attended a class and had seen the cat. At the office, she tried to tell her colleagues about LVT and the amazing results it could achieve. She was flattened. She couldn't effectively answer questions and she was embarrassed. She didn't mention LVT again.

So, when I got to Canada and began classes I was determined not to produce 7 session graduates. I wanted Georgists who knew their stuff and it seemed to me that the way to do that would be to keep them in class for as long as possible.

If we ran all three basic courses together over about 30 sessions or more we ought to produce -- not land-value taxers, but Georgists -- those who have seen the cat. Later, I also added post-class coffee and pie sessions. There, students got to know each other and informally could discuss points that weren't clear. This is invaluable and students soon become accustomed to chatting after class.

The student who doesn't really accept what he has heard can let it out at coffee and be answered (perhaps) by a fellow student. This might enable him to understand.

At the first class, I would tell students that many of them would be teaching their own classes in the near future. It would be great fun and they would meet a lot of interesting people. As I recall, there was a friendly acceptance of this thought. Perhaps I was making them part of the School from the beginning -- rather than their being a customer for what the School was selling.

Also, the classes were Socratic. If you know your subject, Socratic questioning is best. A lecture takes time, effort, and skill -- and is not so effective as a Socratic Group. A lecture -- telling a student what he should learn is often viewed somewhat skeptically (particularly if it is free!) whereas an open discussion lulls suspicion.

I should add that attrition of students was very low. More than 90% would stay the 30 weeks and classes of 100% retention were not unusual.

Back in New York, I remember Dorothy Sara proudly telling us she had taught more than 50 classes -- a definite achievement. Or was it? Perhaps it would have been better for 25 Dorothy Saras each to teach two classes!

From this thought was born the tutorial system. We called our teachers 'Tutors' because it sounds better.

A new teacher got his feet wet as an Assistant Tutor. He would assist a regular Tutor -- filling in when the tutor couldn't make a session. After 30 weeks as an Assistant, he became a Tutor and could teach a class with another Assistant Tutor. He had taken no teacher training, but he had attended 120 hours of Georgist discussion. After his Tutor stint, he had completed 180 hours.

We then called him a Senior Tutor and wouldn't let him teach any more. But, from thereon he would be introduced as, or his letter to the newspaper would be signed as, "Senior Tutor of the School of Economic Science".

The entire operation depended on charging for classes. We charged $17 for the first 10 sessions and P&P -- another $12 for the second 20 sessions -- and three books. We thought the $12 extension would be an offer they couldn't refuse. In fact, it wasn't needed and we abandoned it quickly and simply charged $29 for the full course. This is approximately equivalent in 2005 to $211 (CPI) or $300 (unskilled wage).

So, now you know why this was never taken up by New York. It was simply too revolutionary -- too different from the methods that had been used for a quarter century. Methods that did not produce particularly good results, but which were safe.

If support for long classes had been given to the extensions and affiliates, perhaps things would have been different, but we can only speculate.

When I left Canada for California, our graduate total for the 1961/1962 season was 206 and we had 26 active fully trained teachers -- who had never taken a teacher training course. This, from a School that had no staff, no headquarters, and not a lot of money.

Significant was the event at Erie, PA. Bill Walker had received the support of the Junior Chamber of Commerce in promoting the Graded Tax. So a Seminar was arranged. Six Senior Tutors drove from Ontario to the Seminar to present the advantages of Two-Rate Taxation.

We did well. The Erie newspaper next morning changed position and published a lead editorial in favor of the Graded Tax. Also, we got a great front page report (with pictures) of the Seminar emphasizing our contribution.

EJD: Of your time in Ontario, do I understand you correctly that the School of Economic Science did not follow the approach of the New York Henry George School, teaching about land-value taxation rather than the courses on political economy using George's books and the Socratic method of instruction?

You also comment on attrition of students during the courses. Was it your feeling that the design of the courses was the main problem, or was it more the post-war atmosphere and the expanded access to educational opportunities?

HP: Based on my Ontario experience with the School of Economic Science I came to several conclusions:

The School's orientation is to offer a short course in land-value taxation. ... However, few would appreciate the Georgist philosophy. Only a very small number would continue the study with the advanced classes. They were the few who were likely to become teachers, supporters, and life-long Georgists.

EJD: You said "the Ontario Alumni Group which was a loose organization that managed to achieve more publicity, more radio time, more 'Georgists' than any other School -- by virtue of its system." Can you elaborate somewhat on this? Was this because of the number of teachers that came out of the courses and their contacts in the community?

HP: You must remember that we didn't allow teachers to teach more than two classes -- that is 60 sessions added to their original 30 sessions as student. This gave them 180 hours of class work. It also meant that we had plenty of fully trained Georgists with nothing to do. This is how the Alumni Group was formed and later The Alumni Group International. Fortunately, we avoided the Alumni Society of the School of Economic Science (ASSES)

We needed some kind of alumni association so we decided simply to take the name Alumni -- what arrogance!

We sent out many press releases until the three Toronto newspapers were somewhat familiar with us. We even went into their city rooms of the newspapers to use their typewriters to type out press releases. We had in a monthly alumni group meeting that was always controversial and fun. We never had a speaker or a film which produces a somewhat passive audience.

Before long, they knew me at the CBC and it was possible for me to put visiting Georgists on the air. I remember driving down Jarvis Street with Harry Gunnison Brown and his wife and another economist to appear on a program. I was chatting away to them when I realized they had fallen deathly quiet. CBC radio was announcing the program and telling listeners that Harry Gunnison Brown was the special guest.

Our breakthrough came when we set up a series of meetings before the local elections. In September, we brought together the various Toronto council candidates. The meeting was sparsely attended and that gave the local newspapers an opportunity to jeer a little. In October, our second meeting brought together the aldermanic candidates. We had a pretty good crowd well attended by the newspapers. In November, we brought together the mayoralty candidates just before polling day. They were somewhat reluctant, so we used unabashed blackmail.

"I'm sorry you can't make it. All the other candidates will be there, along with tremendous media coverage and this is the last big meeting before the election."

As you see, over the years we had learned a great deal.

The mayoralty meeting was a huge success. The hall was crowded and packed with the media. A veteran attacked the Mayor with his crutch and was taken away by the police. It was perfect. We got 185 inches of front page stories in the three Toronto newspapers. From thereon we had reporters at most of our Group meetings.

On one occasion, we had a friend of mine -- a Unitarian minister -- as one of our guest speakers.

The Globe and Mail reporter came in late and asked me if anything exciting had happened.

I said: "How about the Minister advocating legalized prostitution?" (As I said, he was a friend of mine. I knew he advocated it -- though it hadn't come up at the meeting.)

Of course, the reporter jumped on it. Next day, it was in all the papers. It went from one end of Canada to the other and became the subject of dozens of radio talk shows.

I came back to Canada for the School Montréal conference much later. As is usual, we had no publicity. I told them what to do and created a rather obscure "hook". We got both English and French papers and had television crews in our corridors.

It shows what can be done. And I'm a bloody amateur. I fear we miss a lot of opportunities.


EJD: I was under the impression that under Clancy the fundamentals course was pretty much like it was when I took it in Philadelphia in 1980 -- which was the full 10 weeks on George's political economy. Are you referring to the post-Clancy era, or the fact that as the 1950s ended the number of students began to decline and fewer new teachers emerged?

HP: As far as I know the school courses have been pretty much the same since 1932. In 1948 England as well as here free courses were offered in basic economics. These were free 10 session courses in Progress and Poverty. In order to get a certificate of completion (graduate) one had to attend at least seven of the 10 sessions. In practice, the basic course was intended to sell the concept of the land value taxation. It was not a course in economics, nor was it a course in Georgism. Later, graduates were offered the chance to take further courses, but few did.

Clancy was wedded to the way it had always been done. He proved to be utterly unresponsive to possibilities of change, or even improvement. I think it is more a question of not rocking the boat than anything else. Perhaps, he didn't notice that more and more the school was relying on old teachers teaching many classes. This avoided producing new teachers, which I expect wasn't easy. Also, although lesson sheets with questions we used, it seems to me that the classes became more lecture than discussion and fewer and fewer read the book.

Also, and perhaps because of poor recruitment, our outreach appeared to falter. We no longer held regional classes in the suburbs where people lived in the evening. In Ontario, with the aid of our Georgists, we spread to Hamilton some 40 miles away and even into Niagara Falls -- perhaps 70 or 80 miles away.

HP: When I got to Canada and began classes I was determined not to produce 7 session graduates. I wanted Georgists who knew their stuff and it seemed to me that the way to do that would be to keep them in class for as long as possible. If we ran all three basic courses together over about 30 sessions or more we ought to produce --- not land-value taxers, but Georgists -- those who have seen the cat. Later, I also added post-class coffee and pie sessions. There, students got to know each other and informally could discuss points that weren't clear.

EJD: As you know, there are very few Georgists left in Canada. Sadly, most of the stalwart Georgists have died and have not been replaced. When you left Canada, what happened? Was there no one prepared to carry on with the same approach as you had used?

HP: When I left Canada to take over the Los Angeles school in the fall of '62, Jim Ramsey took over from me. Jim was a fine Georgist and one of the best Socratic teachers I've ever met. He was one of my first graduates and he sold encyclopedias to offices -- well, actually Magazine subscriptions which included a free encyclopedia! I had two other possible directors who were also the first class. However, Jim was the first choice.

Unfortunately, after a year, Jim had to move to Alberta where, incidentally, he directed the School of Economic Science in Calgary for some years. He died suddenly and unexpectedly too soon.

I'm sure that if we had been a corporation, the New York director would have consulted with me about a new director. However I heard nothing. Someone called Laurie Mannel became director. I heard nothing about this until some time later when he wrote me a somewhat sad letter. He said that no one had a good word to say about me but they worked their heads off with me. Everyone liked him but nobody did anything.

I think the Ontario Georgists thought that I had let them down -- abandoned them with for the lure of California.

They were probably right. But, I wanted to try some of these new methods in a regular school with some money and a headquarters.

In Ontario, I think the School went downhill. Somewhere along the line the School decided to abandon classes and become "practical". They surveyed the town of Port Credit in order, I suppose, to give the evidence to the government and thus institute immediate land value taxation. The whole project failed and along with it the School.

That was more than 40 years ago. I suppose we still have some old graduates around -- John Fisher comes to mind.

I arrived in Los Angeles and the first thing I encountered was a cut in the allocation from New York to Los Angeles. As I recall, we received $6,000 a year. This was cut to $3,000. I suppose it was an indication that Bob Clancy was unhappy about my move to Los Angeles and the possible changes that would ensue.

I had given up four profitable representations in Ontario. The four concerns obviously would not hire me back if I failed in Los Angeles and returned to Canada. So I had taken a major risk, something apparently that Bob was not willing to do.

I should make clear that Bob and I were friends. Indeed, one summer my family stayed at his apartment in Jackson Heights. It was just his tendency to hang on to the tried and true -- even though there were looming problems.

EJD: Harry, you said: "the classes were Socratic. If you know your subject, Socratic questioning is best. A lecture takes time, effort, and skill - and is not so effective as a Socratic Group. A lecture - telling a student what he should learn is often viewed somewhat skeptically (particularly if it is free!) whereas an open discussion lulls suspicion." When I first began teaching, I relied on the use of the prepared questions, going over them under the assumption the students had done the reading and had completed the questions for the lesson. That rarely was the case, which gradually caused me to move to the lecture/discussion format. Would you still recommend the Socratic method today, given the difficulty many students have reading George (or committing the time to do much reading)?

HP: The courses in Ontario were the standard Henry George School courses. We appeared to have no problem with students reading Progress and Poverty and the other books. I put this down to the fact that they paid for the classes. In other words they were getting a regular educational course -- not a freebie that is taken more casually.

However, they were Socratic rather than lecture with continuous discussion around the class.

EJD: Harry, you said: "By golly, I have just realized that I was establishing a priesthood!!!" What about that group. Again, I guess my question is, while it makes sense that many of them have been lost to us because of age, were you encouraged that second and third and fourth generations would emerge, or did this prove very difficult because the success was highly dependent upon your direct involvement?

HP: As I said, the year after I left, things went well. But, after Jim left, I fear the impact of two desertions was hard on the Group. However, if I had been involved in choosing a successor, I think all would have been well. The New York School should have paid for me to return to Toronto for a week or so while we worked on a successor. If my two replacements were still available, I rather think one of them would have become the new Director.

I think we needed several years of success, spreading our influence further afield to become a solid part of the Province. But, unfortunately that was not to be. I set up a viable system that worked. Changes would have happened but sensibly they would have been variations on the system.

HP: If support for long classes had been given to the extensions and affiliates, perhaps things would have been different, but we can only speculate. I don't think much has changed to this day.

EJD: Well, in a modest attempt to replicate your program, I have tried to offer students a full year-long program of study. So far, there has been almost no interest. New York might have a better chance of doing something that is successful.

HP: With respect, old friend, that won't do it. Simply offering a long course is of little use if there is not a good reason for people to take it. Our advertising concentrated on "Improve your Ability". We did not try to sell Henry George. We sold the idea that at the end of the course you would be better than when you started it.

As a result, the students we got were pretty good. We analyzed them into the ground and sent the results to New York. Our demographics were excellent. We got the right age groups, the right kind of people - professionals and suchlike - and people who wanted to improve themselves. Without doubt, this is the reason why the Alumni Group was so good.

Free classes do not produce these kinds of students.

EJD: Tell me, if you will, about the transition in your approach from a straightforward course on George's political economy to "classical analysis" and your thinking behind the presentation of the concepts.

HP: The Los Angeles School had some money. However they decided to use it to help Bill complete his PhD. This was proper as some of it came from the Lincoln Foundation for that purpose.

An essential part of promotion was to advertise in the major daily newspaper in an area. Thus, a number of classes could be run around the area. However, in the Los Angeles area there were a dozen daily newspapers. In our straitened circumstances, I persuaded myself that they would be the equivalent. So, I split our promotion money. This didn't work. I should have only advertised in the LA Times -- and did from thereon.

Results were poor. We actually lost money - that is, we didn't make a profit (something I was used to).

Money was short. At one point, I was 5 months behind with my salary. This is the time when I did a lot of radio and TV work. We achieved a stable of 21 Georgists who could help production and appear in my programs on Pacifica. KPFK was the most powerful station in Southern California. Our programs were heard everywhere.

I did some commercial television and two PBS hour programs with the San Francisco School, appearing on a panel in one, and moderating on the other.

In my best year I did 185 hours of production and appearances on radio and TV. Many f these appeared on other Pacifica stations across the country. I also haven't counted a network of 400 radio stations across the country on which I placed a number of Georgists.

While waiting for our financial condition to improve, I worked on improving our courses I wanted to get away from the traditional four books in order - not really a good way to teach George. So, I put together Classical Analysis - 102 pages of discussion drawn from the four books and laid out in logical fashion over 30 weeks, or so. The first page was mostly from the Science of Political Economy.

In parallel with this I had written Mini-Courses for High Schools. This began in class in 1970. It took the analysis to a point that showed the clear difference between Land and other things and demonstrated the effect of land speculation on Wages.

It could be used in any course that could handle debate, and was used from 6th Grade to 12th. I counted the number of students who enjoyed a Mini, and rapidly went to 15,000. I stopped, but then began again up to 85,000 when I stopped for good for the Basic Course was being used in scores of schools and in many courses. As it spread, I simply enjoyed the success. I rather think that hundreds of thousands have completed the Basic Course over the years.

For adults, we resumed courses with the 102 page Classical Analysis and achieved good success - getting back our promotion money, and producing many members for the Alumni Group, for our Board, and for teaching. However, although the Course was a good economics class, it didn't have the fire of George's writing. However, as few students of the School's Basic Course actually read even P&P that probably wasn't significant.

The original Basic Minis, the Adult Classical Analysis, and the InterStudent Economics Course, all pursued the same line.

After basic definitions, and a thorough discussion of value, the free market and free trade were thoroughly explored.

Then it would be shown that the free market wouldn't work for while Labor and Capital were controlled by the price mechanism -- Land was not. Then we would show how the free market would be made efficient by solving the land problem. Then we go into the onset of depression, and finish up with an analysis of money.

Money actually was originally linked to value, but the end of semester gets a little rushed, so I moved money to the 9th and last Cycle. the end. If the Nine Cycles weren't completed, better to lose a little 'Money' rather than another more important part of the course.

HP: I fear we miss a lot of opportunities.

EJD: No doubt this is true. Our efforts in Philadelphia, New York and Chicago are yielding few committed Georgists. Yet, that has long been the criticism of your approach in California -- thousands of students going thru InterStudent courses but no later involvement with the "Georgist movement." How do you respond?

HP: To many, no matter what courses they take, the "Georgist Movement" means little. Think of the 100,000 graduates (or whatever) of the Henry George Schools across the world.

Where are they now?

I have mentioned the camaraderie that accompanies a class that enjoys coffee and pie together after a session. A similar effect perhaps surrounds an HGS HQ and its people when students complete courses. Maybe they enjoy a picnic together, or see a Friday Night film. It becomes their club. As the focus of local Henry George Schools is likely to be LVT, that's what they gather around and may even attend a conference.

Seems to me that for years Conference attendance has been around a 100, but I could be wrong. During this time, how many students have completed courses in New York alone?

Where are they now?

Certainly not at our conferences -- though obviously local grads may well help out at a locally organized conference.

Perhaps the best recruiter to the "Georgist Movement" is Progress and Poverty!

Remember that everyone knows that it's impossible to get George taught in the public schools, so the first thing that had to be done was the impossible.

That we did.

Our next target was to take over an entire economics department. We came close, but finally succeeded at Newark High School about 30 miles South of San Francisco.

Our new School north of Sacramento looks promising, but is in its initial stages.

We also had essay contests for our graduates and where possible we highlighted them at our meetings.

If we had had a decent HQ we would have had periodic meetings -- also we would have set up an intern program.

Teachers love special events, so an InterSchool Debate between the best InterStudent Debating Groups would have been fun. It would be preceded by run-offs at the Schools in which they find their best groups.

They are fun. I remember a Group declaring they were against all taxes. An interrogating Group said: "Then you are against the land value tax!" "No, No" said the Advocates.

They were "Creamed" on a contradiction and lost points.

But, that's not enough. They need lots of follow-up (as do our School graduates). This means a newsletter and personal/School contact as well as events.

But first, a caveat that applies to everything we do.

We are boring.

How do we solve city problems?

LVT

How do we solve environmental programs?

LVT

How do we solve overpopulation?

LVT

How do we solve Global Warming

LVT

It doesn't matter that all this is true. We are Johnny One-Note. Once we have spoken we have nothing more to say. Even though they may like us, we are boring and really have nothing to say except our desire to reform the property tax with its side effect of curing the common cold.

As you know, I'm a Global Warming skeptic, an overpopulation skeptic, an 'peak oil' skeptic, a DDT ban skeptic, and so on.

This gets me into great arguments that invariably lead to the land question. Whereupon . . . . ?

You'll recall what I said at Bridport -- "We have a solution for a problem no-one knows they have."

In other words, we should spend some more time on the problem and less on the solution.

You'll recall the paper on land speculation I gave to the economics section of the AAAS. I finished and a lady asked "But what would you do about it?"

That meant another 20 minutes.

HP: Simply offering a long course is of little use if there is not a good reason for people to take it. Our advertising concentrated on "Improve your Ability". We did not try to sell Henry George. We sold the idea that at the end of the course you would be better than when you started it.

As a result, the students we got were pretty good. We analyzed them into the ground and sent the results to New York. Our demographics were excellent. We got the right age groups, the right kind of people -- professionals and suchlike -- and people who wanted to improve themselves. Without doubt, this is the reason why the Alumni Group was so good. By golly, I have just realized that I was establishing a priesthood!!!

EJD: This sounds a bit John Deweyesque (as opposed to Robert Hutchinsesque). I interpret this to mean you found a more receptive audience by stressing that the course had a practical benefit to people as opposed to a potential political benefit (i.e., a basis for taking on a cause)?

As the 1960s arrived, the education environment expanded enormously. The high schools offered evening courses on all sorts of skill-development subjects; and, people could inexpensively attend the two-year community colleges. How did "Classical Analysis" compete in this changing atmosphere?

HP: If you come to a course for which you pay $29 - ($211 now using the CPI) you want to know it is worth it.

If you are a busy adult involved in many things, you are more likely to take a course that immediately improves you than a recreational activity -- including saving the world.

So the thrust of our advertising was "Improve your ability to think, to reason, to communicate."

That's how we got a preponderance of young. middle-class professionals -- presumably the kind we need to continue and improve the school.

HP: This is the time when I did a lot of radio and TV work. We achieved a stable of 21 Georgists who could help production and appear in my programs on Pacifica. KPFK was the most powerful station in Southern California. Our programs were heard everywhere.

I did some commercial television and two PBS hour programs with the San Francisco School, appearing on a panel in one, and moderating on the other.

EJD: Have you saved any of these programs on tape? I would love to resurrect excerpts of some of it to show at the school or at the annual conference. Better yet, to put some of the programs out on the internet.

HP: Somewhere or the other, I have a couple of 15" diameter tapes. These were probably not good ones. The best went to other Pacifica stations for airtime.

This was 35-40 years ago. I would think they've all gone into the dustbin by now.

HP: For adults, we resumed courses with the 102 page Classical Analysis and achieved good success -- getting back our promotion money, and producing many members for the Alumni Group, for our Board, and for teaching. However, although the Course was a good economics class, it didn't have the fire of George's writing. However, as few students of the School's Basic Course actually read even P&P that probably wasn't significant.

EJD: What would you change to give it "the fire of George's writing"?

HP: I would give a separate short course on Henry George and his wonderful insights. They would relate George to what they had learned and . . . . ?

EJD: At the birthplace, we have been promoting the introductory course with the title "Economics for a Sustainable and Peaceful Planet." The results have been good, as measured by retention. That said, we have not been able to recruit new teachers. I suspect it is because the students believe the subject is too complicated to teach without years of study.

HP: You'll note the way we produced teachers out of students.

EJD: I'd like to try to resurrect Classical Analysis in Philadelphia, maybe beginning next Fall. I need to finish the bulk of my work compiling the Georgist history and getting as much of the archived material on-line as I can.

HP: I'll have to resurrect the 102 pages first! Remember, it is a Socratic Course. The leader obviously helps things along with appropriate additional questions, but the class is carried by the active participation of the students.

EJD: Harry, you said: "Think of the 100,000 graduates (or whatever) of the Henry George Schools across the world. Where are they now?" As we experience, our classroom discussions do not move people to action, to involvement, with rare exceptions. Most disappear. In Philadelphia, our efforts to establish an alumni group have failed to take root. A small number of people come for a time, then fade away.

HP: It rapidly becomes obvious to the new grad that the school is trying to find things for him to do, so they lose interest in further activity with the school. Anyone worth his salt doesn't want to do a busy job. He wants a job that will accomplish something.

You'll recall that in Ontario and later in Los Angeles graduates became teachers or had jobs running the group. Our most skilled and knowledgeable graduates -- the Senior Tutors -- were involved in the regular meetings, public and private, and contact with the media. All those who went to Erie PA for the Tax Seminar were Senior Tutors from Toronto and Hamilton. They all took part in the Seminar as leaders of some kind.

EJD: Harry, you said: "Remember that everyone knows that it's impossible to get George taught in the public schools, so the first thing that had to be done was the impossible. That we did. " How was the decision made to shift attention from adult classes to high school students? Did this occur after Bob Clancy's tenure as Director ended in New York?

HP: That High School program began in the fall of 1970. Can't remember when Bob left.

I made the decision. I put together eight Mini-Units each of four pages. Each Mini-Unit was designed to last for four days followed by a fifth day debate. The content of the Mini-Units were essentially the beginning of the basic course emphasizing the separation between land and other things. The Minis finished with a discussion of the harmful effects of land speculation on wages. I offered no solution. I sold it as a course that could be used with any subject where debate could be used. This meant it could be dropped into practically any subject -- I turned down driver education!

I would say: "Whenever you're feeling jaded or the students are feeling jaded, drop in a Mini-Unit. The InterStudent Mini-Units cover basic human behavior and can be useful with any subject."

So, 100,000 students or 200,000 students were exposed to these Mini-Units (I stopped counting at 85,000).

At an annual social studies conference in California, Bret Barker stopped by our booth. We talked for an hour over lunch. Bob Scrofani joined the conversation at the booth and gave Bret a Progress and Poverty. Bret began to use the eight Mini's.

To cut a long story short, Bret decided to teach a course of economics. I wrote the full course for him and this became InterStudent economics. It went through many revisions but was eventually the full semester economics course that we began selling to teachers.

EJD: Harry, you said: "But, that's not enough. They need lots of follow-up (as do our School graduates). This means a newsletter and personal/School contact as well as events." You were essentially on your own, though, weren't you? Did anyone else pick up on your efforts and try to get InterStudent into any schools outside of California?

When Phil was Director in New York I spent two weeks there. About half a dozen appointments were set up for me and I visited the schools to start them using the Minis. However, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for the project and any progress I made was allowed to wither.

EJD: Harry, you said: "If you are a busy adult involved in many things, you are more likely to take a course that immediately improves you than a recreational activity -- including saving the world. So the thrust of our advertising was "Improve your ability to think, to reason, to communicate. That's how we got a preponderance of young. middle-class professionals -- presumably the kind we need to continue and improve the school." Some of us believe the strategy most likely to achieve results is to target our programs (whether seminars or courses) to activists (i.e., to people who are already focused on serious problems and trying to do something about them). Are you sympathetic to this approach today, or would you continue to try to reach "young, middle-class professionals"?

I think Dan Sulllivan analyzed this very well. Although they might be persuaded to include LVT in their platform, it will always be a poor second to their raison d'etre.

We have to create our own Georgists and teaching is the way to do it.

****

HP: You'll recall that in Ontario and later in Los Angeles graduates became teachers or had jobs running the group. Our most skilled and knowledgeable graduates -- the Senior Tutors -- were involved in the regular meetings, public and private, and contact with the media. All those who went to Erie PA for the Tax Seminar were Senior Tutors from Toronto and Hamilton. They all took part in the Seminar as leaders of some kind.

EJD: Are the times so different now that this level of involvement is unlikely to occur again?

HP: The times don't matter. What matters is that the alumni have something important to do.

They shy away and ultimately disappear when it becomes obvious that work is being contrived to give them something to do. If useful things are being done and they are doing them they will become involved and stay involved.

In New York for example there is a need for regional classes. People live in the suburbs and that's where they can be found in the evenings. So, that's where we should be. However, this requires a lot of work but its something that the alumni can do.

Regional teacher enthusiasm begins to disappear with free classes. Not a lot of people come to them and of those who do only a small proportion finish. Often our teachers blame themselves and are mollified only when they find that "that's the way it is". Needless to say, small classes and few graduates are accepted and soon we are doing little more than marking time.

I can see no way in which we can be successful unless we offer fee classes with professional Socratic teachers. Charging for classes means that students are buying something. This means they want value for money. "Professional" Socratic teachers do not contact students at a distance which is what happens with lectures. Rather, they become part of the group. Everything becomes more friendly as rapport builds. (I use the term "professional" in the sense of competent.)

When they have completed three basic courses many of them want to continue to work with the School. However, again there is a caveat. They must be given jobs which are important to do. One of the objects of the fee courses is to get a good class of student. If the advertising concentrates on "improvement" students who come to class come because they want to improve themselves -- perhaps a desirable trait.

Often, a free class is where you go when you want something to do -- something to fill in your time. You'll stay if you are kept amused but it seems rare for more than a tiny number to see the profundity behind the window dressing.

Henry George School Directors are a tough bunch. They have to be to keep springing back into the fray. There is a tendency to cut the lengths and times of courses. "Maybe we can get them to hang on if there are only 5 sessions."

Ten sessions are too little to appreciate George. I fear a short course becomes a propaganda for land-value tax exercise -- as perhaps is also the full 10 session course.

We become established not as a school but as an advocacy group -- which maybe is what we are. You know I like to repeat my remark that 'we have a solution to a problem that no-one knows they have'.

What follows from that is we need more attention (most attention) to be given to how the economy works, why it casts people into poverty, and why it completely breaks down from time to time.

If we have done a good job, solutions will come up and ours will be on the front burner.

The School doesn't have a good reputation among active Georgists even though perhaps most of them found George through the School.

They feel it's wasting money while not doing anything important (unlike the exciting things that they are doing). Yet, the job of the School is to promote the philosophy of Henry George, to improve it and expand on it. It also needs to make the Georgist philosophy part of mainstream economics. It's about time we stomped on the notion that we are a small bunch of true believers without much substance to offer.

EJD: Harry, you said: "At an annual social studies conference in California, Bret Barker stopped by our booth. We talked for an hour over lunch. Bob Scrofani joined the conversation at the booth and gave Bret a Progress and >Poverty. Bret began to use the eight Mini's. To cut a long story short, Bret decided to teach a course of economics. I wrote the full course for him and this became InterStudent economics. Cost us went through many revisions but was eventually the full semester economics course that we began selling to teachers." With so many students completing InterStudent over the decades, do you see any reservoir of interest in our perspectives surviving after these students leave high school? I recall that Bret (and a few other teachers) received letters from former students, but I wonder whether this is a rarity or something that occurs frequently enough to suggest what they learn carries with them in their adult lives.

HP: The best we could do was to give essay contests to local students and we would give the prizes out at our First Friday meetings. We didn't have the money to do more than that. You arranged for us to have a worthwhile budget for a couple of years. This is a time of our greatest expansion. However when Connie arrived she cut us severely while making snide remarks about our fictional high schools -- and for that matter our fictional Board of Directors. This though George Collins had visited three schools teaching InterStudent near San Francisco, near Palm Springs, and in Los Angeles. He also attended a meeting of our Board of Directors.

EJD: I'll accept that as a strong last word on the subject. The challenge, then, is how to use the resources we have available to us to achieve the best results.

HP: I can see no way in which we can be successful unless we offer fee classes with professional Socratic teachers. Charging for classes means that students are buying something. This means they want value for money. "Professional" Socratic teachers do not contact students at a distance which is what happens with lectures. Rather, they become part of the group. Everything becomes more friendly as rapport builds. (I use the term "professional" in the sense of competent.)

EJD: And yet, Harry, what people are flocking to are "how to" and skill development courses, mostly to enhance their credentials for employment. Without being a degree-issuing institution, how do we compete for students (other than by nominal fees) when our program is on the order of intellectual enrichment?

HP: I must look up the ancient ads. Essentially, they said:

Improve Your Ability

To Think!

To Reason!

To Understand!

Based on a Study recommended by (the usual list of names).

Not quite like that, but that set the tone.

From hundreds of students, we never got a complaint and indeed the low attrition was evidence that they were happy with what they got.

Oh, and not a nominal fee. A good fee!

You are initially measured by how much you charge. When you charge little -- or nothing -- you are not regarded as benefactors, but as people trying to peddle their hobbyhorses.

HP: When they have completed three basic courses many of them want to continue to work with the School. However, again there is a caveat. They must be given jobs which are important to do. One of the objects of the fee courses is to get a good class of student. If the advertising concentrates on "improvement" students who come to class come because they want to improve themselves -- perhaps a desirable trait.

EJD: Isn't this a bit dishonest? Our students do experience enrichment, in the sense of a new perspective on how the political and economic world works. HP: You can "experience enrichment, in the sense of a new perspective on how the political and economic world works" with the Greens, the libertarians, with almost any group that wants to save the world -- or push an advocacy.

At the first session, we told them they would learn how to analyze the world around them, we told them that they would not only learn some of the great ideas of Western civilization, but they would learn how to communicate them.

Finally, we told them it was likely that they would be teaching a class themselves in due course.

All this at the first session and of course we came through and a number did teach after they had been through their 60 hours of study and their 60 hours as an Assistant Tutor.

So, in no way were we dishonest in our advertising.

HP: Often, a free class is where you go when you want something to do -- something to fill in your time. You'll stay if you are kept amused but it seems rare for more than a tiny number to see the profundity behind the window dressing.

EJD: We have subtitled the fundamentals course in Philadelphia: "Economics for a Peaceful and Sustainable Planet." The promotional material tells students they will learn the reasons why we have problems such as poverty and economic recessions and what measures can be employed as solutions. The first night of class we have 32 students, and we gave them a thorough introduction to Henry George. About half came back in week two and are continuing to come. My sense is that this approach yields about the same results as charging a higher fee up front (i.e., those who expected something entertaining and not too intellectually demanding decide not to come back). I take that even today, given that people have so many other demands on their time (and diversions) that you would still promote your program to students as a course in "self-improvement."

HP: I rather suspect that the 30 students came because it was free, those who stayed did so because you were leading the class. With a less experienced and charismatic teacher perhaps the attrition would be larger.

However, there are considerable differences in the approaches.

When a fee is charged, the "lookie-loos" -- to borrow a real estate term -- don't come. Students have made a commitment to the course. So attrition is low or nonexistent. However there is a big financial difference. If money spent in promotion is recovered, it becomes possible to reuse that money for another class.

For regional Schools this is a big consideration -- probably not so much in New York and perhaps Philadelphia.

But then, the real cost of the New York operation is not obvious. There is a capital cost of several million dollars. At 3% of (say) $3 million, this is an income of perhaps $90,000 invested in school activities.

Then there is the day-to-day operation of the School. I no longer have any idea what that is, but I'm sure it's a sizable piece of change. Of course, I know the school does much more than run classes -- just having Cay around is worth its weight in gold.

However, I think in terms of producing Georgists -- that is, people who have studied carefully the philosophy of George and understand its consequences. If what we teach is worthwhile, then we should concentrate on the production of people to replace us and increase in number.

Incidentally, a 1993 student of Bret's has just contacted me. He is due to teach economics as a pretty new teacher and wants to teach the InterStudent Program. We have little time, he starts in two weeks. But, he remembers how much he enjoyed the Program when he was a student.

If we cannot get it done in time for this semester, there's always the next.

However, our experiments have done no more than show what can be done. If the New York School were to pick up InterStudent and run with it, I think we could have high schools teaching Henry George all over the state.

High school students could be brought to New York for debates, essay contests, and suchlike. Most important would be to have a high school teacher conference at which the relationship between George and modern economics could be established.

You'll recall that in our first Conference of Inquiry we attracted 35 teachers who paid their own way and were given no discounts. You could attract 100 teachers to a conference on the most successful economics program in the high school curriculum.

No, I'm not fantasizing. I remember telling Arnold Weinstein that we were close to getting 100,000 students involved in our basic course. He didn't believe me but at that time we had stopped counting when we reached 85,000.

There is a very large caveat. If we promote Henry George as a religion with us as the high priests, we will wither on the vine (we've done a little withering). We are teaching Classical Political Economy, a first-class discipline that can analyze economic problems and has sensible solutions to offer. I must admit that I positively slaver at the thought of you, Cay, Fred, Nic, Kris, Polly, and the rest of the bunch talking to a receptive high school teacher audience. I can imagine the effect of Mason explaining how the San Francisco rehabilitation should have been used in New Orleans.

HP: Ten sessions are too little to appreciate George. I fear a short course becomes a propaganda for land-value tax exercise -- as perhaps is also the full 10 session course.

We become established not as a school but as an advocacy group -- which maybe is what we are. You know I like to repeat my remark that 'we have a solution to a problem that no-one knows they have'.


If we have done a good job, solutions will come up and ours will be on the front burner. EJD: Some would argue that a major failing of the Schools is the decades of churning out people who complete one, two or three courses (and some who even keep coming back for seminars and other courses) but never become advocates or any meaningful way involved in promoting the Georgist solutions. In New York, thousands of people have come -- and gone. In Philadelphia, hundreds. Yet, the number of people who become deeply committed to the principles they are introduced to is remarkably small.

I take it, Harry, that you were having better results with the people who went thru the Classical Analysis program, any yet you were not able to develop successors committed to keep working with the program. Was this a problem that is directly related to the embezzlement of the school's funds, or were there other issues involved?

HP: Two things happened at the same time.

A budgetary crisis in the library system closed off our most important venue for classes. We were no longer allowed to charge our students for the course.

Then, the possibility of an economic course for high school seniors came on the table and could not be denied. So I abandoned the adult classes to concentrate entirely on the prospective high school economic course. I've forgotten how much went into the course, but it must have needed the writing of well on the way to 1,000 pages.

Then it had to be promoted at conferences - local, state, and national. We got good support from existing teachers -- we even had three California teachers help us by traveling to the National Social Studies Conference in Phoenix.

That's how we got out-of-state InterStudent teachers.

I'm not a good manager, I'm an idea man. Once I've got something running, I get bored and move to something else. In this case, getting Henry George taught in the public schools was an incredible advance that had never before been accomplished.

As I said, my major goal at that time was to get an entire social science economics department to be teaching InterStudent. This we managed at Newark High School, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. I wish we had been able to get a dozen full departments, but one is more than was ever expected in the 72 years of our existence.