Slike strani

and educational philosophy of the past two or three decades have pointed to the "Self-government" scheme as the wisest solution of most of the questions of control involved. In New York city, a "General Organization" has been effected to which a large number of the high schools of the city have subscribed. Each student in a given school, upon payment of twenty-five cents, becomes a member of this organization as effected in his own school. Such student members then adopt a constitution and a set of by-laws which govern all the societies and clubs of the school. In some high schools, school savings banks are instituted and placed under the management of students. Cooperation with the home, with the authorities of the local government, and with other associations or societies in the community may be cited as added evidences of the ideal to bring the high school into close connection with all the better forces in society.

5. The Preparation of Secondary School Teachers. A committee of the National Education Association -- the so-called Committee of Fifteen on elementary education ― reported in 1895, among other topics, on the training of teachers for secondary schools. The committee declared that, "The degree of scholarship required for secondary teachers is by common consent fixed at a collegiate education." They proposed a course of special training for such teachers, consisting of instruction during the senior year of the college course in psychology, methodology, school systems and the history, philosophy and art of education; and a graduate year of practice in teaching, under close supervision, supplemented by advanced studies in educational theory. That this proposal is far in advance of common practice or requirement no one acquainted with general conditions can doubt. To just what extent States and cities are tending in the direction of this early proposal which still remains the ideal - can be determined only through a stu of the widely varying and detailed laws and regulations now in force. Some of the larger cities closely approximate these ideals with the exception of the graduate study requirements; and the latter are often rewarded though not required. The very general "experience" requirement in large cities makes practice teaching unnecessary. One State- California has very nearly met all of the requirements set forth in the proposals of 1895; a college degree from a recognized institution, graduate study both academic and professional amounting to one year or its equivalent, and practice teaching in the absence of experience are demanded. The State Board of Education is empowered by law to fix the details of certification regulations. In a considerable number of States, professional study of an undergraduate character is required of applicants qualifying under certain conditions. In general, the teaching force in the smaller high schools is not specifically prepared for the work it has to do. In New York State in 1914 very nearly one-half of all the high school teachers in the towns (as opposed to the cities) were holding normal school diploma licenses. In most sections of the country a strong tendency exists to employ only college graduates for high school teachers; but definite and serious study in the pedagogy of secondary training appears very rarely as a requirement

[ocr errors]

either through custom or law. What pedagogy that is required is usually of the general kind. About 50 per cent of the high school teachers of Vermont in 1914 had not even had this. The State Commissioner of Education for Massachusetts in the report of 1912-13 complains that while most of the high school teachers of the state are college graduates and that while many have taken pedagogical courses in such institutions, they "are, in relation to the work they are expected to do, deficient in professional training" and "approach their work as learners, as apprentices, to whom practical means and methods of effectively teaching boys and girls are as yet almost wholly unknown." Definitely planned systems for the training of secondary teachers do not exist in this country. Aside from the State College for Teachers at Albany, N. Y., which makes the preparation of high school teachers its main purpose, and several specific courses in other normal schools of the country looking in the same direction, the only means generally prevalent is that of the college and university departments of education, of which there are now some 350 of recognized standing. These, however, emphasize for the most part the general courses in education; secondary method in some of the branches taught in the high school receive attention, but usually from the professors in these subjects in the college; and few have well-organized practice teaching. Other means in the improvement of secondary teachers are summer school courses, reading circles, teachers' associations, teachers' meetings within a given school, travel bureaus, sabbatical years, and the like; but these must be considered only a very small part of the solution to the larger problem to be faced in the systematic professional training of instructors for high schools.

6. Tendencies in the Organization of State Systems of Secondary Education.- Nothing closesly approximating the highly centralized system of French and German secondary education exists in this country. While the State is the legal unit of educational administration in this country, powers with reference to detail in organization are usually delegated to State boards of education, cities, counties, or even smaller units. The real test of the centralizing tendency in this country, therefore, resides in the extent to which the State, either by law directly or indirectly by delegation to the State Board of Education, takes a hand in the vital detail of organization in schools. The application of this test to current practice shows results of a widely varying character so far as secondary education is concerned. A large number of the States provide for inspection of schools of this kind through an officer usually called "high school inspector"; in a few States deputy commissioners of education are appointed and assigned to secondary schools; in some cases, inspection is little more than a formality, while in others it is very careful and results in approved lists of schools that are accepted by the State universities; some halfdozen States employ systems of classifying high schools into grades and set minimal course requirements for each; in very few instances, are actual courses of study directly controlled by State boards. The laws relative to the establishment of high schools are in most of the States "permissive" in character; and while

[blocks in formation]

State aid is quite general for schools in rural districts, it is usually small in amount and cautiously guarded. Complete State certification of secondary teachers seldom exists. Large cities constitute a class by themselves, and central control is almost unknown to them. Neither uniformity nor the centralized systems of Europe would necessarily mean efficiency in America. What is most needed are State boards of education, free from political influence, composed of men with large views and expert knowledge, and devoting themselves to vital questions of policy and vital questions of organization too large for the local administrative units.


tion board under control of the Regents now prepares the questions. Each school falling under control of this central Board of Regents must report yearly to it and gets a rating in the annual report. By these four means apportionment, examinations, inspection and reports the Board of Regents exercises most of its far-reaching control over the secondary schools of the State.

A number of States began early to take certain steps toward efficient control, and recent times have added to the number; three or four among these may be mentioned. Massachusetts has already been discussed; the compulsory establishment of high schools, State aid to the poorer districts, and minimum course requirements of earlier years have persisted; and new extensions have been made in the way of State certification of teachers in the State-aided schools, State support for vocational education and inspection. Minnesota began a State system in 1881, headed by a State high school board which still exists and exercises such powers as approving courses of study, inspecting all high schools once a year, and determining what institutions shall receive aid. California and New Jersey have made notable advances in methods of certifying teachers and prescribing requirements for the same. New York, however, represents the most complete State system of control yet developed in this country. This system has been described in part already. Under it, all incorporated secondary schools are controlled by a Board of Regents serving as members of the University of the State of New York. This board manages the State funds to be distributed to secondary chools. Such funds, amounting to nearly $60,000 as early as 1832, have been added to by the legislature until in 1913 the total sum contributed to secondary schools was $650,000. Approximately $140,000 of this was given for books and apparatus and $322,398 for the payment of non-resident tuition, the remainder being apportioned on the basis of attendance of academic pupils. The Board also prescribes rules for awarding the State scholarships of $100 each to graduates of high schools to aid them in pursuing college work. Ultimately there will be 3,000 of such scholarships; in 1914 awards were made to 750 secondary school graduates. A large force of inspectors, assigned mostly according to branches of study, exercises supervision of instruction; and an assistant commissioner of secondary education devotes his whole time to this branch of education. For the purpose of instituting a uniform basis for the apportionment of the socalled "literature fund," the Regents adopted in 1864 a system of examinations of elementary pupils. In 1878, this system was extended to the academic branches; and in 1913, such examinations were held in 889 schools, with 404,576 papers written, of which 288,194 were accepted. These papers were first graded at the schools and then regraded under direction of the Regents at Albany. A special examina

ELMER ELSWORTH BROWN, Chancellor of New York University. EDUCATION, Secretarial. See SECRE TARIAL EDUCATION.


[ocr errors]

EDUCATION, Study of. The study of education is, on the one hand, the study of a profession the profession of the teacher, of whatever grade; and, on the other, the study of a social force- the force that preserves and improves the civilization of each generation, and transmits it to the next- and of the institutions which society has developed for the organization and administration of this force. It goes without saying that these two aspects of the Study of Education are not independent of each other. Further, it is clear that the study is either a professional or a "liberal" study in accordance with the object with which it is pursued. In this article no pains will be taken to keep these two aspects of the subject distinct. The context will make clear which aspect is under consideration, and also when both aspects are considered together.

The systematic study of education is now carried on in the United States chiefly in normal schools (State, city or private) and in colleges and universities. Less extended but often valuable opportunities for the study of education are afforded by county training schools for teachers, by classes in some high schools and academies, and by some other institutions: as, for example, training schools for kindergartners; some departments of the so-called "Institutes» (like Drexel Institute of Philadelphia, Pratt Institute of Brooklyn); and by "Teachers' Institutes." Teachers' institutes are carried on in towns or counties, for a few days or weeks, usually during the long summer vacation, and commonly receive support from the State treasury; they have been described as normal schools with very short courses of study. This article deals only with the study of education in normal schools, and in colleges and universities; because the work done by them is typical, and sufficiently comprehensive to cover the special work done in the other institutions mentioned. It may be said, however, that in general, the normal school aims only at the professional study of education; that the college or university department of education aims at both a professional and a "liberal" study of the subject, but of a higher grade than that of the normal school; and that the university "School of Education" aims at a professional study of education only, but, at present, of the grades undertaken by both the normal schools and the university departments of education. University schools of education are of recent origin, but they are already numerous.

Normal Schools. The systematic study of education in this country has a rather brief history. Although some beginnings had been made in the academies of New York and New England, the study of education really began in the State normal schools for the training of elementary school teachers, of which the first was founded in Lexington, Mass., in 1839. It began there with the study of methods of teaching the common branches of the elementary school curriculum, and the methods of governing or managing a class or a school. That is to say, the study of education began with the study of methods. For a long time the study of methods comprised the whole of the study of education, although it did not cover the whole work of the normal schools. Most of these schools gave, from the very beginning, and many of them still give, more attention to the study of the branches that the prospective teachers are to teach, and to extending the range of their scholarship beyond those branches, than they gave and give to the study of methods. At the same time they naturally emphasized the study of methods from the beginning, and they still do so. This was natural, and, within reasonable limits, desirable. It happened, however, that many normal schools pursued the study of methods with such exaggeration of emphasis and such minuteness of detail that they are chiefly responsible for the development of an erroneous conception - namely, that the study of education is still practically identical with the study of methods; and this conception has done much to discredit the proper study of education and to prevent its appropriate development. How narrow and inadequate this conception is has already been suggested. It is not strange that the normal schools should emphasize the study of methods. Their function is to train teachers; and to teach well and govern wisely is the first duty of the teacher. But a good teacher not merely possesses a good method; he uses that method with discriminating insight into its efficacy, and with careful adaptation to the needs of every pupil. He not only commands the technique of his art, but he understands the principles on which his art is based, and has a clear conception of the ends which his methods are to serve. Moreover, the study of methods was, too often, merely the study of a particular way of doing a particular thing-how to teach reading, spelling, writing, arithmetic and so on; or how to secure conformity to this, that or the other rule of conduct; and this was (and is still) too often done in such a way as to convey the impression to the neophyte that there is no other correct way. The tendency of such instruction is, of course, to mechanize and not to vitalize instruction. In the hands of the less capable the study of education becomes under such circumstances the inculcation of a mere routine; individual initiative and self-criticism are suppressed or discouraged. In the hands of the more capable the result is not so bad; but even in their hands the study of methods is elevated into an importance that enables it to obscure other fundamental aspects of the study of education and of the right training of teachers. Instruction in methods did, however, develop systematic teaching where before there had been loose or haphazard procedure. By and large, the teachers trained in the normal schools proved their superiority over their untrained

VOL. 9-42

predecessors and contemporaries. The normal school study of education, in spite of its narrowness, did bear good fruit. But the results were still unsatisfactory. The means and methods of education were studied, but the tendency to use them blindly and mechanically was too obvious to be overlooked. The study of education, thus far, had not penetrated to the root of the matter.

The conventional scheme of education as expressed in existing programs ("courses") of study, and equally conventional methods of teaching and discipline, had been accepted without critical analysis of what it was all for, and to what extent the means and methods employed were adapted to the nature of the children to be taught and to the demands of modern life. Accordingly, it began to be clear that the study of education must mean more than the study of methods - the devices of teaching and governing. It was perceived that the mere acquisition of these devices often failed to impart life and purpose to the teacher's work. Gradually it was perceived that what was lacking in the study of education was the assimilation of guiding principles which should forever prevent the teacher from conceiving his work as a mere routine, but should enable him to conceive it throughout as a rationalized endeavor. It was natural that these guiding principles should be sought, first of all, in psychology, which, as the science of mind, should reveal the process of learning; and by implication should therefore give an insight into the process of teaching. "As we learn, so must we teach." Moreover, the Prussian normal schools, which had served as models for our own, had long incorporated the study of psychology into their programs of study, and this feature of their programs, which, to be sure, had also found its way into our own but had been without special significance, was now seized upon as the chief source of the guiding principles we were seeking. This was about 1885. Before that time psychology or "mental philosophy" had been pursued in our normal schools as an independent study without vital relation to the study of education. Now, however, this relation was perceived, and an extraordinary devotion to psychology as the key to all educational problems was the result. Before long, also, certain phases of psychology or particular psychological theories, notably the Herbartain theory of "apperception" and the derived theories of the "concentration" or "correlation" of studies, were heralded as the very gospel of educational salvation. There is truth in the theory of apperception and of the correlation of studies; but these theories were pursued and applied for a time with such extravagant and misguided enthusiasm, particularly in the Middle West, that they became "fads"; and many sins were committed in their names by large numbers of well-meaning but not well-informed teachers and other students of education. Naturally, also, educational charlatans saw their opportunity in this conspicuous popularity of psychology, and were not slow to grasp a profit from it by the sale of their wares in the form of lectures and books; and inuch useless or misleading talk and trivial and unscientific psychological literature was abroad in the land.

The most extravagant development of the

[blocks in formation]

study of psychology by students of education was "child study" which swept the country over from border to border some years ago. Parents, teachers or other students of education were discredited unless they endeavored themselves to make some contribution to the psychology of childhood, and these contributions were actually attempted by teachers of all grades and by other persons of all degrees of intelligence. This excitement was, however, short-lived-it lasted 10 years at most. This was because a large part of the data which had been so enthusiastically collected, together with most of the "scientific" conclusions to which it was alleged they pointed, were held in slight esteem by the real psychologists. Such a result was inevitable. The psychology of childhood can be developed as a science only by persons trained for that purpose, just as physical science can be developed only by trained scientists. It was then seen that the chief advantage to be derived from the study of children by untrained observers was the effect on the observers themselves. Not to extend the boundaries of the science of psychology, but to interest the observers in children, to enable them to get into relation with child-life- that is the real value of child-study for most persons. And wherever this conception of its value prevails the study of children is to-day rendering good service to students of education. The acute stage of extravagant devotion to psychology as a part of the study of education is now happily past; and only good can be expected of the saner pursuit of it, which is fast becoming the rule.

From the foregoing it is already clear that far more was expected of psychology than could be realized. But more needs to be said on this point. Psychology is even yet in its formative stage as a natural science, and 30 years ago was just emerging from its thralldom to metaphysics. It was, however, assumed to be a perfected science -a complete and accurate account of mental phenomena and their interdependence; and hence the extravagant expectations entertained of its value in giving insight into educational problems and a command over teaching processes. These expectations could not be realized; for, as has just been said, psychology is still a formative science and cannot therefore guarantee the complete insight into mental life- especially the mental life of children, which it was believed to yield; and even if it were to-day all that it was then thought to be -a perfected science of mental life, and particularly of mental development - the acquisition of that science would not necessarily ensure technical skill on the part of the teacher. Insight and the practical application of insight are two very different things. Nevertheless, the widespread devotion to the study of psychology in normal schools and by teachers was a great gain to the study of education. It established the fact once for all that methods of teaching and governing have a rational basis in the constitution of human nature, and that it is the duty of the student of education and the teacher to ascertain what this basis is as nearly as he can. The study of education in normal schools had now progressed beyond the study of methods as mere devices to a study of these devices as based on the nature of the minds subjected to them. That is to say,

the study of education had gradually come to include "educational psychology," and in particular the psychology of childhood and adolescence.

Meanwhile, again following the lead of the Prussian normal schools, light for the path of the student of education was also sought in the records of the past. The history of education was appealed to for guidance in solving contemporary problems of teaching and governing. It was only natural that a narrow conception of the significance of the history of education should have been entertained, because the study of education itself was still quite generally interpreted as the study of methods. Naturally, therefore, educational biography and "educational classics" or monographs setting forth the educational theories of individuals of the past-both usually without reference to their social setting in the general history of their time- constituted nearly all that was studied as the history of education. In spite of this narrow interpretation of the history of education the study of that subject, like the study of psychology, was a great gain to the study of education. The recognition of the kinship of contemporary education with that of the past necessarily broadened and dignified the conception generally entertained of the meaning of education itself and naturally enhanced_the value of the study of that subject. For, although the history of education was at first inadequately conceived and taught, it was inevitable that it should ere long be recognized at its true value, namely, as a part of general history; and hence that the student of education should come to realize that in studying the history of education he was studying nothing less than the history of culture of the training of each generation to assume its share in preserving, improving and transmitting to the oncoming generation the resources of our civilization, and in so doing actively to promote the progressive solution of its problems. This true conception of the history of education is, however, of very recent development. Although some of the normal schools have contributed to its development, many of them still adhere to the older conception, and it has remained for colleges and universities to give form and substance to the new conception and to disseminate it.

Meanwhile, also, the study of education was gradually extended to include an examination into the adequacy and effectiveness of contemporary schools and studies as a means of promoting the normal development of each individual as an individual and also as a means of adapting him to the civilization of his timethe twofold aim of all general education; and this questioning, together with the formulation of the more or less satisfactory replies to it, sometimes alone but more commonly closely associated with educational psychology, constitute what is now often called "Science of Education," "Philosophy of Education," or more appropriately "Educational Theory" or "General Principles of Education." In the light of the foregoing description of the historical development of the study of education in normal schools the present scope and aims of that study in those schools may be briefly summarized as follows:

It includes (1) Theory of Education or General Principles of Education, sometimes called "Science of Education" or "Philosophy of Education," pursued as a means of awakening interest in and developing insight into the general problems of education (often not distinct nor separable from (4) below); (2) Methods; (3) Kindergarten Theory and Practice; (4) Psychology and the Study of Children, pursued as a source of information about the development of mental life and the processes of learning and as a rational basis for methods of teaching and discipline - that is, psychology pursued as a science on which the art of teaching and managing children might be based and the study of children pursued chiefly as a means of developing a comprehending and sympathetic attitude toward children on the part of future teachers; (5) The Study of Teaching by observation and practice in "model schools" or "training schools"; (6) School Organization and Management, chiefly internal organization and class management; (7) The History of Education, usually pursued as a source of suggestions for planning contemporary studies and methods of teaching and management and, to a limited extent also, as a means of developing a broader professional outlook over and better professional insight into educational problems as problems of social evolution; (8) School Hygiene; (9) School Laws as a source of practical information concerning the teachers' legal rights, privileges and duties.

As was pointed out above the work of normal schools is not confined to the study of education; but so far as that study itself is concerned the foregoing enumeration covers the ground, although not all of it is necessarily found in all normal schools. The foregoing description also reveals the aim of the study of education in normal schools. That aim is primarily the technical preparation of the classroom teacher. Finally, it should be said many normal schools are far inferior to others in the adequacy with which they conceive the study of education and in the thoroughness with which that study is carried on.

Colleges and Universities.- Great as the services are which the normal schools rendered it gradually became clear that they were alone unable to cope with the rapidly growing need of a more comprehensive as well as a more intensive study of education than they could supply. Some time before the end of the 19th century the normal schools had made clear the great distinction between a trained and an untrained teacher, as was pointed out above; and they had, accordingly, made good progress in the gradual transformation (still going on) of the calling of the elementary teacher from a mere routine into a profession. But the increase of the native population and the growth of cities, the enormous and steadily increasing influx of foreign immigrants, the geographical expansion and the much more important and very great commercial and industrial development of the country have been followed by our huge modern schools, our varied and complex programs of studies, our immense city school systems; and hence a host of new educational problems have come into the field,-- problems with which the mere classroom teacher of lim

ited academic training and narrow, even if thorough, technical training, is manifestly unable to cope satisfactorily. We have, fortunately, many efficient grammar school principals and superintendents to-day who have had only a normal school training; but in no case are they efficient because their training was originally limited, but in spite of that fact. Moreover, the general public, particularly the educated and the reading public, now take an interest in educational problems heretofore unknown, and this interest is increasing daily. This interest demands satisfaction and seeks educational leaders among the teaching profession as well as good classroom teachers. At the same time it had long been apparent that many college-bred men of excellent scholarship were poor teachers. The college offered them no opportunity to learn how to teach. The problem was to secure, in addition to adequate scholarship, appropriate insight into education and technical skill in teaching. This the college graduate could not and cannot ordinarily secure in the normal school-first, because the normal school was and is naturally and properly concerned chiefly with the training of teachers for elementary schools and, therefore, has generally neither the teaching force nor the equipment to deal separately with college graduates who usually seek preparation to teach in secondary not elementary schools; and second, because it was not and cannot be profitable in most cases to teach in the same classes college graduates and normal school students. The college-bred students are too far ahead of the normal school students in maturity and scholarship to make a satisfactory combination class. For similar reasons the normal schools are generally unable to provide adequate opportunities for teachers already in service who seek preparation for work as principals or superintendents of schools. Out of these considerations arose the university department of education which has undertaken to provide the college graduate with the opportunities he needs for the study of education whether as a neophyte he is about to begin his professional career as a classroom teacher, or whether as an experienced teacher he returns to the university for the study of his profession under direction with a view to becoming a principal or a superintendent; or whether as an interested layman he seeks enlightenment as to the meaning of education and the means and methods of organizing and directing it as a branch of State or municipal affairs.

The history of the study of education in the colleges and universities of the country is even more brief than the history of that study in the normal schools, for it does not really begin until 1879, when the University of Michigan founded a chair of "the science and the art of teaching" of co-ordinate rank with other chairs or departments. Education before that time (from about 1850) had been studied in "normal departments" established at a number of colleges and universities (more commonly of the Middle West than elsewhere), in which the study of education did not differ materially from that pursued in the normal schools. Such a normal department, for example, existed at Brown University from 1851 to 1854. It was discontinued "in consequence of the establish

« PrejšnjaNaprej »