I. Much of the work of the high school of today, with its elective courses, many subjects of instruction, and advanced instruction along certain lines, is fully as advanced as that done in the first year of the college course. Unless the teacher in the high school has come in contact with men who are masters of their subjects, has caught something of the masters' spirit of dealing with the great truths that lie in this field, and has learned something of that method which, after all, is only organized common sense, which men of larger scholarship apply to the solution of difficult problems, he is not likely to carry much. of a message to the young people who come under his direction in the secondary school. This practically demands that the teachers in our secondary schools shall be college graduates, and shall have prepared themselves specially for the work which they propose to do. The secondary school itself does not offer such opportunities, and our normal schools, devoted as they are and ought to be to the preparation of teachers for the elementary schools, cannot adequately give such training.

The secondary-school teacher is distinctively in need of three things, viz.: (1) broad general knowledge; (2) special knowledge, and (3) professional knowledge. Other things being equal, the broader the teacher's general knowledge the more useful he will be. This general knowledge, or broad liberal culture, is largely a product of opportunities and experiences. Larger educational opportunities in an atmosphere of scholarship and culture, with travel, are the best means of securing it.

2. Special knowledge of an advanced nature in the fields in which the candidate proposes to teach is an absolute necessity. It cannot be emphasized too much that the person who desires to teach in our high schools must know that which he is to teach. That fair or indifferent successes are made today in many of our high schools by teachers who are teaching subjects which they have made little or no preparation to teach is no argument against the principle. Where such teachers are employed one generally finds that the community lacks proper standards as to what high-school education should be, or sufficient funds to properly maintain a high school, or both. One of the best guarantees for successful teaching, tho by no means an absolute or a sufficient one, is that the candidate shall have made careful preparation for the work of instruction in a given subject. One of the greatest weaknesses and reproaches of the American secondary schools today is the altogether too common lack of any adequate preparation on the part of the teachers, and the general indifference of the state in the matter.

3. In addition to general and special knowledge, the prospective teacher needs professional knowledge. By professional knowledge is meant professional preparation for the actual work of instruction and a professional attitude toward the work of the public secondary school. To this end the prospective high-school teacher should be required, during the last two years of his college course, to make a somewhat general study of the work and problems of public education in a democratic society such as our own; the work, purpose, and

special problems of secondary education, with some comparison with conditions in a few European states; the psychology of instruction and of the adolescent period; special teachers' courses in the subjects in which recommendation is sought; and some practical experience (how much is needed will vary greatly with different individuals) in instruction and class management. It would be well if the candidate, in addition, should know something of the history of education, and especially the history of education in our own country. I place the history of education after the others because it is largely cultural and inspirational instead of technical.

One of the most important legislative steps to be taken by most of our states in the matter of certificating teachers is the complete separation of the credentials necessary to teach in a high school from those necessary to teach in an elementary school, and the erection of distinctly higher standards for the high-school certificate. In view of the possibility of a six-year high school becoming somewhat general the high-school certificate should not be limited too closely as to its validity, but the elementary-school certificate, of any grade, should never be valid for instruction in a high school.

In the erection of such a special certificate for high-school teaching we obviously cannot depend upon the written examination. The standard of competency in general, special, and professional knowledge set above practically demands that the secondary-school teacher shall håve had a college education, or its substantial equivalent. To examine the candidate on the subjects studied in college would be not only almost impossible, but ridiculous as well. To attempt to enforce the higher standard by an examination given on the subjects to be taught in the high school will also fail, for the reason that the high-school graduate, fresh from his studies, can almost always pass the examinations more easily and with better grades than the college graduate. The result will almost always inevitably be that in certain localities there will not be a college graduate in the high schools. This was clearly the experience of California under the old optional examination plan, and was one of the strongest arguments which led to the abolition of the examination for the high-school certificate. The only safe way to do is to make the possession of a degree from some reputable college an absolute prerequisite for high-school teaching, and to grant high-school certificates only to those who, in addition to the degree, present evidence of special and professional preparation for the work of teaching in secondary schools.

In many of our states the absolute enforcement of such a requirement would not be possible at present, but in almost every northern and western state a movement looking in that direction is possible now. The first step in the process is the definite recognition of secondary-school work as a field which demands special and additional preparation, and the separation of high-school certificates from elementary certificates. The former should then be based on higher educational standards, and college diplomas and other evidences. of preparation should be recognized as the full equivalent of the subject

matter examination. The second step in the process, to be taken as soon as the supply of properly educated and trained teachers equals the demand, is to diminish in frequency and importance and finally to entirely abolish the subject-matter examination and thus make the possession of evidence of proper education and training a prerequisite for the granting of the high-school certificate. When such conditions come to prevail somewhat generally, and not until then, can we be said to have an educated and a professionally trained teaching force in our secondary schools.

V

CHARLES DE GARMO, PROFESSOR OF THE SCIENCE AND ART OF EDUCATION, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

1. Practically all institutions for the training of teachers, to be found in the United States, are adjusted to elementary standards. Even in college and university professional courses the ideals of the earlier stages of education have heretofore predominated. We are just beginning to realize that the professional training of secondary teachers differs from that of primary teachers, not only in degree but often also in kind.

In the first place, so far as subject-matter is concerned, training for elementary teaching circles about the common branches, which everybody is supposed to know, which all teachers must teach, and all learners learn. But the case is different with preparation for secondary teaching. Here the subject-matter is so extensive that no teacher can teach and no learner learn it all. It follows therefore that the student must choose (or have prescribed) what he shall study, and the teacher must select a department of knowledge in which he may become a special, or departmental teacher.

Out of these relations there arises the need for a kind of professional study that is but slightly felt in elementary circles—that namely, of relative practical and educational values. For, how, except by pure tradition or by mere per sonal preference, can a course of study be wisely advised for any given student unless the adviser is fairly clear as to the educational and practical significance, both immediate and remote, of each distinctive department of knowledge? And how, moreover, can one be expected to make his students realize these benefits if he himself knows not what they are?

It is perhaps natural that those who believe in the sacredness of a certain course of study as universally valid condemn the study of educational values, because they condemn the introduction of branches that would in some degree displace those they have. Thus I read in report of a recent Berlin speech in favor of classical training that "the brazen lords of nature are not the elected teachers of the immature." Some there may be who prefer the "brazenness" of nature to that of such advisers. At any rate, I submit that it is a proper thing for the secondary teacher to be properly instructed as to what significance for life and for individual development the study of the various natural sciences

has; in what these sciences differ in their effects upon the mind, both as contrasted with one another, and with literary or historical studies? Where there are world-wide differences in the content of the studies, there must be significant differences in the educational results which the various studies should bring about in mental training. To make the old assumption that training is training, that only difference in degree exists, that each subject is an equivalent for every other in the degree of its effect, is to adhere to a superstition as incredible as that which ascribes green cheese to lunar composition. It is to shut one's eyes to the teachings both of psychologic and common sense alike. There are sciences whose basis is mathematical law; there are others whose basis is the unfolding of life-one group is demonstrative, dealing with the exact and law-accordant, the other is inductive, dealing with uncertain, often bewildering data. Compare, for instance, the study of a bird with that of a pump. The latter is comprehended when its mechanical principle is once understood; but when is one done with the study of a bird? We may study its life history, or its anatomy. The latter is almost without limit in its possibilities. Again, the mathematical sciences require for their retention that form of memory which rests upon clear insight into fixed laws, whereas the biological sciences are retained in mind thru a mastery of classification and an understanding of function. Likewise, the form of imagination stimulated by the two groups differs as radically in kind. If the nature poets had only the mathematical quality of imagination, it were a sorry task to read them. On the other hand, had the engineer only the biological quality of imagination, we should hesitate to cross his bridges or trust ourselves on his ships.

If the sciences differ so radically among themselves in their effect upon the mind, what shall we say of the contrasts they afford when compared with linguistic, literary and artistic, and historical subjects? Literature and art deal with ethics and aesthetics; history deals with contingent causes-those that might have been otherwise, had the circumstances of race, situation, education, economic conditions, passion, ability, or what not, been different. What man, not mole blind, could confound with one another the distinct educational effects that these various groups may have upon mind, heart, and destiny of a student? And what secondary teacher is qualified for leadership in this field who has not turned his attention to the fundamental truths that must underlie every rational course of study, whether in a special or general high school?

2. Such a study of educational values must, moreover, precede and underlie all rational study of methodology. Having only vague ideas of the ends which a study should subserve, how can a teacher be adequately prepared in the best methods of teaching it? And here it must be clear that method means to the secondary teacher something different from what it means to the elementary teacher. It is perhaps more special than general; or, at any rate, it falls more naturally into groups in accordance with the characteristic quality of the departments of study. Thirty years ago, for example, scientific

method was quite undeveloped; now it has developed so far in the universities that it not only rivals but, in many respects, surpasses in completeness of instrumentalities that which obtains in the older subjects. It has, for instance its laboratories with a place and a distinct set of apparatus for every student and an elbow-to-elbow assistant for every ten students. It has its lecture system which is kept in touch with the laboratory work, and it has, finally, its group system of recitations upon the combined work of lectures and laboratory, and of textbook study. No such elaborate and far-reaching ways of imparting knowledge have ever been devised even in languages and mathematics, to say nothing of history, economics, and social sciences.

As in the university, so in the high school the question of method rests upon a more technical basis than in the case of the elementary school. The candidate for the high-school teachership should base his study of method upon the nature of the subject-matter, the effects it should have in mental training, and upon the methods that have been effective in its development. He should not, if he is to teach science, be unacquainted with such books as Bain's Inductive Logic, and Jevon's Principles of Science, for these give him an enduring insight into the nature of his subject and the best ways to make it effective in the schoolroom. After a general methodical study of this kind, the candidate should make a special study of the admirable books now issuing from the press, such as the series by Macmillan and that by Longmans which are devoted to particular study. What can not a teacher of English learn from such a compendium as that of Carpenter, Baker, and Scott, or the teacher of mathematics from that of David Eugene Smith, or of Professor Young?

3. For the secondary teacher the study of the history of education should be more thorogoing and more special than it is for elementary teachers. While he should, of course, follow the development of universal education as seen in the elementary schools, he should at the same time give much attention to Greek ideals of culture and instruction since these have been so important in determining the curriculum of modern high schools. Upon this study of the sources of educational ideas, the student is prepared to base his future study of the rise and development of language as an educational means. similar way he should follow the introduction and development of mathematics, natural science, and history in the curriculum. It is well within reasonable expectations that the university student should master the admirable text of Professor Monroe upon the History of Education, and do not a little collateral reading besides.

4. With respect to the psychological basis for the study of education, it must first of all be remarked that the secondary-departmental teacher will not be a psychologist, for it takes five years to make a psychologist. What we may fairly expect from him, as a minimum, is a half-year's study of general psychology, and an equal expenditure of time upon applied, or educational, psychology, the emphasis being laid upon the period of adolescence.

5. The most difficult and most debated part of professional training for