6. The system provides for a carefully graded and carefully watched course

of study.

7. It replaces the race-horse methods that turn the English schools into training grounds for the examinatior race * * upon which the boy's future de

pends to an alarming extent.

8. It recognizes that education is a slow process which must be spread over

* *

certain fixed periods of time; that there are no short cuts; that even though the boy may have the information to answer the questions of an outside examiner, it does not follow that he has been successfully educated. 9. It dignifies the teacher by trusting him.

* **

*

*

10. It preserves the initiative of the teacher and gives a freshness and attractiveness to the work which it is impossible to exaggerate. The accrediting system is perhaps one of the most noteworthy contributions of America to educational progress.

Those who believe in the external examinations will doubtless claim that some of these advantages can also be attained through such a system, but they will have difficulty in showing that the practice does not interfere with the freedom of the teacher. A still more serious objection is the accusation that the examination system emphasizes training rather than education. The word training has an unpleasant sound to Americans in general. It suggests external authority and a lack of respect for the personality of the pupil. The crux of the whole matter seems to lie in the fact that the examination system emphasizes information and tends to neglect the needs, interests, and individual differences of the pupils. Under such a system whole-hearted, purposeful activity of the right sort seems well nigh impossible. America seems better off without it.

TEACHING OF MODERN LANGUAGES.

There is one sharp contrast between the criticism which applies to the elementary school and that applying to the high school. In the first case the emphasis is on method rather than content, while in the second exactly the reverse is true. Since most of the critics represent nations which do not speak the English language it is natural to expect much criticism concerning our teaching of modern

languages.

Most of the critics call attention to the fact that our aims in this regard are different from those in Europe. Over there the study of modern languages is based upon commercial interest. The students wish to learn foreign languages in order to carry on intelligent conversation with their neighbors, particularly in connection with commercial dealings. But Sadler ([76], p. 153) says:

The true claims for linguistic study are not based on the advantage in commercial bargaining, but on the need for training to the highest possible point the gift of expression through which a man enjoys fullness and freedom of intercourse with other men.

The isolation of America has caused this aim to be too much neglected. Hence our language teaching does not carry over; it does not lead to further activity. As a result foreign languages are studied too often with the sole view to meet the requirements, after which the student's knowledge slowly evaporates through disuse. There is too little emphasis on thorough mastery of the foreign language with a view toward using it as a tool for the control of knowledge after school days are over. Perhaps the difficulty is unavoidable, but just the same its presence causes a lack of motive and is one cause of the poor results obtained. These results have not failed to attract the attention of our critics. Walther ([89], p. 21) thinks that the difficulty is due to the wrong sort of college entrance

requirements. He says:

One sees to what perverted activities one-sided college entrance requirements lead, how they cause a chase through the literature without satisfactory results. No mental stimulation results from the acquaintance with foreign languages.

Clasen ([16], p. 366) says:

In foreign languages it is still impossible to arrive at any results worth mentioning even in a four-year course. There is only nibbling without a profound insight. Only crumbs of knowledge are possible.

The French critics complain that French is neglected. Thus

Guerard ([41], p. 481-483) says:

The consequence of neglecting French in favor of German in the United States are evident and heartbreaking. A profound ignorance of modern French is inexcusable in a people which resembles us in so many respects, whose national life rests upon the same principles as ours, and who ought to appreciate and love us more than any other country.

There is an almost un

believable indifference to our better literature, and the impression that Germany has surpassed degenerate France in everything.

French is even taught by German teachers at times. For the name of one French professor you will find 10 German or Scandinavian teachers; for one American who has received a French diploma you will meet 10 Ph. D's from beyond the Rhine. The French instruction in the United States is given by a personnel and in a spirit which is neither American nor French. * * In the country as a whole there are

*

**

*

* Linguistics

about four courses in old French to one of modern. chokes out the study of literature and the Middle Ages eclipse modern times. America has been strongly affected by German influence, and French has undoubtedly been neglected. The cause of this condition, however, is largely due to the policy of France. It has been and still is very difficult for American students to enter French universities, while the German universities have kept wide-open doors. Since the war Americans no longer desire to attend German universities. France now has an opportunity to replace Teutonic influence in this country, and it is to be hoped that she will rise to the occasion by abolishing her entrance requirements and thus make it possible for Ameri

can students to study and learn French customs and ideals at first hand.

The fact still remains that, owing to the lack of a practical motive, our instruction in all foreign language tends to become formal

and bookish, while literary appreciation and mastery are lacking. This seems to constitute our chief danger in all foreign-language instruction.

In the case of Latin, Höfer ([45], p. 23), in speaking of our exhibits at the St. Louis Fair, says:

Face to face with the generally dry results of laborious, empty translations of the ancient languages, one asks one's self again and again why the Americans teach Latin and Greek in their schools. Only in rare cases * * did the work of the pupils show any understanding of ancient life or of classical archæology and the like.

It is not a bad thing after all that pearing from the high schools.

Walther ([89], p. 11) says:

*
**

Greek

is disap

Translating and parsing are, in most American schools, the two poles about which the whole language instruction revolves. The use of reading for etymology, synonyms, and for the acquirement of a vocabulary according to form and content are lacking and the exercises are not based upon the words most commonly used. The time allotted to foreign languages in high school and college is too limited and the pupils are too old. ** When the pupil studies foreign languages his time is taken up by turning through the pages of the dictionary. Such study does not aid in translating, and it hinders the appreciation of the literature.

lacking.

* *

Thus the true basis of language study is

A few critics suggest the value of the direct conversational method in this connection, and it is very probable that they are right. Any change can hardly avoid being a change for the better. The application of the method, however, is too limited, the power of the traditional teacher is too strong for us to be certain of the value of the newer method, but it seems a step in the right direction. At any rate, our foreign language instruction, particularly that of Latin, will be forced to be continually on the defensive until some means of improvement is discovered. The whole thing seems to have fallen under the disciplinary concept. The idea that the content of the writings of Cæsar, Cicero, and Virgil includes matter which is interesting and beautiful does not occur to the pupils who study these works in the high school. The value of translating foreign languages as an exercise in English composition seems sadly overlooked. The idea that Latin is an important prerequisite for the study of law, medicine, pharmacy, and even for the general mastery of the English language is not emphasized. The student's aim is merely to learn enough parsing and acquire enough ability in prose composition to meet the requirements. There is no suspicion of activity leading to further activity. Latin should remain in the curriculum, but it is high time

that it should be taught in a manner that will justify it in the minds of the pupils at its true value. As a discipline it is becoming more and more questionable, but as a prerequisite to specialization and as a means of appreciating the spirit and value of ancient culture it is still very much worth while.

Much of the criticism, particularly that in the Mosely Report, is written by men who were sent over here to discover the cause of American success in industry and commerce. Hence a great deal of the criticism centers around this type of work in our schools. Shad

well ([83], p. 439) says:

Broadly, the technical education in the United States resembles the German more than the English system in that it supplies the industries from above rather than from below. It aims at the education of managers rather than that of the rank and file. But it possesses the merits of neither. It has not the specialization nor thoroughness of the one, nor the general diffusion of the other. It is so unevenly distributed and heterogeneous that classification is hardly possible. The most salient feature of the American type is its demand for college-trained men. The schools are due to private initiative and are bunched too much. They are not where they are most needed. This defect is one cause of the correspondence school. American technical education, high and low, appears to suffer from the national defect of a want of thoroughness, which arises from a craving for short cuts. Hence the correspondence schools and the attempt to teach industries in a school where there are inadequate opportunities for practical experiences. American training seems shallow and superficial.

Götte ([35], p. 236) says:

The American technical schools do not meet the demand as do those of Germany. There is no doubt that technical schools of secondary and lower rank are needed to supply the skilled workmen from native material rather than to depend on immigration. The Americans can learn more from us in regard to technical education than we can from them.

Léautey ([57], p. 701) says:

In American commercial colleges the instruction appeals too much to the memory and too little to the intellect. The instruction is too practical and requires too much hurrying. It is not vigorous enough and lacks equilibrium.

Muhlmann ([69], p. 24) says:

The instruction in the technical school is too academic, not enough emphasis is placed upon the history of industrials.

Much of the above criticism seems to get at the facts. American emphasis upon the value of a general education has tended to produce industrial leaders, and there has been a feeling that a general education is necessary for such leadership. As to the rank and file, they have merely been neglected. American respect for personality and belief in improvement have made impossible the narrow type of technical training which Germany has given to her rank and file of industrial workers. It is for that reason that we have no low

grade technical schools. The tendency is rather to postpone specialization until after the high-school course is finished. On the other hand, American restlessness combined with the lack of opportunities for a broad type of secondary education has caused many pupils to take up commercial studies too early.

There is a great need of standardization of our technical schools, and it is also true that the opportunities are too much limited because the schools are bunched in inconvenient localities. Correspondence courses have been the only alternative in many cases. On the other hand, Shadwell's suggestion that American technical schools are poorly equipped is not supported by the evidence as given by other critics. His accusation that American technical training is in general shallow and superficial is also questionable. It is true, however, that the Americar schools do not meet the demands as they should. We are still too dependent upon immigration for certain types of skilled workmanship. This need must be met and met quickly, but not after the German manner. It is better to be somewhat at the mercy of the immigrant than to adopt a type of training such as Germany has had.

Mere efficiency after all is not the most important thing in the eyes of the American. Our chief need seems to be a wider diffusion of technical schools, a better standardization of commercial education, and a broader basis for specialization. It is to England rather than to Germany that we must look for suggestions in this matter. Our chief hope seems to lie in the provision of a general system of part-time continuation schools upon a liberal basis, leaving the narrow vocational education to the industries themselves.

Finally, it is well to remember the unanimous verdict of the Mosely commissioners to the effect that our industrial prosperity is not due to our system of industrial schools, but rather in part, at least, to the ideals which control our general educational policies. For the present it seems better to continue to emphasize adaptability, alertness, and resourcefulness until a more general and a more systematic type of technical education can be provided.

The American stress upon manual training has attracted much attention from the critics. Muthesius ([70], p. 142) says:

The emphasis on manual training is almost overdone. In the manual-training schools an attempt is being made to replace intellectual education with the manual. This seems to be going too far, but the widespread use of manual training is very stimulating in its results. America has opened new paths and furnished an example for the whole world in both drawing and manual training. The energetic and practical people of America have vindicated points of view that could scarcely have been considered in the Old World, hampered as it is by theories and prejudices. The great importance of the two subjects is their basic value in technical and art education. America is building a good foundation and it does not matter so much that higher instruction is not