not so.

On the other hand, many institutions succeeded in raising themselves to the higher level. In general, every American college as it exists to-day started as a secondary school, then gradually raised its curriculum, and finally dropped its secondary department. In like manner many of the universities were colleges previously. added departments of graduate work and some of them

They

may

have

in the future drop their undergraduate departments. The chief value of the criticism lies in the fact that it gives a picture of a stage of the growth of American organization which is now largely outgrown. Unfortunately, in the case of the normal school the tendency is still obscure. Probably they will soon all offer three or four years of work above the high school, but whether they will be academic or professional in character is still in doubt.

In his statement that relatively fewer high-school graduates enter college in America than in France, Compayré overlooks the fact that the American high school includes all social classes rather than only one, as in France. The high school prepares for life in general as well as for the university, while the lyceé prepares for the university and for entrance into a few professions only. In America it is not expected that all high-school graduates will enter college. On the other hand, the fact remains that many who should continue their This fact merits more attention than it has

education fail to do so. yet received.

Compayré is right when he points out the complexity of our highschool population. It includes pupils of different destinies and those representing every social class, but we can not agree with him in his suggestion that such a condition is undesirable. The policy of bringing as many social types as possible under the same roof for their education can not fail to contribute to a breadth of view and to a social sympathy and solidarity which is of inestimable value in a democracy.

Difficulties are involved, but such difficulties must be met and provided for if the high school is to be a thoroughly democratic institution. The rise of a caste system must be avoided at all costs. How to avoid it and still provide for the needs of the complex social population is the problem of secondary education in America. Some confusion and abnormality will necessarily result, and it is right that it should, for out of this confusion comes the opportunity of the high school to perform one of its greatest functions—that of harmonizing the various discordant elements of our Nation into one great harmonious whole.

Barneaud and Lanson mention a lack of definiteness that was unavoidable at the stage of growth which we were in at that time. Since then the distinctions between the different levels have been

much clarified, while in Europe these distinctions have become less clear. All Europe is confronted with a problem of educational reorganization which is more serious than ours. They thought they had it solved but they were mistaken. This is the general fault of autocratic control. The solutions which it provides "by the stroke of the pen " preve to be delusions, while democracy plods on slowly but surely, never quite satisfied with itself yet ever growing.

EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

The criticism reflects a further defect in our educational organization which appears quite serious. The critics from all three of the nations agree that American students are required to remain in school too long. The disadvantages of this practice are variously stated. In the Mosely Report ([66], p. 18) they are listed as follows:

1. It involves serious limitation upon the individual's period of independence. 2. It casts an improper burden upon parents.

3. It postpones marriage unduly.

4. The individual is withdrawn from the world of experience during the most susceptible period of youthful freshness.

5. He is dominated too long by teachers.

6. The time is so entirely spent on learning from others that there is no possibility of properly developing either imaginative power or individuality. 7. Mental procreative power is sacrificed, whereas it should be developed.

Miss Burstall ([12], p. 15) says:

*

The American school organization is in one piece but it requires too long to complete it, since it lasts from 6 to 25. Twenty-five is too late to begin one's professional career. Secondary work should begin two

*

**

*

years earlier and the college period should be shortened.

Langlois says ([51], p. 293):

It is not normal for the American to keep young people in college up to the age of 21 or 22 in order to give them instruction which Europeans have at the age of 18.

Here we have good statements of the difficulty and suggestions of the remedy. The European student begins his secondary work not later than 12 and finishes work at 18, which is equivalent to our junior college work. The American student reaches this level at 20 or 21. Thus two or three valuable years are lost. To remedy this loss, some change in American school organization is necessary. For reasons which will be given later, it seems advisable to end elementary education at the end of the sixth grade. The American junior high school movement is an effort to solve this problem, and there is hope of a satisfactory solution. The chief difficulty lies in arousing sufficient public sentiment to secure a general adoption of the plan. As in the case of all movements toward reform in a democracy, progress is slow but sure. Much patience and tireless effort will be required, but the results to be obtained will be worth the cost.

SUPERVISION.

American supervision has either been ignored by the critics or it

fact that the super

has been criticised adversely. One defect is the visor's tenure is uncertain. Ryerson ([75], p. 178)

*

**

* *

*

says:

Our American friends appear to me to suffer in their educational interests from their love of rotation in office and frequent popular elections. Their system appears to me to be inconsistent, as a general rule, with the selection of competent superintendents, or with the impartial and thorough administration of the law among those by whom the local superintendents are elected or opposed, and to whom such superintendents are looking for votes in the approaching election.

Under the operations of such a system, it appears to me, there must frequently be as much electioneering as school superintendence and administration and that the latter will often be warped to advance the former.

Gray ([38], p. 148) says:

The incursions of politics into American education has been doubtless a retarding obstacle to the best interests of the teaching profession. Graft is an ugly word but truth compels its use in this connection. Men of unquestioned ability and lofty ideals have been thwarted and supplanted even when, and sometimes because, their administrative success has been conspicuous. * * * Superintendents of education, supervisors, and principals, * * * men who in the old world might be thought permanently secure in the tenure of their office, have often been overthrown.

Barneaud ([3], p. 18) calls attention to the fact that this practice often means untrained superintendents.

It is popular whims, tyranny, and shameful political oppression which give the administrators their office and which, also alone, certify their incompetency. Fitch ([32], p. 63) summarizes the defects of the superintendency as follows:

1. Uncertainty of tenure.

2. Dogmatism.

3. Lack of pension and lack of compensation for the loss of his office.

4. Too much connection with politics and patronage.

5. Interference by book companies who wish their books adopted.

This group of critics has pointed out one of our besetting sins. The belief that one man is as good as another naturally leads to the idea that the offices should be passed around. But conditions are no longer so bad as they were in Barneaud's day. The practice of electing city superintendents by popular vote is happily gone, while is also a tendency to employ city superintendents for more than a year at a time. Best of all, there is a growing public sentiment the practice of their appointment by mayors is in disfavor. There against ousting a good man. There is still room for improvement, however, for the superintendency is not yet safe. The children of the board members and those of prominent politicians still enjoy

too much freedom because the superintendents and teachers fear to make them "toe the mark" as other children do. With county and State superintendents conditions are still very bad in some of the States. The old system of popular election still prevails. While the term of office has lengthened, the candidates are still required to be citizens of the area in which they are elected. In the case of county superintendents this evil is particularly acute, since desirable candidates are often not available among the residents of the county. Consequently, the superintendents are usually politicians rather than educators. They have a narrow outlook and an uncertainty of tenure which makes truly good service impossible. State and county superintendents should not be elected by direct vote. The practice of popular elections and rotation in office for such officials is a natural outgrowth from the doctrine of equality, but it is a decided disadvantage to the cause of education. It is one of the evils of democracy which must be outgrown.

On the other hand, there is an equally great danger in making the superintendency too safe. Siljestrom ([84], p. 149) thinks that, as long as there is a frequent change of superintendents—

American schools can never be exposed to that listlessness and indifference, which, under a different system of management, may sometimes impede the progress of an educational establishment for years.

Miss Burstall ([12], p. 38) says:

America suffers from an excess of system in the public organization, schemes and rules as drawn up and worked by local educational authorities and their officials. Very little initiative is left to the teacher in the public-school organization; curricula, textbooks, even methods of teaching are settled by the committee and the superintendent. Officials are supreme and the teacher is often

little better than a cog in the machine. the best men out of the profession.

All this must have the effect of driving There is neither freedom of experiment, of initiative, or of organization, nor a tradition of personal influence in the development of character. One would have more scope outside in a private school. It may be that this excessive system, this rigidity and bondage is inseparable from an educational system fully organized and controlled by the State; if so, we may pray never to have such a system in England.

The preceding criticism clearly points out two evils, and it seems at first sight as though our problem could never be more than that of a choice between them. How to provide a greater permanency of tenure for the superintendency and still avoid autocracy and rigidity is still an unsolved problem. The same problem also exists to a greater or less degree in the case of the presidents of colleges. universities, and normal schools. At present the tendency is toward a more secure tenure in all cases. At the same time the cry of autocracy is being raised against these officials and against the boards. The hope of relief seems to be in the direction of the idea of checks and balances, which has so often proved useful in other

types and phases of control. In general, the superintendent and president have too much power. In particular cases there are such officials who do not abuse this power; but the fear of dismissal is never entirely absent among teachers. Teachers are accused and condemned by boards and administrative officers without having opportunity to defend themselves, and often before they know what is happening. They learn the results when it is too late to make a defense and impossible to do anything except hunt another position with another superintendent, who often insists on inquiring into any previous dismissals suffered by the candidate. Neither teachers, superintendents, nor presidents should be deprived of their position without due process of law. Secondly, all teachers should have free access to their boards through representatives of their own choosing. Thus the power of the superintendent will be limited without sacrificing his tenure of office.

Such are the main problems of organization, supervision, and control in the eyes of our critics. In each case they are worthy of consideration, and such consideration can not fail to bring about a clearer conception of what these activities should be in the United States.