Some of these burdens may be removed, but some seem unavoidable. The irregularity of attendance and the shortness of the school year may be, and are being, dealt with. Movements toward simplified spelling and simplified weights and measures spring up occasionally, but so far they have done little to relieve the burden to the teacher. The freedom of the people to move from one place to another is deeply grounded in American traditions and will never be given up. The standardization of all of the schools so that those move during the school term may enter another school without loss seems to provide the main hope of betterment, though there is undoubtedly a sentiment which favors moving between school sessions rather than in the midst of them. On the whole, however, the conditions of economic life and the belief of personal freedom to move will

who

make it impossible to lighten this burden to any great degree.

It also seems necessary for the school to shoulder the burden of assimilating the immigrant, and that of the moral training which is necessary to the remedy of social defects. Other organizations are doing and will continue to do what they can, but all indications point to the fact that the school must continue to bear the chief burden.

Thus it seems that the American teacher is to-day carrying a greater burden than the teacher of any other country. In spite of this, however, individuals and social organizations seem to be demanding more and more of the teacher's time and efforts. Many of these movements are thoroughly commendable and the school can render great service in popularizing them. Yet there is a limit to what the already overburdened teacher can do.

Some of the critics concentrate their attention alone upon the overburdening of the university professor. Foucher ([34], p. 192) tells how the class period of one professor is broken into by calls over the telephone "either from the Metropolitan Museum, from a buyer of antiquities, from some curious idler for information concerning some manuscript or other, some object of art, or simple trinket in the realm of India or Persia." From this he concludes that "the Americans have the very clear and marked impression that university professors are at the service of the public."

Foucher ([34]), p. 193) also says:

If one adds to the already manifold teaching duties the demands of life in the great cities, one may conceive that our colleagues in New York feel still more keenly than we the difficulty in being able to live in a day of only 24 hours. * * * The European exchange professors endure ordinarily quite philosophically the overdriving of their colleagues in America. They console themselves by the thought that after all the work done on the basis of 15 or 20 hours per week can not possibly be above the undergraduate level, and that necessarily much of the work must be repeated from year to year.

The question of how much the public should expect of its teachers outside of school hours has two sides to it. If the teachers do no

the

outside work the schools tend to lose touch with community, as has happened in France, the nation which these critics represent. This is highly detrimental to progress, but it is also very detrimental to have teachers who are overworked to such an extent that their teaching becomes a mere repetition of what they have taught before. The problem seems to be that of steering between two undesirable extremes. Leadership by the teacher in the social activities of his district may easily be overdone, but it would also be dangerous to

swing too far the other way.

Teachers are overburdened often by too many duties within the institution. Caullery ([14], p. 57) says:

The professor has a too heavy teaching load. He must have freedom of mind and time in which to undertake and conduct research. But in America the classes recite almost every day. The most of these require much preparation. But in the meantime the professors have too many reunions, commissions, and administrative cares. They must take too much time with individual students.

Grimm ([40], p. 421) says:

The high-school teacher who teaches one or two subjects can keep in training, but the elementary teacher has too many branches. It is not to be wondered at if even an able teaching force gradually sinks to the level of a soulless mechanism.

Both of these criticisms again call attention to the danger which results when teachers are overworked. The chief difficulty in removing the present burdens, particularly so far as the higher institutions are concerned, grows out of the principle of equality and the suspicion of experts. The average member of a State legislature undoubtedly thinks that every teacher should teach at least eight hours a day. The holidays on Saturday are begrudged. The idea that teaching is an expert service, for which a great deal of preparation is necessary, is not yet born in the minds of the general public. Many of the teachers themselves have not realized this fact and are consequently growing fossilized as the years pass by. Thus we come again to one of our most serious educational problems, the provisions for the growth of the teacher while teaching.

In one respect only it seems is the work of the American teacher less arduous than that of the teachers of Europe. Miss Burstall

([12], p. 158) says:

The teacher appears to do too little. The new ideas do not come from her. She acts more like the chairman of a meeting, the object of which is to ascertain whether the pupils have studied for themselves in a textbook and what they think about what they have been studying.

This undoubtedly sums up the American popular view of the function of teaching. No more is expected by the people in general; and if

standard,

prove

American teaching is measured by this it will to be all that could be desired. Right here is the secret of the difficulties of teacher training in America. From such a point of view little training is needed. Not being needed, it is not wanted. The only hope lies in making the work of the expert teacher so valuable that the community will feel that it can not afford to do without him. When this is done the troublesome questions of salary and tenure will solve themselves.

RELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND PUPILS.

On the question of the relation between teachers and pupils the critics are divided. The Germans think it is a bad relationship, while the critics from England approve it. The French critics are divided among themselves. On the adverse side Grimm's criticism is typical

([40], p. 42):

*

To the German teacher it appears strange for the children to use satirical criticisms against the school and the teacher when free hand is given on certain days of the year. As a relic of the Middle Ages *, the young hopefuls ape the teacher before everybody and draw caricatures of him on the blackboard with more or less writing under them in which they give praise or blame in a more or less humorous way. The bantered teacher, * led around by the nose by the sly children, is a continual figure in the newspapers. The average American sanctions this because he considers the American boy more wise and shrewd than any other.

**

Grimm also speaks of pupils who "stubbornly yawn in the faces of the lady teachers." On the other hand, Ravenhill ([72], p. 414) says:

The free and easy attitude of American boys and girls to their elders is undoubtedly a surprise at first to a visitor from the old country, yet one is conscious throughout of the existence of a very pleasant spirit of freedom on the part of the pupils.

Bain ([2], p. 21) says:

Children, when they first attend school are taught to regard one another as brothers and sisters and the teacher as their school mother. The classroom is their home, it belongs to them as much as to the teacher; they learn to keep it tidy, to beautify it, and to love it. From that they go on to a love for the whole school building, which they share in common with boys and girls from other families, who are equally attracted to it, proud of it, and anxious to make it as beautiful as possible. The school is their city and in it they learn something of the duties and privileges of citizenship. They also acquire a knowledge of a higher obligation, viz, that of their country and National Government whose flag flies over and protects their school home.

In general the English critic tends to look upon the friendliness and familiarity of the pupils and teachers as desirable rather than

The friendliness of the teacher and the good humor of the pupils are the rule. The schools are happier than ours, the casa giacosa of Vittorino de Feltre has arisen anew in America.

The personality of the pupil is respected. There is a freedom and famil arity between teachers and pupils that would seem strange in England.

The disagreement among our critics seems to be due mostly to differences of opinion concerning the value of respecting the personality of the child. This question has been discussed on page 23 and will be considered further in Chapter IV.

The following brief summary is offered as a conclusion to this chapter: The work of training teachers in America is being carried on under formidable difficulties. The general public and even many of our educational leaders still believe that thorough academic training is alone sufficient to produce good teachers. Consequently, professional training in America is not satisfactory. The annual output of teacher-training institutions is less than one-fourth of what it should be. The quality of the training is also inferior to that of the leading European countries. The general condition of normal schools is unsatisfactory. Many of them fail to concentrate their efforts on the main problem. The attendance is relatively meager and irregular. Adequate facilities for practice teaching are not available. Entrance requirements are still too low.

Conditions in the teaching service as a whole are unsatisfactory. Salaries are inadequate, the tenure is uncertain and the pension system is very limited. The social standing of the teacher is good, but he has little or no standing professionally. While there is a progressive spirit among teachers in general it results mainly in a striving toward higher levels only. There are too many women teachers, and they are suffering under some limitations which are inconsistent with their freedom. Many teachers are also carrying a teaching load which is excessive.

Such are the chief elements of the complex problem of the teacher and his training in America.

Chapter IV.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND THE KINDERGARTEN.

In order to understand and evaluate the criticism which foreigners offer concerning our elementary education it is first of all helpful to consider the function of such education. What does the American elementary school aim to do and what does it accomplish? The answer to this question, so far as it is revealed in the criticism, indicates that the American elementary school is emphasizing ideals rather than knowledge. Sadler ([77], p. 433) lists the following aims:

To develop citizenship in a common nationality, to secure freedom of individual development, to promote variety rather than unity, to secure progress through free discussion rather than through administrative order, to promote alertness and adaptability rather than general culture.

Miss Burstall ([12], p. 19) says:

The pupils and teachers are aiming at power and facility of mind rather than knowledge. In America, the boy learns to use a textbook and a library, to get hold of a subject and talk about it in class, clearly and thoughtfully. Six months afterwards he may not be able to pass a written examination on it, but that does not matter. He could get it up again if it were worth while. It is this difference in aim which makes the unsympathetic English observer call American education superficial and say that it lacks thoroughness and accuracy. The American teacher aims to stimulate thought. In England the pupil learns lessons. * What the American has gained from school training is a general intellectual experience over a wide area, the power of self-directed work, a readiness for emergencies, the power of rapid acquisition, adaptability, and quickness.

*

Rathbone in the Mosely Report ([66], p. 263) says:

American boys on leaving school do not in general know as much as the English boys, but they are more intelligent, resourceful, adaptable, harder working, and more anxious to improve their education. * * * The American people do not consider their education at an end when they leave school or the university, but realize that they must go on learning all their lives. education is not something separate from life, it is a part of life.

School

Groser in the same report ([66], p. 174) says:

A spirit of inquiry, individuality, and initiative is produced. These qualities lead the workman to continue his education and to read newspapers. His intelligence upon leaving school is not highly developed but it is of a curiously alert type.