looking, errorless notebook that will be damaging, highly damaging, to the work we need to do. In my opinion, it would be better to have the pupils write out in the laboratory, to the best of their ability, the work which they have done. Then have those notes carefully examined and errors indicated, and record made, of course, if you care to keep a record. Let those leaves as they have passed thru the teacher's hands, with the errors indicated, be the permanent notebook of the pupil. The place where the notebook is to be prepared should be in the laboratory. There is only one reason for making a notebook, and that is to keep the pupil thinking, and he needs to do this when he is with the apparatus and can get answers to questions that the note taking will cause to arise in his mind. So I think this plan is a good one: Do not try to get a fine-looking notebook so that you may be rated high by the college professors, for if you undertake to get a notebook that is a creditable looking one you are going to defeat the purpose of the work.

You know that the bore of the science teacher's life is reading the same old stuff in the pupils' notebooks year after year and sheet after sheet, until it is perfectly nauseating. Dr. G. Stanley Hall has said that if we would stay up more in the daytime to prevent errors we need not stay up so much at night to correct them. Now, the thing that bothers me most in science work is this awful question of being deluged with paperswhat to do with them. How can we get the very best effort of the pupil on the papers so as not to have to spend all the very best time of our lives correcting them?

MR. FISKE.-I should like to emphasize the point brought out about saving the teacher's energy and strength, and not having so many notebooks to look over. I believe we owe it to ourselves and to our pupils to be more than mere machines in this matter. I think if we spend our time in the evenings on anything, and we certainly should, it should not be notebooks or papers in relation to our school work, but it should be something we can take to our class next day that will give them food for thought and put them on a higher plane than they were the day before. There are teachers who are killing themselves dragging out their lives looking over notes and papers, especially teachers in English and the languages; and sometimes I feel sorry for them, carrying home whole loads and stacks of papers to be examined that individual night. It must be done before the next morning, and the teacher ought to be free. He cannot afford to do these things. Something must be done to economize the time and get the matter in a nutshell, so that we will have more time for freedom and thought along different lines than those we are grinding over in the daytime. I never take a notebook home. I look them over, as I said a moment ago, just as soon as they are done, and then I am thru with them.

HISTORY CONFERENCE

LEADER, CHARLES R. FRAZIER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, LITTLE FALLS, MINN.

TOPIC

SHALL COURSES IN EUROPEAN HISTORY BE GIVEN
OVER COURSE IN ENGLISH HISTORY?

[REPORTED BY SUPERINTENDENT H. s. Hilleboe, benson, minn.]

PRECEDENCE

The leader introduced the topic as follows: There is in my own mind a tendency to think upon the how of teaching history, rather than the what. The pedagogy of the what is here, however, as it is to a greater or less degree in all subjects, very important. Our new books on pedagogy are going to deal more and more largely with the subject-matter of instruction. It is as far wrong to say, "it does not matter what one studies, but how he studies it," as it would be to say, "it does not matter what one eats, but how he eats it." The problem of selecting from the "thick book of personal experiences" of which history is composed what shall be taught is a double one: First, it must be decided what periods of the world's history shall be studied; and, secondly, within these periods what

few fibres may best be selected from the intricate mesh of truth in order that they may be woven into a profitable fabric.

To the first of these only would I direct your attention; nor shall I undertake this except perhaps to make a plea for a better recognition of the value of courses in the mediaval and modern periods of European history. Since, in harmony with the best thought upon the subject, we have split up our general history into natural periods and divisions to which we devote a more exhaustive study than had been possible, there has been a tendency to jump from the history of Rome to that of England, and thence to the history of America. This leaves almost untouched practically all the history of continental Europe for fourteen hundred years. No one questions the wisdom of studying the Greek and Roman civili zations, and there are few schools but give a course in American history late in the highschool course. My plea is that Europeon history shall be given a place in the high school somewhere preceding the course in United States history.

Why? In the first place the past of Europe is infinitely richer and more varied than that of our own country. It affords an opportunity to study the human spirit on a larger scale. And further, this period is rich in incidents and movements which aid directly in the interpretation of our own history. Tracing back the history of our own people into their earlier European environment, we soon come into the atmosphere of political revolution; divine right of kings; the free city with its local as distinguished from national patriotism; feudalism and ecclesiastical domination, which route, traversed in reverse order, serves as an excellent approach to our civilization. One who has once seen the connection between the serfdom of the Middle Ages and the slums of our modern cities will not think to deal with the slum problem without considering the long story of “the man with the hoe."

The local patriotism developed in the free cities of southern Europe as they emerged from feudalism led the way to that higher and better form, national patriotism, making possible a France, a Germany, an England, and an Italy. This throws light upon the two stages of progress illustrated by the states-rights South and the nationalized North during the time when there was a Mason and Dixon's line in this country. So, too, as the divine right of kings to accumulate a dangerous amount of political power was overthrown by the divine might of the people, we are able to see that the divine right to accumulate a dangerous amount of that power which money gives may have to be overthrown by the people in self-defense. It is difficult to see how the analogy between the struggle to limit the political power of kings and the struggle to limit the dangerous accumulation of money power under one irresponsible management can be missed. Nor do I see where in all history can be found a more potent argument for wise dealings with corporations, trusts, and mergers than is found in that series of supreme struggles which characterized the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, by which the masses taught the classes that their rights must be respected.

And so, instances might be cited at great length to justify the statement that European history is rich in the power to throw light upon the interpretation of our own history. It is not meant that the facts of history gleaned from the past form a basis for infallible predictions for the future, but rather that, as cause and effect, defect and remedy, bear similar relations to each other at all times, a proper and a scholarly interpretation of our own American history can be obtained only thru a knowledge of the past of Europe, this knowledge not to make of us pedants or prophets, but to contribute to wisdom and understanding.

One more reason, and the best one, for giving European history a place somewhere preceding the last course in American history in the high school: With the purpose of giving young people a good appreciation of our own history, the teacher is apt to think the most direct way the best way.

Should we immerse ourselves and our pupils in American history to the exclusion of European history, we would be guilty of the grave error condemned by Paul: "They

measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise." Our federal system can hardly be understood without a knowledge of the Swiss and German federal systems. Our Protestantism cannot well be understood without a sympathetic study of Catholicism at its best. The political, social, æsthetic, and religious movements must of necessity be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous European history. The pupil must come to see that we are not a peculiar people.

This lesson of cosmopolitan sympathy is probably the most important one which comes from a study of medieval and modern history. I will borrow and condense a paragraph from Professor James Robinson, of Columbia University. He says:

The most valuable thing in European history for us Americans is "the judgment which forms itself insensibly in a fair mind along with fresh knowledge," and this judgment almost any one with a fair mind, even the school child, if properly taught, may hope to attain to; for this judgment comes almost of itself, and what it displaces it displaces easily and naturally. Our whole place and mission in the universe come to look different to us as we view ourselves in the light of Europe's moral and intellectual achievements during two thousand years before the United States came into existence.

It may be urged that the study of English history will be a sufficient approach and background for the study of American history. This I cannot bring myself to see. In my opinion the purposes I have tried to set forth briefly are best accomplished by a course in medieval, followed by a course in modern, history, in both of which emphasis is laid upon English history, rather than omitting either of these for the course in English history. Stories from English history may well find a place in the grades. This, with the course suggested above, best satisfies my sense of educational values, where less than a three-year course in history can be given.

DISCUSSION

Professor Willis M. West, University of Minnesota, agreed with the writer of the paper, and expressed the belief that we are going to have American history in our high schools; also that English history would be introduced into the high schools, and that we shall finally have European history as a regular subject.

History will never be well taught as long as it is a side issue. If we can secure the necessary time for European history, and get better instruction, the results will be more satisfactory. There are periods needlessly neglected—the period of Alexander and the period of the Roman empire. Teach those periods that have a direct bearing upon our civilization. We teach the Roman republic. Why not give the empire more consideration? We give the republic first place, not on account of its merits, but because we are introduced to it thru classical literature. Suppose we should treat English history the same way; we would then study the Elizabethan period only, and omit the nineteenth century history, which is of greater importance. Later periods seem more complex than the earlier, especially the way we teach the earlier period. Give more attention to the two periods of Alexander and the Roman empire, as a basis for European history.

SUPERINTENDENT J. A. VANDYKE, Fergus Falls, Minn.-There is no better field for outside reading than history. We do not make enough use of biography. More reference books should be secured. Use historical fiction, modern, mediæval, and also ancient, Take up a certain line of thought, work it out, as, for instance, the slavery question in American history. So the subject of Christianity could be treated in general history. Too little attention is paid to history. We have special teachers for science, for languages, for mathematics; but history is passed around to any teacher that happens to have a vacant period in the program. Let us have better reference books, better text-books, and better teachers.

SUPERINTENDENT J. RICHESON, of East St. Louis, Ill.-The strongest teacher ought to be the teacher of history. Then arrange a sensible course. The first year should be given to English history; second year to general history; third year to American history.

The reason for beginning with English history is that it is a complete unit. History as taught now is too often merely polite gossip. The students show no grasp of civilization. A great many pupils take history who ought not to be in the class at all. General history might even be omitted and as good results be obtained by putting two years on English history and two years on American history.

Professor E. V. ROBINSON, of St. Paul.-The speaker has wrestled with this question a number of years. He has defended the idea that instruction in history should begin with that of general history. This, in theory, is sound. History is a process of evolution, and in that process we must take all, or else the process will not be complete. The speaker then cited several examples to show that persons might know the special histories of some countries and yet not be able to connect them and make a uniform whole. But there are some practical difficulties in making general history the foundation for historical instruction. It ought to be taken in the first-year class, but when put there in the course it proved to be a slaughter of innocence, a plunge into cold water. Teachers who had adopted the plan found the results far from satisfactory. Better results were obtained when general history was placed in the second year and no history in the first. The change in the pupils from the first year to the second year was great. Second-year students were much more capable of mastering the difficult subject of history. The speaker next called attention to the fact that nearly all the text-books now on the market were not satisfactory. Original source-books and reference works were too often unsatisfactory. Source-books contained too short extracts, and taught the pupils to jump at conclusions from inadequate premises. The speaker preferred a few reference books, having a great number of copies on hand, so that all pupils could use them at practically the same time.

H. W. CALDWELL, University of Nebraska.—The high school is called the people's college. It gives a four years' course. It is desirable that it should increase the quantity of historical instruction; but what should be studied? What should the subjects be? The main object of all historical instruction should be to get the unity and continuity of history. General history should be used to furnish this connection. We need better teachers and better methods. Emphasize unity, and show the progressive development of civilization and national life. The speaker took for granted that all pupils had finished American history in the eighth grade, and were ready to do further work in the high school. Begin with Greek history and civilization, and put half a year to that work; then a half a year on Roman history; half a year on medieval history; one-half year on English history; and devote the fourth year to American history. In the grades the instruction ought to proceed from the known to the unknown, from American history backward. In the high schools the process should be reversed. Beginning with ancient history the instruction should be brought down to the present day. In Latin a teacher was supposed to have six years' preparation, in science at least four years' preparation, but in history any one who had gone thru a small text-book was supposed to be a competent teacher of that subject, and the result was that the teaching of history too often became merely hearing recitations. Keep source material on hand; study the Declaration of Independence itself, and not what men say may be found in the declaration.

PROFESSOR GEORGE WELLS KNIGHT, of the University of Ohio. The general experience of all teachers is that they have difficulties in teaching general history, and yet we all think that it ought to be taught. How about trying to teach it to immature pupils? No one is satisfied with the result. Must there not be something the matter with our efforts to give the pupils too large a quantity of history? Are we not in danger of spoiling their digestion? Teach well one period of history, rather than a faint glimmering of all civilization. The speaker believed there was a place for general history, but that place was after the pupil knows well the specific histories of two or three countries. For instance, Greece and Rome and England. Suppose a pupil leaves school having taken

Those who go to college

only these histories. The pupil would not stop learning. would get mediæval history there; the others would have to do without, or they would acquire it of their own accord. Teaching mediæval history or general history had been a failure in his state, and he understood it had been a failure in other states. Now, what were the reasons? First, the subject was too intricate in itself; second, the teachers were too weak. Boards require them to teach so many subjects that there would be some that they did not know; and general history was, as a rule, sure to be the subject that they did not know.

Professor George M. Smith, University of South Dakota.-The Germans have solved the problem of teaching history better than any other people. Their plan embraces, first, acquiring facts; second, the interpretation of the facts. The two must go hand in hand. We need to keep the historical facts in mind, but lay a special stress on the interpretation of historical phenomena. Learn essential facts only, and let the pupils try to interpret these.

PROFESSOR PETTINGER, of Anderson, Ind.-The teachers had found trouble in Indiana. Specialists were clamoring for more time each for their own subjects. There was no general plan followed in history. The result was that no two high schools in the state of Indiana have the same course in history. The speaker thought that the main object in the study of history was to try to develop a historic sense, a sort of time relation. The speaker laid more stress upon the attitude of the pupils toward the study of history than upon the number of facts acquired. If the pupils were made to love history the results would be better, and this liking for history should be the main object in our teaching.

PROFESSOR ROBINSON, of St. Paul, explained his former remarks more fully. The speaker wanted to state definitely that sources and their use in the high schools were not derogatory to good study, but he objected strenuously to teaching history solely from sources. It would teach pupils to make unwarranted conclusions. High school pupils could not specialize.

PROFESSOR DUNN, of South Dakota.-The speaker had found lamentable ignorance of American history. One year ought to be given to English history before American history is taken up in the high schools. We are trying to deal with difficult problems in our own country, and unless we have the historical connection we fail to understand the questions. The building of reformed bridges can be done only when the bridges rest on solid historical foundation, at least with one end. Some reformers try to build bridges resting with both ends in air. We must have English history as a foundation for our American history.

MISS SPEARS, of British Columbia.-In British Columbia we eliminate about twothirds of the matter in ordinary histories. We study some main parts, beginning with Alfred the Great, then the Norman Conquest, the Magna Charta, the Rights of Englishmen, the Hundred Years' War, the Wars of the Roses, the Rights of the Sovereigns, Charles II., Oliver Cromwell, and the Commonwealth. We try to take the high points in history and master them thoroly. When the pupils know these well they are able to fill in what other information may be necessary.

PROFESSOR W. F. GORDY, of Hartford, Conn.-The object of the study of history is unity and continuity. The main effort should be to have historical information illuminate the life of the student. Correlate biography and the life of the student. The main point for the pupil is: "Is it worth the while for me to know these historical facts?" Some knowledge is worth the while acquiring and some is not. Know a few things, so that the pupil can make these few a part of himself. We teach too many periods and too much in each period. The object of the study of history is to know one's relations