est is focused in him, and the common feeling makes the complex group a unit. This unity will be found in the poem, the oration, the symphony, or in any other successful art expression. The art product is an organic whole, like the human body, and throbs with the dominant emotional purpose the life imparted by the artist. - It will be noted also that the real artist, under control of a dominant feeling, selects the most fitting words, the most effective color, the truest line. The stronger the feeling the more direct and simple the form of expression. See this illustrated in Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg; in Kipling's "Recessional;" in French's monument to the young sculptor Milmore; in the Parthenon; and in "The Man with the Hoe." Under the dominion of genuine feeling the artist fulfils the laws of expression that demand vigor, directness, precision, confidence, authority. Love is the fulfilling of the law in this as in all other realms of human activity. Finally, as the art product is an expression of feeling, the successful work will, by all the virtues already recited, and others we have no time to name, impress one as succeeding in its efforts. Whatever the material employed, it must be translucent; the idea or sentiment must shine out. Artists themselves, as a rule, have a great delight in the skill displayed in technique. It is the chief part of their profession to teach or practice the technique of art. Schools of expression cannot, of course, impart the feeling that makes the artist; that must come with birth. They can but help the artist to manipulate and control the materials he desires to use to convey his feelings to the hearts of men. Schools of expression tend to emphasize and develop technical perfection, often unintentionally slighting the feeling of inspiration. The process is often ruinous to the young artist with an inspiration. Education in the appreciation of art must begin with first principles by helping the student to recognize the essential character of a work of art and understand its message. DEPARTMENT OF NORMAL SCHOOLS SECRETARY'S MINUTES FIRST SESSION.-WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1902 The department met in the Olivet Baptist Church in Minneapolis at 9:30 A.M., and was called to order by President J. F. Millspaugh, of the State Normal School at Winona, Minn. A vocal solo, "The Gondolier," Stewart, was sung by Mr. C. S. Laird. President David Felmley, of the State Normal University at Normal, Ill., presented a paper on "The Relations of Heads of Departments to the Training School." Discussion was opened by A. P. Hollis, principal of the training department of the State Normal School, Valley City, N. D., and participated in by President Albert Salisbury, State Normal School, Whitewater, Wis.; P. M. Magnuson, instructor in history and social science, State Normal School, St. Cloud, Minn.; J. H. Paul, president of the Latter Day Saints University, Salt Lake City, Utah; W. W. Wallers, principal of the Eliot School, St. Louis, Mo.; President J. N. Wilkinson, State Normal School, Emporia, Kan.; Miss May H. Prentice, instructor in the City Normal School, Cleveland, O.; and President John R. Kirk, State Normal School, Kirksville, Mo. The department adjourned to Thursday afternoon, July 10. SECOND SESSION.-THURSDAY, July 10 The department was called to order by President Millspaugh at 2: 30 P. M. President Homer H. Seerley, State Normal School, Cedar Falls, Ia., presented a paper on “Defects in the Normal Schools that Are Responsible for the Opposition and Criticism Urged against Them in Many Parts of the United States." L. Seeley, professor of pedagogy, State Normal School, Trenton, N. J., appointed to open the discussion, was unavoidably absent. By special request of the Department, approved by the Executive Committee, his discussion is printed in the following proceedings. The following participated in discussion: President Albert Salisbury, State Normal School, Whitewater, Wis.; President John W. Cook, Northern Illinois State Normal School, DeKalb, Ill.; President Seerley; and others. The following officers were elected : For President-Livingston C. Lord, Charleston, Ill. The department then adjourned sine die. JOHN R. KIRK, Secretary. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS THE RELATIONS OF THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL PRESIDENT DAVID FELMLEY, STATE NORMAL UNIVERSITY, NORMAL, ILL. In order that any institution may do its work there must be unity in its organization; all parts must co-operate for a common end. The functions or relations of the various parts cannot be seen without considering the law of the organization as a whole. The law of an organization is to be found in its purpose. The purpose of the normal school is to fit its students for teaching children. It is a technical school in which knowledge is held of value as it ministers to an art. What anatomy is to the surgeon, or mathematics to the engineer, the various branches of study are to the teacher. In a sense, they are the instruments of his art. No teacher is really at home in his profession until he feels that the value of every subject, topic, or question is to be found in its influence in the development of the child; that lessons are to be judged, not in their individual nature, but in their final outcome. The teacher stands committed to the biological conception that knowledge is of value as it determines conduct. In the normal school the various branches of study are to be organized in the consciousness of the student, not so much with regard to their inner logical relations as with regard to the interests and aptitudes of children. The question is not merely, what is this body of thought that we call geography, for example, nor yet what portions are of most practical worth; but how shall the child proceed in acquiring this knowledge? What is the value of these experiences in his unfolding life ? Hence in the normal school the child occupies the center of the stage. Nor can this child be a mere abstraction, talked about, but never experienced or studied. The center of interest must be definite; some group of living, concrete realities. If we have come into normal-school work after a somewhat extended experience in teaching or supervision, we can scarcely conduct a recitation without reverting to this early experience. Unless we see inchoate teachers on the benches before us, and are conscious of the children waiting beyond, whatever we may be we are not normal-school teachers. In the early normal school there was no training department. The instructors were men of tremendous enthusiasm, who had already won distinction as brilliant teachers. The memories of their own early experience in teaching children guided them in their work. But the students, even if they had taught, could not have before them the same children, or chil dren under identical conditions; while the younger students had never viewed any group of children from the standpoint of the teacher. Now, we provide systematic work in observation for the younger teachers, to which class-room references must point if images are to be concrete and definite. The children in the training department are the living realities upon which the thought of teacher and student may focus. It is about them that all the activities of the normal school must revolve. If this is admitted, it must follow that the training school must be more than a collection of classes for practice; it should be a model public school in its organization, conditions, and equipment, modified as little as may be by the demands of the normal school of which it is a part. Normal-school instructors should feel that their departments exist only that teachers may be prepared for their work. This truth does not justify any of the hand-to-mouth work which seems the summit of aspiration in some teachers and normal students. The primary teacher who has read Shakespeare and studied ethics and economics we believe is the better teacher because of it. Her broader outlook and deeper sympathies must count for something in her work. Still it is maintained that the so-called "general-culture" courses have no place in the normal-school curriculum unless they result in better teachers and better teaching, using this term to include all the work and influence of the teacher. It seems superfluous to state that the general doctrines of instruction and management taught in the department of pedagogy should be accurately represented in the practice school. But there have been normal schools in which theory and practice were wide apart. This divorce is justified as developing an eclectic spirit in the normal student. When the doctors disagree, he must think for himself. It has been claimed, too, that if a consistent system be followed in all departments of the normal school it begets a spirit of narrowness, of cocksureness, incompatible with that humility of spirit that is the prime condition of progress. It is true enough that a vast region of undiscovered country lies all about us. Still, if we have made no progress in the science of education, there is no place for the normal school. As we are sincere men and women, we must believe that there is a body of established doctrine, rational in theory and sound in practice. It is the mission of the normal school to expound and exemplify this doctrine. It must be done clearly and consistently. It is the right of the young teacher as truly as of the young physician or of the young engineer to come into his professional inheritance unembarrassed by clouds upon the title. It is primarily the function of the department of pedagogy to declare what this general doctrine is. The training. department must square its practice with the theory. This unity is best secured where the supervisor of practice is also instructor in general method. In weekly conferences with the critics he can discuss such ques tions of theory as are not receiving due recognition, and keep them informed in regard to the lines of instruction in the normal classes. The unity of the normal school demands that the instructors shall know what is going on in the training school, in their own department minutely, in all departments generally. Unless a course of study has been imposed by state authority, the head of the department should plan the training school course in his branch of study. We may presume that no one else about the school is so well qualified. At all events it establishes a definite responsibility for the practice-teaching in that branch. The course as outlined will provide a list of topics in due order of sequence, a catalog of the available illustrative material, and directions as to the special method of particular topics. It will be necessary for the principal of the school to edit and revise the work of the various departments in the interests of co-ordination. He will possibly find it necessary to reduce the time demanded. It is not expected that this course will prove entirely satisfactory. It will need frequent revision in the light of the experience of the training school. In order that critics may follow the curriculum wisely, or suggest needed improvements, they must know what it is. The critic teacher must know the work of each department in its general scope, and must know the work thoroly in its application to her grade. She must feel under obligation to further the general plan and spirit of the department, and to contribute from her experience toward the promotion of her work. This co-operation cannot be secured without frequent conferences between instructor and critic. If the critic teacher has been a stranger to the school in which she is at work, she should spend enough time in the class-room of the departments to discover their plan and spirit. The normal instructor has his reciprocal duties. He must explain his plans and methods to the critics and counsel and advise with them in regard to difficulties. He should assist in the supervision of the practice teachers. To this end the programs should be arranged so that each normal instructor shall be free from class duties at the hour when children are reciting in his branch in the training department. The chief value of the daily visits of the normal instructor to the practice school is in the evidence he gains in regard to the efficiency of his own work. The ordinary written review tests the quality of the instruction as thoroly as it tests the diligence of the pupils. The visits to the practice school serve a like purpose. He can afford great help and inspiration to the practice teachers. He knows best what material is available, the resources of his department in library or apparatus. He can suggest needed study where he finds that defective knowedge of the subject is the chief obstacle to success. Most of his criticisms upon the teaching had better be made thru the critic teacher, partly to recognize her responsibility, partly to preserve harmony in the criticisms and suggestions that reach the practice teacher. |