some of the most elementary principles of science, and easy experiments
showing how such principles might be illustrated in class. Capillary
attraction was illustrated in a lesson I heard, and its bearing on
everyday life was shown. Pupils were required to come out of their
seats, and to arrange simple apparatus before the class. As they were
quite unaccustomed to manipulate even the simplest materials, they
seemed to find considerable difficulty even in drawing out glass tubing
and clamping together glass plates.
The feature of the school, perhaps, the most interesting, was the
anxiety shown by these rural teachers to lose no opportunity for
improvement, and the keenness with which they followed their daily
lessons. Some of them were so untrained as to find great difficulty
in following the word of command during drill, but these, who were
painfully conscious of their defects, made rapid progress even in a
week’s time. Summer Schools like that of Benton Harbour may give real
help to the ill-prepared and untrained country teachers, in increasing
their knowledge, and widening their interests. They offer advantages
to those who have no opportunity for training, but their conditions
are such as to prevent their becoming an adequate substitute for
it. Indeed, their very existence acknowledges the fact that country
teachers have no opportunities for preparation, and in itself sanctions
a certain amount of superficiality.
The principal object of Colonel Parker’s Summer School, held in
previous years at Chautauqua, New York, but this year at Englewood,
Chicago, is to stimulate teachers of all kinds, and to suggest lines of
work to be developed by them during the year. Attracted by the name
and work of Colonel Parker, more than 200 teachers, superintendents of
schools, and persons interested in education, came from nearly all the
States of the Union to attend the Summer School at Englewood. Most of
the ordinary school staff of the Cook County Normal School at Englewood
acted as teachers in the Summer School, and Colonel Parker himself gave
daily lectures in psychology. Daily lessons were also given in the
teaching of science, language, and reading, “number” or arithmetic,
music, drawing, and also in voice culture, Sloyd, physical culture,
blackboard drawing, and other subjects advantageous to the teacher.
The methods of teaching taught in the Normal School at Englewood were
explained and exemplified in the Summer School, and Kindergarten and
primary classes attached to the Normal School were taught during
the weeks in which the Summer School was held, in order to show the
practical application of the methods discussed. The students selected
their courses of study. All, however, were expected to attend the
psychology lectures. The classes in methods of teaching science,
methods of laboratory work, methods of teaching language and reading,
and methods of teaching “number” or arithmetic, were the most largely
attended. Very keen interest was also taken in the blackboard drawing.
The work in methods of science was carried on by lectures, laboratory
work by students, and field work. An important feature of the science
lectures was the attention paid to methods of meteorological
observation. Blank charts, to show the daily range and variation of
temperature and air-pressure, were filled in by the students; United
States Weather Bureau maps were studied; the origin and course of
storms in the United States were followed. The relation of science to
other subjects, number, reading, modelling, painting, drawing, writing,
language, was brought out in the lectures, all the instruction being
such as to suggest methods of actually dealing with the subjects before
a class of children. The laboratory work was especially suggestive. The
Summer School pupils did individual experimental work, and had the same
instruction and treatment as a class of children would have had. The
practical science course for the Summer School was:
(i.) Making a magnetic needle.
(ii.) Heat. Conductivity of Metals.
(iii.) ” Expansion of Metals.
(iv.) ” Determination of boiling-point of fresh and
salt-water.
(v.) ” Expansion of liquids and air.
(vi.) ” Chemical change.
(vii.) Pressure of air. Pump and syphon.
(viii.) Mechanical constituents of soil (1).
(ix.) ” ” ” (2).
(x.) Physical properties of soils (1).
(xi.) ” ” ” (2).
(xii.) Mineral constituents of soils (1).
(xiii.) ” ” ” (2).
(xiv.) Transpiration of plants.
(xv.) Specific gravity of minerals.
Field excursions were made weekly, and methods of conducting children’s
field excursions were suggested and discussed.
The instruction in blackboard drawing, as illustrating geographical
forms, was excellent. In all cases, the students worked on paper with
charcoal, at the same time as the teacher drew on the wall slate.
After making a sketch, the teacher erased her work at once, in order
to secure rapidity in those who were copying. The members of the class
then distributed themselves round the room at various parts of the wall
slate, and were required to reproduce on the wall slate the drawing
they had just made, the teacher meanwhile giving individual help and
criticising. The subjects for blackboard drawing for the fifteen
lessons of the course were:
(_a_) Illustrations to show how Blackboard Drawing can be
used.
(_b_) Hills, valleys, mountains, plateaus.
(_c_) River-basins, waterfalls, lakes, deltas.
(_d_) Erosion, cliffs, cañons, terraces, gorges.
(_e_) Mountains, ranges, parallel, etc.
(_f_) Continent of N. America. Esquimaux huts; Indian
wigwams; logging camps.
(_g_) United States. Cotton fields, rice swamps, sand bars.
(_h_) Mexico. Central America. Cacti; ruins.
(_i_) S. America. Fiord coasts, volcanoes; tropical forests.
(_j_) Africa. Deserts, sand-dunes, oases, canals.
(_k_) Abyssinian Highlands: Nile Basin, pyramids, palms.
(_l_) Australia Islands, coral, volcanoes.
(_m_) Eurasia; plateaus of Thibet and Gobi.
(_n_) India; Spain; Italy; banyan trees.
(_o_) Norway and Sweden; glaciers, icebergs.
Through the kind permission of Colonel Parker, I was able to hear all
lessons and to see the entire working of the school. Daily visits for
nearly a fortnight served to show, that much educational life was
centered there, and that teachers who occupied responsible positions in
all parts of the States were receiving new light and stimulation for
the working out of their own particular problems.
At the college of the well-known summer assembly at Chautauqua, New
York, there was no professional instruction for teachers this year. I
heard some excellent teaching in physics, German and French; but beyond
the fact that many of the Chautauqua college students were teachers
taking holiday courses of study to equip themselves better for future
teaching, the work that I saw here had no direct bearing upon the
training of teachers.
At Cornell University, courses in pedagogy are usually given in
connection with the summer course in philosophy. These are for graduate
students only. Psychology lectures, with experimental demonstrations,
are given every day in the week; lectures on psychological and
psychophysical method, with demonstrations and laboratory practice, are
delivered three times a week; pedagogy and the history of education are
studied by means of lectures and conferences; methods of teaching the
special subject of study are discussed in connection with the other
summer courses for graduates at Cornell University. I was present at
a very interesting meeting of teachers who were attending a summer
course in English. Individual members of the class gave their own
experience as regards the teaching of English and literature in the
schools. The students were mostly specialists in English, and teachers
in private academies, or High Schools, and an informal discussion of
special difficulties and methods which had been actually tried was very
interesting and helpful to the class as a whole.
A general survey of Summer Schools of all kinds seems to show that
their work cannot be regarded as that of “Training,” but rather as
accessory to it. Where the principal or conductor of the Summer School
is a man of enthusiasm and enlightenment, teachers can be refreshed and
stimulated in many ways, by a summer course of work; but to regard a
course as training which supplies no practice-work, and exists under
highly artificial conditions, for a few weeks only, is to overlook some
of the most important features of training.
As a general summary of the work of Training, seen in Normal Schools,
City Training Schools and University Departments, it may be stated:
(i.) That the State Normal Schools, adhering to old traditions, and
failing to insist on adequate and thorough scholarship as an entrance
qualification, have been obliged to devote themselves, either to
securing that scholarship, or to the pursuance of so-called training
under conditions the most conducive to mechanical lines of work, and
dead forms of method.
(ii.) That the City Training Schools, being entirely local
institutions, supported by local funds, and only supplying teachers to
the schools of the vicinity, are in danger of being cramped in their
methods by seeking to win public favour.
(iii.) That the University Departments of Pedagogy, especially those
belonging to State Universities, are capable of affording the widest
and best opportunities for the thorough training of primary and
secondary teachers, and in supplying these opportunities, they will not
only help forward the cause in which they are immediately engaged, but
afford a valuable means of unifying and stimulating education generally.
The existence of the good and the bad side by side is as marked a
feature in training institutions as in any other department of American
education, and suggests great rapidity of progress in some directions.
Where the training is bad, old methods have been retained under new
conditions; and where good results have been obtained, they are due
to the readiness to try new methods, and to keep in touch with the
educational progress of the day. The stimulus to much that is good
in the present training of teachers in America is the psychological
study of children, which now is being systematically organized in a
“National Association for the Study of Children.” Not only scientific
workers, but teachers and parents throughout the country, are beginning
to realize the important bearing of child-study upon all educational
questions, and nowhere is their enthusiasm for matters educational more
shown than in their united devotion to the solution of this new problem.
AMY BLANCHE BRAMWELL.
PART II.
BY MILLICENT HUGHES.
In America, as in Europe, it is becoming increasingly recognised, that
the fact of having received a good education, even if that education
have included a University course, is no guarantee of fitness for
the teaching profession. That some special professional preparation
is also necessary before a teacher can be safely entrusted with
teaching responsibility can hardly be said to be any longer a matter
of debate among those who have devoted time and thought to educational
questions. There may be much difference of opinion as to the best way
of giving that preparation, but that it should be given is becoming
more and more a foregone conclusion. There seems at last some chance
that a well-earned rest may be allowed to the well-worn comparison
made between the doctor’s and teacher’s professions, with its obvious
moral--that just as no right-thinking parent would allow an unqualified
practitioner to prescribe for his child’s body, so it should be
impossible for that far less understood and delicate something, which
we call the mind, to be entrusted to the care of one whose only
qualification for the post is the possession of a certain amount of
useful information. There are many battles yet to be fought, many
experiments yet to be tried, many failures yet to be faced, ere all
shall be agreed on the best kind of professional training that can be
given to teachers; yet I have returned from America encouraged in the
belief that the decisive battle in favour of training has been fought
and won on both sides of the Atlantic, and that the old world and the
new may with advantage to both join hands in the endeavour to discover
the best ways and means of such training.
And it would seem especially fitting that England and America should
thus join hands, for, after all, few things about the Americans
impressed me more than the fact that they are really English, and that
the inhabitants of Great Britain and the United States really form part
of one great English-speaking nation, with the heritage of a noble
language and literature, and a common life of thought and feeling. In
matters educational, the truth of this oneness impressed me vividly.
Allowing for such differences as must exist between an old and a new
country, it is nevertheless true that most of the problems in education
which they are trying to solve are those which perplex us also, and
of these the problem of the Training of Teachers holds a place in
the front rank. But it is a curious and interesting fact, that the
solution should be attempted in both countries, and yet that so little
attention should be paid in each to what is being done in the other.
The ignorance that prevails among American teachers as to what is being
attempted in England is, I fear, only equalled by our own ignorance
of American educational life. This ignorance is largely the result of
the difficulty that both American and English teachers experience, in
obtaining definite information on educational matters in connection
with either country. This fact made it very difficult for me even to
map out my tour, so as to include as far as possible what was typical
of American Training in the short time at my disposal, and had it not
been for the unvarying kindness and courtesy shown me by American
teachers, in directing my notice to what was best worth seeing, my
task would have presented almost insuperable difficulties. As it is, I
have, of course, been unable to cover the whole ground, and indeed have
been able to personally examine into the opportunities for training
in a very few States. These, however, I believe to be representative
States, from a study of the means of training in which it is possible
to arrive at a very fair conclusion of its condition in the States as
a whole. They include the following: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan and Illinois. I was, however,
fortunate in being able to supplement the information thus obtained by
a careful study of the many excellent State exhibits in the Educational
Department of the Liberal Arts Building, at the World’s Fair, and to
further correct and intensify the impressions I had received by many
conversations with educationists from all parts of the United States,
whom it was my good fortune to meet at the Educational Congresses, held
at Chicago in July.
In considering any American educational question, there are one or two
points which must never be lost sight of, and perhaps it will be well
to indicate them here. In the first place, it must be remembered that
there is not one American educational system, but many. Each State has
complete control of its own educational matters, has its own School
Law, sets aside common lands, or levies taxes for the support of its
own schools, and is responsible to no higher authority. The only part
taken by the Central Government of the United States in connection with
education has been in the establishment of a Bureau of Education, the
chief functions of which have been (1) the collecting of statistics and
general information respecting education in all the various States,
which are embodied in an annual report made by the Commissioner
of Education, (2) the publishing of monographs and circulars of
information on topics of educational interest, such as Co-education,
Teaching of History, etc., and (3) the maintaining of a valuable
Pedagogical Reference Library at Washington.
Secondly, a distinction must be made between the Western States, of
which Michigan might be taken as representative, and the Eastern, of
which Massachusetts might be considered typical. In the former we find
a most complete system of State education, leading from the Primary
School right up to the great co-educational University of Michigan.
The State Schools there have few private rivals, and the University
none. In the State of Massachusetts, on the contrary, although Primary,
Grammar and High Schools are maintained at the public expense, yet
the children of a large proportion of the inhabitants attend private
schools and academies, which undertake to prepare them for Harvard or
the Women’s Colleges, such as Wellesley. In fact, few of those who
enter upon a University career do so straight from the common school,
as is the case in the Western States. It follows from this that there
are two classes of teachers to be considered in the Eastern States--(1)
those who teach in the common schools (Primary, Grammar and High), and
(2) those who teach in private schools and in the academies. Those
of the second class are largely recruited from the ranks of College
graduates, who rely upon their University course as preparation for
the profession of teaching, and amongst whom the idea of a special
training for their work has only here and there been awakened. It is
mainly in connection with State education that the idea of the training
of teachers has been developed, although the fact that several of
the older Universities, including Harvard, are providing courses of
lectures on the Science and Art of Teaching may be taken as a hopeful
sign of the gradual growth of the idea among all classes of teachers.
It will be perhaps well to enumerate the various means available for
the Training of Teachers in the United States, and then to describe
more particularly the special features of the training to be obtained
in each kind of institution.
Training may be obtained at:
{ Public or State.
i. Normal Schools { City.
{ Private.
{ Schools.
ii. City Training {
{ Classes.
iii. Pedagogical Departments in Universities.
iv. Teachers’ Institutes.
v. Summer Schools.
_NORMAL SCHOOLS._
There are three kinds of Normal Schools to be considered--State, City
and Private. It was my privilege to visit a good number belonging to
the first two classes, but I was not fortunate enough to be able to
inspect any of the Private Normal Schools. These latter are, of course,
chiefly to be found in those States which have few or no State or City
Normal Schools.
The difference between State and City Normal Schools is mainly one of
control. The State Normal School forms part of the State Common School
system, and is under the direct supervision of the State Superintendent
and Board of Education, while the City Normal School belongs to
the City School system, and is under the jurisdiction of the City
Superintendent. The State Normal School is intended to provide teachers
for the schools in any part of the State, while the City Normal School
has for its object the preparation of teachers for the City schools
alone.
At present one of the most hotly debated questions in connection
with Normal Schools relates to the subjects to be included in the
curriculum. Shall the Normal School give professional training alone,
or shall it also provide instruction in Academic subjects? There is at
present much divergence of opinion on the subject, and some schools are
organized on the one principle, and some on the other.
At present some of the Normal Schools have a double function to
perform, that of serving as High Schools, and at the same time as
professional Training Colleges. There is, however, a growing feeling
against this plan, and a tendency, wherever possible, to separate
those who intend to become teachers from those who do not. But many
Normal Schools, while claiming to be only professional, yet include
Academic subjects in their curricula. Two reasons for this are commonly
urged. In the first place, it is said that it is impossible to get a
large enough supply of candidates for training who are sufficiently
well equipped for their profession from the point of view of mere
information; and secondly, that even those who have the necessary
information have acquired it in such a way that it is almost useless
for teaching purposes. For such, a complete revision of the various
subjects, taken in conjunction with a consideration of the best methods
of teaching the same, is regarded as necessary; it being maintained
by those in favour of this plan that it is almost impossible to get
instruction in the various subjects that will be of any value to them
as teachers, outside a Normal School.
On the other hand, there are some who maintain that the Normal School
should be strictly professional, admitting none to its courses but
those who can give evidence of having had ample academic preparation.
Many, however, who believe that the courses in academic studies are at
present necessary yet look forward to the time when they will be no
longer required.
There appears to be a growing feeling in the States in favour of the
complete separation of the professional from the academic course, and
it is interesting to note that the question is agitating the minds
of those who have to do with the training of teachers in America, at
the same time that it has become a burning question in England in
connection with the training of our Elementary Teachers. The Normal
Schools correspond more or less closely with our English Elementary
Training Colleges, and an examination of their points of likeness and
difference may not prove unprofitable.
In the first place, it should be noted, that the absence of any uniform
standard of attainment, such as is more or less secured in England by
the fact that there is one government examination for all Colleges,
makes it possible for there to be a great difference in the rank held
by different Normal Schools. As each school fixes its own standard
of graduation, and the conditions for admission, length of course
and final tests vary with each institution, it comes about that much
depends upon the Normal School, of which a given teacher is a graduate.
Some Normal Schools, for instance, have a course extending over four
years, in others it only lasts from one to two years, while some offer
a choice of courses of varying length. In England, on the contrary,
the Elementary Training course is uniformly two years in all Colleges,
the length being only occasionally varied in the cases of individuals,
as when, on special recommendation, a third year is allowed, or a
candidate who has already obtained a certificate is admitted to a
Training College for one year’s training.
This lack of uniformity in the length of course in American Normal
Schools is largely the result of the absence of any _one_ standard
of admission. While in England there is one examination, the Queen’s
Scholarship, which must be passed by all, except University graduates
who desire to enter an Elementary College, in America the conditions
vary with each individual Normal School. Some require at least a
certificate of graduation from a High School, some have an entrance
examination of their own, which none may be excused, while others offer
one to those who have no certificates to show.
Some Normal Schools are regarded as affording suitable preparation
for the Universities, and are attended by those who hope to take up a
University course later on, while others grant degrees of their own,
or arrange special courses for those who have taken degrees elsewhere.
The fact that there are so many differences in respect of length of
course and choice of subjects, between the Normal Schools of various
States and Cities, makes it exceedingly difficult to form any accurate
generalizations. It will probably, therefore, be wiser at this point
to give a more detailed account of the Normal Schools which I had an
opportunity of studying in the above-mentioned States.
_PENNSYLVANIA._