School-Management.
Holy Job says: “Man’s life upon earth is a warfare.” The life of a
teacher is eminently such. The moment he enters his class-room where
thirty pupils await him, he has to face thirty enemies. Not that the
pupils cherish hostile or even unfriendly feelings towards their
master. God forbid! but there is in every one of them some one more
or less prominent defect or fault, which, in whole or in part, will
frustrate the teacher’s work in the class-room, and it is with these
defects and faults, as with so many deadly foes, that the teacher must
do combat. One pupil is lazy; this one is fickle; that one stubborn;
and in all there is a considerable amount of ignorance. Nor does the
teacher’s struggle cease with the four or five hours of class work.
There are other trials awaiting him on return home. The daily careful
preparation of the matter to be taught is a real drudgery, while the
correction of themes and compositions is very fatiguing. Over and above
this there is the monotony of repeating the same matter year after
year. At times, too, there may come regulations from superiors which
do not suit the taste of the teacher, which, however, must be complied
with; for in order to ensure unity and harmony in any educational
establishment some kind of executive superintendence over persons and
things is indispensable.
This presupposes, on the part of the teachers, submission and
obedience. The Jesuit teachers are told by their rules to obey the
Prefect of Studies in all things pertaining to studies and school
discipline. It is well known that St. Ignatius insisted on nothing so
much as on _obedience_.[1021] The obedience demanded by the Society
has frequently been censured by men who do not as much as know what
this obedience really means. In an army, or in any department of
government, a similar obedience is exacted as being wholly necessary
for the maintenance of right order; why not much more so in a religious
community whose members profess obedience to their superiors in whom
they see the representatives of God? M. De Ladevèze said recently:
“Military obedience has had none but vigorous apologists, obedience in
religious Orders, other than the Society of Jesus, has had but rare and
indulgent critics, whilst the obedience of the Jesuits has ever been
the butt for attacks as numerous as--my readers would not allow me to
say impartial.”[1022] Does not St. Paul say: “Let every one be subject
to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that
are are ordained by God. Therefore, he that resisteth, resisteth the
power of God.” It must not be forgotten that passion, especially pride,
impetuosity, and stubbornness frequently blind and deceive a man to
take his own conceits for absolute infallible wisdom. Therefore, St.
Ignatius addresses his sons in the words of Scripture: “Lean not upon
thy own prudence.” Indeed, many mistakes will be avoided by the teacher
who conscientiously follows the regulations of the school and the
orders of the superiors. On the other hand, the teacher who is lacking
in submission will sooner or later blunder most seriously.
Further, how can a teacher honestly demand obedience from his pupils
unless he practises it himself? Surely, there is much truth in the
old monastic maxim: “No man securely commands but he who has learned
well to obey.”[1023] Personal obedience of the teacher, therefore, is
a means to secure him the most necessary qualification for effective
school-management, namely, _authority_.
§ 1. Authority.
Authority is power or influence over others derived from character,
example, mental and moral superiority. How can the teacher obtain
this influence? Father Jouvancy and Father Kropf have two instructive
chapters on this subject, from which we draw most of the following
observations. According to Jouvancy,[1024] three things especially
conduce to the acquirement of authority by the religious teachers:
esteem, love, and fear.
1. The teacher must possess the _esteem_ of his pupils. They must
respect him for his learning and his character. He must thoroughly
master the subject which he has to teach. Besides, a careful
preparation of the day’s lesson should be made invariably before. It
is most ruinous for the teacher’s authority, if the pupils detect any
deficiency in his knowledge--and they will discover it very soon if
there is any. The pupils cannot and will not listen to such a teacher
with the respect and willingness which are necessary not only for a
fruitful study, but also for school discipline. Remarks will be passed
about the teacher’s mistakes, or his inability to handle the subject;
perhaps bolder pupils call the teacher’s attention to his mistakes. In
such cases the man who is master of his subject can, and mostly will,
calmly admit that a slip has been made, whereas the teacher who is not
sure of his subject, and who blunders frequently, is inclined to keep
down any objections by frowns, scoldings or even punishment. The result
will be dissatisfaction among the students, which may lead to serious
breaches of discipline.
As to his character, anything like passionate or irritable behavior,
abusive language, haughtiness, levity, whims, fickleness, inconsiderate
or idle talk, mannerisms, peculiarities of gesture and expression which
will strike the pupils as ridiculous, and any other defect of mind or
character will at once be detected by the keen eyes of the students
and will more or less weaken his authority. In a teacher who is a
religious, the virtues expected of a religious man should appear in all
words and actions, and his whole life should bespeak a mind thoroughly
imbued with the lofty principles of Christianity. Such a teacher should
remember the words of Christ: “So let your light shine before men
that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in
Heaven.”[1025] Indeed, it is absolutely necessary for him to endeavor
to gain the sincere esteem of the students, not in order to gratify
his vanity, nor for any other selfish purpose, but in order to manage
successfully a class of petulant and mischief-loving youths.
2. The teacher must strive to gain the _affection_ of his pupils.[1026]
This he will obtain if they see him eager for their advancement, if
he possesses the mastery over his own temper, if he never appears
suspicious or distrustful. While kind and obliging in private, he
must show himself earnest and grave before his class. Besides, being
always firm, he must moreover be friendly and kind towards all,
avoiding partiality, favoritism and excessive familiarity towards
individuals.[1027] If the teacher yield to the not uncommon weakness,
and by any sort of favoritism tries to gain the special affection of a
few, he should be convinced that he will estrange all the rest from him
and thus inevitably undermine his authority.--In punishments he must be
considerate, just, moderate, and show that he acts only from a sense of
duty and genuine love, not from passion or antipathy.[1028]
The affection of his pupils will be aroused by the interest the
teacher shows for their health, their difficulties, their joys and
troubles, and by his ceaseless efforts to help them by instruction and
advice. Jouvancy says the teacher should care particularly for the
more delicate, visit the sick, encourage the backward, advise those
that are in any embarrassment, in short, display the earnestness of a
father and the devotion of a mother, especially towards pupils recently
enrolled, and those in need. He should also notify the parents of
progress or remissness on the part of their children. However, in most
Jesuit colleges this is done by the Prefect of Studies or the Prefect
of Discipline.
The teacher will further gain the affection of his pupils if he
performs his duties conscientiously, but without gloomy severity. A
cheerful countenance should greet the students when they arrive for
the morning session. For the teacher loses much of his authority if
his pupils are forced to make a daily inspection of his face, as they
would of the bulletin of the weather forecast. The teacher’s lively
disposition and interesting way of speaking will act like a pleasant
sunny spring morning on all, and do away with sleepiness and dullness,
whereas sternness and gloom on his part will influence the class like a
heavy fog on a winter’s day. It is possible that a whole class appears
slow and spiritless, but the professor may be responsible for it,
either by his own lack of spirit and alacrity, by his tedious talk, or
also by his too excessive demands on the class. To be ever reaching
after the absolutely unattainable, is not particularly exhilarating,
yet the professor may put his pupils in such a plight by placing before
them too high a standard of excellence and never admitting that their
best efforts bring them nearer the ideal. Hence judicious praise is a
powerful factor in the management of a class; sometimes the effort may
be praised where the result cannot. “The office of a good teacher,” as
Quintilian prudently remarks, “is to seek and encourage the good ever
to be found in children, and to supply what is wanting, to correct and
change whatever needs it.”
3. _Fear_, is the third element which contributes to authority.[1029]
This fear must be as it is styled, _timor reverentialis_, not _timor
servilis_, i. e. the fear of a child, not of a slave. Gravity, firmness
and prudent consistency, in a word, manliness, on the part of the
teacher, will instil this salutary fear into the pupils; only few
and wise regulations should be made, but these must be firmly and
prudently enforced. If this is done, even the most recalcitrant will
after some time surrender. Another means of preserving this wholesome
fear consists in reporting to higher officials of the school, or to
the parents, breaches of conduct. However, this should not be done for
every trifle, but only in case of a more serious misdemeanor. This
leads us to the question of punishments.
§ 2. Punishments.[1030]
The saddest part of a schoolmaster’s task is the necessity of
punishing. Offences must be treated seriously, not lightly; but,
at the same time, as they are in most cases the effects of levity
and weakness, they must be treated with compassion and without any
harshness. The teacher should never be hasty in punishing; if he is,
it will appear that he is led by passion. Often, and particularly when
a pupil defies the teacher and refuses obedience, it will be best to
wait patiently and assign the punishment later. For, if the punishment
be inflicted immediately, it will, in all probability, be often unduly
severe.[1031] Anger and impetuosity are bad counselors, and in such
trying situations it is especially true that “silence is golden.”
If the teacher merely lets it be seen how much he is pained by such
conduct and defers the punishment, he will gain by his self-control in
the eyes of the whole class; and the offender himself, having got over
his excitement, will probably be in a better disposition to accept the
punishment.
The Ratio Studiorum says the teacher should not be too eager to
discover occasions for punishing his pupils.[1032] There are some
teachers who seem always on the watch to impose tasks. If they do
not find misdeeds on the surface, they make sure to ferret them out.
They were born to be detectives. This is not the fatherly spirit the
teacher should manifest. The Ratio is opposed to this method. “See
everything but never have the appearance of prying.” Know all that
regards your pupils, but do not always act on your knowledge. If you
can conceal your discoveries without doing harm, conceal them. In
general: the fewer punishments the teacher inflicts, the greater will
be his success, always supposing that he keeps order without punishing.
Any just reasons for pardoning, or lessening, the penance are to be
welcomed.
There seems to be abroad a sentiment about corporal punishments which
is evidently beyond the bounds of reason. Some contend that corporal
punishment is merely a “relic of the barbarism of former ages,” and
that it should no longer be employed, but that the young should be
governed solely by moral suasion, by an appeal to reason and the
pupil’s sense of right. The inspired writers thought differently. Thus
we read: “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth
him correcteth him betimes.”[1033] “Folly is bound up in the heart
of the child, but the rod of correction shall drive it away.”[1034]
There are some faults: flagrant violations of modesty and decency,
defiance of authority, impudent insults offered to elderly persons,
continued laziness, which in a younger boy are best punished by the
rod, especially after exhortations have proved unsuccessful. This was
the principle and practice of Jesuit educators, and the best educators
are again at one with the Jesuits.[1035]
The Ratio Studiorum allowed the infliction of punishment only under
rigid regulations; it forbids the teacher absolutely to strike a
boy.[1036] Corporal punishment, if, after calm deliberation, thought
necessary, is to be administered either by a trusty servant, as was the
custom in former times, or by the Prefect of Discipline.[1037] At any
rate, this system prevents many an indeliberate act of the teachers,
as there is always danger of excess in the immediate punishment of
an offence. Although the rod was applied in Jesuit schools, its use
was by no means as frequent as in nearly all other schools. Compared
to what was done in the great public schools of England and in the
gymnasia on the European continent, the practice of the Jesuit colleges
was exceedingly mild. There was never anything like the brutality
practised in Eton,[1038] or those debasing punishments, described in
_The Terrors of the Rod_ (published in 1815), or in Cooper’s _History
of the Rod_.[1039] In the higher schools of Saxony it was the custom,
even in the eighteenth century, for all the members of the faculty to
punish offenders before the whole school. When, in 1703, the teachers
remonstrated against this, they were told by the highest authorities
to continue doing their duty.[1040] Matters were different in Jesuit
colleges. The offender was punished in private and only few strokes
were administered. Father Nadal made a regulation in Mentz, in 1567,
to the effect that not more than six strokes should be given with the
rod. The boys were not to be struck in any other way.[1041] The above
cited Italian School Order adds that not only the poor boys should be
punished but the wealthy and noble as well. These should be made to
understand that virtue is more highly prized than nobility.[1042]
A word should be added about the famous “lines.” If lines are assigned
to be committed to memory they should not be such as are not fully
understood. There are so many useful things that have been read or
should be studied, why not give them? Catechism or Bible history should
never be assigned as penalty; it might make these sacred books an
object of aversion. It is advisable, however, to assign these books if
the pupil has neglected to study his catechism or his Bible history.
If lines are to be copied--a punishment of questionable worth--at
least the same lines should not be copied more than once; it is sheer
nonsense to make a student copy the same line twenty times, unless
it be an exercise in penmanship for continued careless writing. The
teacher should insist that all extra tasks are neatly and carefully
written. It is most detrimental to the teacher’s authority to assign
punishments and not to see that they are done; or to assign excessive
tasks and then be compelled to desist from demanding them. If, in
particular cases, an extraordinary punishment is thought necessary,
Jesuit educators wisely refer the matter to a Superior, either Prefect
or Rector. These officials should also decide on cases where punishment
has been refused, especially by older students.
§ 3. Impartiality.
Another point, important for effective school-management, is the
necessity of showing strict fairness and justice. A professor accused
of favoritism is sadly hindered in his work. His kindly words of good
advice fall on deaf ears and his exertions for his class are viewed
with coldness and distrust. The 47th rule exhorts the Jesuit teacher
not to be more familiar with one boy than with the rest. Although
mischievous tongues of jealous pupils will never cease to impute faults
which may have no objective reality, still a strict observance of this
rule will be a precious safeguard to the reputation of the teacher in
a matter which is of vital importance to the proper and successful
discharge of his duty. A uniform spirit of kindliness and charity
should be manifested towards all, poor or rich, slow or highly gifted,
uncouth or polite, uncomely or attractive. No dislike is to be shown
for any pupil, no matter how great the natural aversion is which one
may feel towards him. The all-embracing charity of our Lord should
ever be before the eyes of the teacher, and he should strive to be
“all things to all.” He must not forget that in every pupil there is
something good, a good side from which he may be approached. And it
happens not unfrequently that in the poor workingman’s son, diffident,
shy, and ungainly as the boy may be, there is a nobler soul, greater
talent, more prospect of great work in the future, than in the much
more refined, courteous and winning boy of wealthy parents. To neglect
the poor or ungainly lad would be not only unjust and cruel, but also
directly opposed to the spirit of the Society, which, in the 40th rule,
tells the teacher “to despise no one and to work as strenuously for the
advancement of the poor as of the rich.”
Another danger frequently connected with undue familiarity with
some pupils has to be mentioned. The teacher is easily inclined to
speak more confidentially to them about other pupils; he may be sure
that his remarks will be reported, most likely in a distorted form,
to those whom he has criticized. This will destroy the good spirit
among his pupils, cause bitterness, ill-feeling, factions, and little
conspiracies among them, and the teacher will perhaps never be able to
detect and remedy the evil.
Undue familiarity and partiality is also very harmful to the pupil
himself who is thus singled out from the rest.[1043] If special
affection is shown to one, if his failings are tolerated more than
those of the rest, if he is not reproved where he deserves it, if he
is praised where he hardly deserves it, then an opening is made for
jealousy; the _Benjamin_ of the class will receive all sorts of names,
as little flattering to him as to the teacher; and his position among
his companions may become very unpleasant. The teacher’s unreasonable
partiality has compromised him and has placed a barrier between him and
his classmates. A still more serious consequence is usually connected
with such partiality: the real education of the favorite is neglected.
What training of character can be expected if his whims are indulged
in, if his failings are not corrected, if he is flattered and coddled,
in short, if he is spoiled? Besides, such partiality invariably breeds
vanity, self-conceit and stubbornness. The teacher’s favorite is soon
aware of the preference shown to him. He feels that he can venture what
his companions dare not to do; that class regulations, class silence
and the like are less severe for him than the others. He will soon
think himself a privileged being, superior to the rest: he will assume
the air of authority over others and pride is nourished in his heart.
Yet this is not all. The next year the pupil may pass to a teacher who
is different, who does not tolerate his caprices any more than those
of others and who tries to eradicate the evils that were allowed to
root by his predecessor. But the spoiled child will resent any strict
treatment, will peevishly refuse to be corrected. All this may lead
to serious breaches of discipline and obedience, and to disagreeable
punishments.
From this it should not be inferred that a teacher is forbidden to
take a greater active interest in some than in others. On the contrary
he must do this especially in the case of those who need it most, for
instance, of those who are very bashful, and particularly of those who
are exposed to greater danger. Just as a mother watches more anxiously
over a delicate child, so must a good teacher look more particularly
after those whose spiritual condition is more delicate. “Not the
healthy ones need the physician but the sick.” On this subject it may
be well to quote once more the beautiful words of Father Jouvancy: “The
teacher should speak in private more frequently with those who seem to
be exposed to worse and more dangerous faults. If he captivates them
by a wise and holy kindness, he attaches them not only to himself, but
gains them for Christ.”[1044]
§ 4. Discipline in the Classroom.[1045]
The effectiveness of a teacher as teacher will depend largely on
his success as a disciplinarian. This holds especially of the lower
classes, where the pupils are livelier and act more from their animal
propensities. A few good regulations concerning order in class, as
well as to the manner of entering and leaving the class room, are
to be firmly insisted on. Determination is here the great factor. A
class-room yields, keeps silence, remains quiet, is attentive and
studious, if it learns that the professor means to insist on these
points. Of course, firmness can be overdone. Too great persistence
takes on the appearance of tyranny and challenges opposition. On the
other hand, mildness easily gives place to weakness. The teacher has
to strike the mean, which is golden here as in other things. However,
it is a maxim of Jesuit educators that it will be good to be more
reserved, and also stricter as to discipline, in the beginning, until
the teacher knows his class and has it under perfect control. It is
easy then to loosen the reins a little, whereas it is nearly impossible
to draw them tight after a spirit of levity, noisiness and general
disorder has started through the teacher’s easy-going manner.
The following words of a French Jesuit educator on this question
are most instructive. The master in charge of the boys, in his first
intercourse with them, has no greater snare in his way than taking his
power for granted and trusting in his strength and knowledge of the
world. That master who in the very first hour has already made himself
liked, almost popular with his pupils, who shows no more anxiety about
his work than he must show to keep his character for good sense, that
master is indeed to be pitied; he is most likely a lost man. He will
soon have to choose one of two things, either to shut his eyes and
put up with all irregularities or to break with a past that he would
wish forgotten, and engage in open conflict with the boys who are
inclined to set him at defiance. He wished to endear himself by acts of
kindness, he set about crowning the edifice without making sure of the
foundation. Accordingly, the first steps should be characterized by an
extreme reserve, without any affectation of severity or diplomacy.[1046]
Some good principles on class discipline have been laid down by Father
Jouvancy.[1047] The first is: _Principiis obsta_: Resist the evil from
the beginning. As soon as the pupils grow restless, no matter how
light the disturbance may be, it must be checked immediately. When
some few are especially giddy or mischievous, they must gradually be
wearied by various devices: frequent questions, repeated calling up for
recitations etc., so as to become gently accustomed to bear the yoke.
_Secondly_: The place of the pupils in class should not be a chance
affair or left to their choice and caprice.[1048] If they are allowed
to select their places, the light-minded and petulant will be found
together in some corner, or in the rear, where they anticipate full
scope for mischief. By prudent tactics many a teacher has gained the
battle as before-hand, by scattering the hostile forces, by separating
the talkers and mischief-makers. A petulant boy may be assigned his
seat near a quiet and reserved boy; one whose morals are justly
suspected near one of reliable virtue--taking care, however, lest the
good boy be corrupted by the one of doubtful character.
_Thirdly_: No noise or confusion is to be tolerated when the students
enter the class-room.[1049] They should be trained to consider this
room as a sacred place, “a temple of science,” which ought to be
entered in silence and modesty. If any come in boisterously the teacher
should at the outset reprimand or punish them. This will immediately
quiet their exuberant spirits.
_Fourthly_: The respect of the pupils for their teachers and for one
another will prompt them to listen to the instructions in absolute
silence.[1050]
Sometimes it may happen that either all the scholars, or only a few,
offend against good conduct and attention. If the former should happen,
the cause of evil must be investigated and the instigators must be
punished. The teacher should very rarely threaten the whole class,
still less should a whole class be subjected to punishment. Such an
action irritates the pupils and, feeling confidence in their number,
they will be inclined to conspire against the teacher. Extraordinary
tasks, like more weighty penalties, should be imposed on only a few.
“Frequent ailments, unusual remedies, and continual funerals disgrace
the physician,”[1051] as Jouvancy wisely observes.
_Fifthly_: The 44th rule gives wise directions for maintaining order
at the end of class. Here the danger is greater than at the beginning
of the session. The boys are not so eager to come to class as after
recitation hours to rush to the yard for a game of baseball, or to
hasten home for dinner. But it makes certainly a bad impression if the
boys run out of class like a pack of hounds turned loose. Therefore,
the teacher should be on hand and watch the boys at this critical
time. These are not the minutes for correcting stray themes, or for
conversation with another professor, or with one of the pupils. The
teacher should, as the rule says, take his station at his desk, or at
the door, and have his eye on the class room and the corridor. All are
to leave the room in silence and order. There is to be no hurry, no
running about, no jostling. If the teacher acts thus, all disorder will
be prevented far more effectively than by punishments.
§ 5. Politeness and Truthfulness.
Another point intimately connected with discipline consists in the
attention given to _politeness_ and _good manners_.[1052] There is
nothing more attractive than a class of boys who are lively and, at
the same time, truly polite. But the amusements of our boys, baseball
and football especially, easily lead to a certain roughness, which is
certainly the very opposite of refinement. Further, however attractive
frankness and freedom of behavior may be, they frequently degenerate
into want of respect. Teachers, elderly persons, and others who must
claim the young man’s respect, are sometimes approached without due
reverence. The greeting consists in a gracious or confidential nod, or
a motion of the hand in the direction of the head, without reaching to
its end; then the “youngster” starts his conversation, hat on, hands in
his pockets, if possible sitting or leaning on a railing, or lolling
against a wall. Our boys hear so much of liberty that they easily
mistake it for freedom from the obligations due to age and position,
which are everywhere recognized and rightly insisted on, and which are
justly considered the distinctive marks of true culture and refinement.
Anything servile, cringing, or affected is, of course, to be avoided.
The teacher has many opportunities of inculcating the rules of
politeness. But a most important factor is the teacher’s example.
Being before the eyes of his pupils four or five hours a day, his
personality will naturally leave traces on their manners. He should
impress his pupils not only as a scholar and a pious religious, but
also as a perfect gentleman. Nor will the Jesuit teacher ever fail in
this respect, if he carefully observes the “Rules on Modesty,” which
are laid down in the Institute, and were considered of the greatest
importance by St. Ignatius and all true Jesuits. We shall quote a
few of these rules: “In general, it may be said that in all outward
actions there should appear modesty and humility, joined with religious
gravity. There should appear outwardly a serenity, which may be the
token of that which is interior. The whole countenance should show
cheerfulness rather than sadness or any other less moderate affection.
The apparel is to be clean, and arranged with religious decency. In
fine, every gesture and motion should be such as to give edification
to all men. When they have to speak they must be mindful of modesty
and edification, as well in their words, as in the style and manner of
speaking.”
The Jesuits have always been most sedulous in cultivating in their
pupils politeness, not a mere external polish, but a politeness which
is the choice fruit and exterior manifestation of solid interior
virtue, of sincerity of heart, humility, obedience, and charity.
Protestant writers have paid homage to these endeavors of the Jesuits.
Ranke writes: “The Jesuits educated well-bred gentlemen.” And another
Protestant, Victor Cherbuliez, is almost extravagant in his praise
when he says: “However much one may detest the Jesuits, when religion
is allied to intellectual charms, when it is gentle-mannered, wears a
smiling face, and does all gracefully, one is always tempted to believe
that the Jesuits have had a hand in the affair.”[1053]
Another point which deserves special care on the part of the teacher is
the cultivation of _truthfulness_ in the pupils. No one teaches even
for a short time without recognizing the necessity of fighting the evil
habit of mendacity. A boy is reprimanded for unmistakable talking,
whistling, throwing paper, etc., and how often is the quick and bold
answer heard: “It wasn’t me,” bad English being added to the moral
defect. A boy fails to hand in a task. How many excuses are made which
not unfrequently are more or less palpable falsehoods. Now all this
is more serious than it may appear at first. How is this evil to be
combated?
First by prudence. Many lies could be prevented if the teacher acted
more discreetly. If a boy has been noisy, and the teacher, especially
one who has the reputation of inflicting severe punishments, angrily
charges him with the offence, the boy will deny the deed in sheer
excitement. And one lie leads to many more; the boy assures and
protests, in order not to expose his first prevarication. Therefore
the master, as a rule, should not insist on arguing the case, but
await a better chance, when the boy is calm. A teacher who is patient,
judicious in inquiries, just and reasonable in punishments, will seldom
be told a lie. If noise is going on in class, such a teacher may safely
ask: Who made that noise? And in nearly all cases, as the experience of
many teachers has proved, the offender will candidly acknowledge it.
Sometimes this confession, with an earnest but calm word of admonition,
will dispense with any further punishment. Of course, if the pardon
invariably follows the confession, there will be no good effects
whatever.
There are boys who, from a long practice, have acquired a most
pernicious habit of lying. Such cases are hard to deal with, and it is
difficult to lay down general rules. A few suggestions, however, may
not be out of place. Very rarely, and only on extreme occasions, should
there be shown any doubt of a pupil’s word on a matter of fact. All
should know that implicit confidence is placed in their assertions, and
that it is considered as a matter of course that they speak the truth
on facts within their knowledge. If ever a lie is found out and proved,
the punishment should be severe. Dr. Arnold says, in such a case the
punishment should be the loss of the teacher’s confidence. But even
then the teacher should try to save the offender from discouragement
by holding out to him the possibility of correcting even the habit of
lying. It has happened that boys given to lying, when once thoroughly
convinced of the disgracefulness of their habit, conceived such a
horror of it, that they became disgusted with everything dishonest, and
turned out men distinguished for uprightness and truthfulness. In this
as in other defects, it will be good if the teacher follows the example
of the Divine Master, of whom it was said: “The bruised reed he shall
not break, and smoking flax he shall not extinguish.”[1054]
Here again the teacher’s example will exercise a powerful influence.
He must be open, truthful, straightforward, strictly honest in his
dealings with the pupils, not sly, crooked, and political. If he is
asked a question which he cannot answer, he should say: “I do not know
it,” or “I am not sure about it, I will inquire and tell you next
time.” No one can reasonably expect the teacher to know everything,
and by such honest acknowledgements he will not lose a tittle of his
authority. If he has made a mistake in a statement, or in reprimanding
or punishing, he should frankly admit it and apologize. No school
master is infallible. The teacher need fear no detriment from such
a candid retractation. On the contrary, such a teacher will gain in
the esteem of his pupils, who will be more disposed to accept his
admonitions.
§ 6. Some Special Helps.
The trials of the teacher are many and vexing. A few general means to
endure them successfully may be suggested. One means is _patience_.
Dr. Arnold, referring to the years of boyhood, once said the teacher
should try to hasten out the growth of this immature and dangerous age.
But in this endeavor it will be good to remember the Latin saying:
_Festina lente_. Impatience, vehemence, and rashness are signs that a
teacher lacks knowledge of the frail human heart. He should learn from
the supreme model of teachers, who showed a Divine longanimity and
forbearance in the training of his Apostles and Disciples who were not
always very docile and quick of perception. From him he should learn
the virtues necessary to the teacher: “Learn from me, for I am meek
and humble of heart.”[1055] A distinguished Jesuit of our days used to
say: “No one likes to settle at the foot of a volcano. And a wrathful,
excitable teacher will do great harm. The outbursts of his anger will
destroy all around like the eruptions of a volcano, whereas a meek,
patient, and prudent man is acceptable to God, wins the hearts of men,
and will work successfully.” An old regulation of Jesuit schools[1056]
recommends especially patience: “The teachers of youths should ever
remember the one perfect teacher, Christ our Lord, that they may
imitate his benignity and kind forbearance toward the simple ones, that
they may be unwearied in teaching and adapt themselves to the capacity
of their auditors, admonish their pupils, practise them diligently
and zealously, and _gradually_ advance them, as well those of slower
perception as those of ready perception, as Paul the great Apostle
says: ‘We became little ones in the midst of you, as if a nurse should
cherish her children.’”[1057]
One should, therefore, never be surprised at mistakes or moral faults;
least of all should one be vexed at fickleness, unsteadiness, fits of
laziness. These are defects of age, or weakness of character, not signs
of bad will, consequently they are to be treated kindly. There are some
things which the teacher should take good-humoredly. Many teachers feel
irritated on discovering that the boys have given them a nickname. Why
not take it good-naturedly and heartily laugh about it? In general, a
cheerful disposition combined with a great amount of patience will make
many of the troubles of school life more endurable.
Another most powerful means for overcoming the trials of teaching, and
at the same time for laboring successfully, is _prayer_. The “modern”
systems have little to say about it, and many educators may be inclined
to sneer at such a pedagogical help. Still there is a sublime truth in
what Tennyson says in his beautiful lines:
“Pray for my soul.
More things are wrought by prayer
Than this world dreams of.”[1058]
One who believes in the fundamental truths of Christianity cannot
ignore our Savior’s words: “Without me you can do nothing,”[1059] and
the other: “Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I
do,”[1060] and the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians, who contended
about the superiority of their teachers in the faith: “I have planted,
Apollo watered, but God gave the increase;”[1061] further the words
of St. James: “If any one of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, and
it shall be given him.”[1062] As we have seen, the Jesuits consider
education from a supernatural point of view. They endeavor to lead the
children to the knowledge, love, and service of Christ, according to
Christ’s words: “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such
is the Kingdom of God.” This is an aim above man’s nature, and can be
obtained only by supernatural means. God alone can give the teacher’s
words the power to enter into the will, that impregnable citadel of
man’s nature. This power from on high is bestowed on him who humbly
asks for it in prayer.
We must expect that St. Ignatius did not think lightly of this means.
In the 16th rule of the _Summary of the Constitutions_, all Jesuits
are exhorted “to apply to the study of solid virtues and of spiritual
things; and to account these of greater moment than either learning
or other natural or human gifts: for they are the interior things
from which force must flow to the exterior, for the end proposed to
us.” This trust in God’s assistance in no way lessens the earnest
endeavors of the religious. As the old principle of the great order of
St. Benedict was: _Ora et labora_, so St. Ignatius says: “Let this be
the first rule of all your actions: trust in God, as if all success
depended on him, nothing on yourself; but work, as if you had to do all
and God nothing.” In the Ratio Studiorum the teachers are admonished
“frequently to pray for their pupils.”[1063] The Jesuit Sacchini has a
special chapter on the importance of the teacher’s prayer,[1064] and
exhorts him to recommend his disciples daily to Christ, and to invoke
for them the intercession of the Blessed Mother of God, of the Guardian
Angels and of the patrons of youth. Father Jouvancy[1065] tells the
teacher never to go to class without having said a fervent prayer, if
possible in the Church before the Blessed Sacrament. He suggests a
beautiful prayer which is almost wholly drawn from Scripture: “Lord
Jesus, thou hast not hesitated to meet the most cruel death for these
children; thou lovest them with an unspeakable tenderness; thou wouldst
that they were led to thee (_Mark_ 10, 14). Yea, whatever is done to
one of these thy least brethren, thou wilt consider as done to thee
(_Matth._ 25, 40): I beg and implore thee, ‘keep them in thy name whom
thou hast given me;’ ‘they are thine’, ‘sanctify them in truth’ (_John_
17, 6. 9. 11. 17). ‘Give thy words in my mouth’ (_Jerem._ 1, 9), open
their hearts that they may begin to love and fear thee. ‘Turn away thy
face from my sins’ (_Psalm_ 50, 11), and let not thy mercy be hindered
through my faults. Give me the grace to educate these children, whom
thou hast entrusted to me, with prudence, piety and firmness, to thy
glory, which is all I ask.” Truly, this is praying in the name of
Jesus. And if the teacher is a man of solid piety and virtue, as the
Society expects him to be after a religious training of so many years,
the grace of God will surely lighten the burden of his work. “For the
continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”[1066]
FOOTNOTES:
[1021] “The Society of Jesus,” says Cardinal Newman, “has been more
distinguished than any before it for the rule of obedience.... With
the Jesuits, as well as with the religious Communities which are their
juniors, usefulness, secular and religious, literature, education,
the confessional, preaching, the oversight of the poor, missions, the
care of the sick, have been their chief object of attention; bodily
austerities and the ceremonial of devotion have been made of but
secondary importance. Yet it may fairly be questioned, whether in an
intellectual age, when freedom both of thought and of action is so
dearly prized, a greater penance can be devised for the soldier of
Christ than the absolute surrender of judgment and will to the command
of another.” In _Development of Christian Doctrine_, ch. VIII.
[1022] The _Open Court_, Jan. 1902, p. 14.
[1023] _Following of Christ_, I, ch. 20.
[1024] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1.
[1025] _Matth._ 5, 16.
[1026] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 2.
[1027] See below § 3.
[1028] See below § 2.
[1029] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 3.
[1030] _Ratio Stud._, _Reg. Praef. Stud. Inf._ 38, 42.--_Reg. com._
40.--Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 2.--Kropf,
_Ratio et Via_, ch. 6, art. 7.--Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 11
and 12.--_Monumenta Paedag._, chapter “Del Castigare,” p. 277
foll.--_Woodstock Letters_, 1896, p. 244.
[1031] An old regulation for Jesuit schools, written in Italian, well
says: “Non convien castigar subito dopo la colpa per non dar luogo alla
passione che fa passar’ la misura del castigo.” _Monum. Paed._, p. 279.
[1032] _Reg. com. mag. cl. inf._, 40.
[1033] _Proverbs_ 13, 24.
[1034] _Ib._, 22, 15.
[1035] See Fitch, _Lectures on Teaching_, IV: “The proud notion of
independence and dignity, which revolts at the idea of personal
chastisement is not reasonable and is certainly not Christian. After
all it is sin which degrades, and not punishment.”--On the views of
Edward Thring of Uppingham on this subject, see _Life and Letters_, by
Parkin, London 1898.
[1036] _Reg. com._ 40.
[1037] On this point modern views, at least in Northern countries,
are different, and a punishment inflicted by a servant is considered
especially disgraceful. Therefore, the unpleasant task devolves
on the Prefect of Discipline.--In some Jesuit colleges punishment
was administered at fixed hours, and it was left to the lad that
had offended to go to apply for castigation. In this way he had an
opportunity of showing his manliness and taking his punishment with
a sense of having deserved it. An English writer in the _St. James’s
Gazette_ calls it “evidence of the skill and tact of the Order to have
devised this method.” _Littell’s Living Age_, Boston, 1886, vol. 170,
p. 248.--Of the _ferula_, the instrument used at Stonyhurst, the same
writer says: “Few things are more disagreeably painful and at the same
time more harmless and transitory in its effects than the application
of this instrument.”
[1038] See _The Spectator_, No. 168.
[1039] As a curious illustration the case of the Suabian schoolmaster
may be mentioned, who kept a diary and jotted down in the course of
his fifty-one years’ schoolmaster’s career the number of times he
administered punishment to his recalcitrant pupils. Schoolmaster John
records that he distributed 911,517 strokes with a stick; 240,100
“smites” with a birchrod; 10,986 hits with a ruler; 136,715 hand
smacks; 10,235 slaps on the face; 7,905 boxes on the ears; 115,800
blows on the head; 12,763 tasks from the Bible, catechism, the poets
and grammar. Every two years he had to buy a Bible, to replace the one
so roughly handled by his scholars; 777 times he made his pupils kneel
on peas, and 5,001 scholars had to do penance with a ruler held over
their hands. As to his abusive words, not a third of them were to be
found in any dictionary.
[1040] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1902, vol. X, p. 296.
[1041] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 160, 207, 279; IV, 164-170.--It is not
improbable that the moderation required by the rules was not always
observed through the fault of some individuals. Hence the one instance
of excessive flogging quoted by Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 14, was
certainly an exception.
[1042] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 278.
[1043] See: _The Little Imperfections_, by Rev. F. P. Garesché, S. J.;
chapter on “_Partialities_.” (Herder, St. Louis, 1901.)
[1044] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 1, art. 2.
[1045] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2.--Kropf, _Ratio et
Via_, ch. 6, art. 3.--Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 19.
[1046] Barbier, _La discipline_, Paris 1888. Quoted at greater length
by Quick, _Educational Reformers_, pp. 60-62.
[1047] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2.
[1048] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 19, no. 5.
[1049] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2, No. 4.
[1050] _Reg. com._ 43.
[1051] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2, 5.
[1052] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 14.--Kropf, _Ratio et Via_, ch. 5,
art. 1, § 8.
[1053] Quoted in the Chicago _Open Court_, January 1902, p. 29.
[1054] _Matth._ 12, 20.--Father Faber remarks in his _Spiritual
Conferences_: “There is a peculiar clearness about characters which
have learned to be true after having been deceitful.”--The humiliating
consciousness of having been found guilty of deceit, and the yearning
desire to be trusted again, forces them to renounce everything like
untruth, and to keep guard over themselves, lest they fall again into
the old habit.--See the beautiful chapter (XII): “On being true and
trusty” in _Practical Notes on Moral Training_, with preface by Father
Gallway, S. J., London, Burns & Oates.
[1055] _Matth._ 11, 29.
[1056] Pachtler, vol. I, pp. 159-160.
[1057] 1. _Thess._ 2, 7.
[1058] Words of King Arthur in _Morte d’Arthur_.
[1059] _John_ 15, 5.
[1060] _John_ 14, 13.
[1061] 1. _Cor._ 3, 6.
[1062] _James_ 1, 5.
[1063] _Reg. com. mag. cl. inf._ 10.
[1064] _Paraenesis_, art. 15.
[1065] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. I, art. 1.
[1066] _James_ 5, 16.