are left for preparation at the university teachers for the secondary
schools, for city superintendencies, special teachers of various kinds,
and teachers for college and university positions. And this latter is a
work, it seems to me, the State University must perform. They are
already doing this, to quite an extent, for the high schools; a few are
doing it well and the rest are working in that direction. A few, too,
are taking up the more advanced phases of the work and are competent to
prepare for college teaching. The movement is strongly on.
It may not be uninteresting for me to trace this movement briefly as it
has developed with us. For it has been a development. Our system of
education was not planned at the beginning from a careful theoretical
study of our present or prospective educational needs, but has grown up,
little by little, step by step, to meet and satisfy from time to time
present and pressing needs.
The movement for the professional preparation of teachers began in the
first quarter of the nineteenth century in Massachusetts. That state,
with others, was suffering from an educational declension that had been
going on for a long time. Matters were getting serious. Finally, a few
clear-headed, far-seeing leaders made an analysis of the situation
hoping to bring about a betterment of conditions. They quickly put the
finger upon the sore spot--the poor quality of teaching being done in
the schools. A remedy was sought. It was found in the European Normal
Schools, an institution devoted to the professional preparation of
teachers for the elementary schools. An agitation was begun for its
establishment on this side of the water. After many weary years the
efforts were crowned with success when, in 1838, the State Legislature
of Massachusetts planned for the equipment of three. Thru their work the
character of the teaching in the elementary schools was at once
improved. Other states followed the example and this new institution
soon began its westward sweep, following the development of the country.
This early work, however, had in mind the improvement of teachers for
only the common schools, rural and urban. Indeed, at that time no one
even suggested that any other teacher needs special preparation. But
when, after the Civil War, the high schools began to develop so
markedly, the problem of teachers became a pressing one. Since teachers
with normal school preparation were everywhere being recognized as
superior to all others in the elementary schools, it was the most
natural thing in the world for those in charge of the new high schools
to demand professional preparation of their teachers.
But where could it be obtained? Not in the normal schools, because it
should be of different character than that planned for elementary
teachers. To make a long story short, the universities and colleges took
the matter up and provided the professional work thought necessary by
adding Departments of Education. Michigan University was the first to
act when, in 1878, the Regents established a chair called the "Theory
and Art of Teaching." The example was followed by others, and, tho
limited in scope and experimental in character, it was at once seen to
be justified in the improved character of high school teaching.
Improvements were sure to follow. The next step was the expansion of the
department of education into the Teachers College, or School of
Education, as it is getting to be called, which is now recognized as a
professional school of equal rank with the School of Law or the School
of Medicine. An essential element of its equipment is a high school for
observation and practise under expert supervision, just as an elementary
practise school is an essential part of a well equipt normal school.
New York University, in the city of New York, was the first to move in
this direction. This was in 1890. For fifteen years progress was slow
and halting and confined to private institutions. But it was justifying
itself. In 1905 the University of North Dakota effected the larger
organization, the first of the State universities to do so. During the
last five or six years, however, several others have fallen into line
including such institutions as Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The
institutions that have not yet effected this change and thus organized
schools of education still maintain their Departments of Education and
thus try to satisfy the need. The University of North Dakota was also
one of the very first to make use of the high school for observation and
practise, and in all lines of development has been recognized as
occupying an advanced position. Other institutions, older and larger,
contemplating a change, have frequently advised with us. If this mention
seems borne of institutional pride, I trust that it will also be
regarded as pardonable.
Thus the movement--not the result of a theoretical formulation, but a
situation forced upon us by the logic of events. It is as logical,
however, and as irrevocable, as tho produced by deductive reasoning. An
explanation of a statement made earlier in the paper as to the relative
teaching abilities of elementary, secondary, and higher teachers, can
now be seen in the periods of development of the corresponding
professional schools.
What should be the attitude of the university toward the education of
teachers? Let us follow the development a little farther.
During the last few years another very interesting phase of the movement
has begun to show itself. You will recall that as soon as professional
preparation demonstrated its usefulness in improving the character of
elementary teaching, it was demanded for teachers in the secondary
schools. And now that it has proved efficient in that field, it is
being demanded in the field next higher--the colleges and universities.
And this demand, like the others, is no longer confined to professional
schools or educational journals--to the people from the inside. It is
being taken up by laymen, even the daily papers, and prest with some
vigor. To give the point of view, I give a single quotation from an
editorial in a recent issue of the Minneapolis _Journal_: "None of our
graduate schools require any course in education or teaching methods, or
any previous experience in teaching work for a Ph. D. degree, except, of
course, in the field of education, where theory is cultivated, if not
practised. May it not be found that the best method to increase the
teaching efficiency of the undergraduate instruction in colleges and
universities will be to provide every graduate student with definite and
detailed instruction in teaching methods for his chosen subject?"
This demand, thus clearly voiced, and coming from many sides, will
continue until granted as has been the case with each of the others. And
as a result the teaching of our undergraduates will be improved. To do
this added work, however, will not require another institution. The
present universities, thru their Schools of Education, amplified and
strengthened, will supply the need.
Just as the University, thru its Medical School, provides its community
with skilled physicians and public health officers to secure and
preserve public health, and thru its Law School performs a similar
service in sending out men who become competent lawyers and judges to
secure the administration of justice, and thru its College of
Engineering, its engineers to safeguard property, public welfare and
life itself, so, thru its School of Education, it must provide its
teachers for all these and other advanced fields. And all this service
must be performed not that individual citizens may be better prepared to
make a living, amass a fortune, or achieve fame, but that the community
may be served.
So the School of Education, now given equal rank with other professional
schools of the university, must ere long be recognized, by virtue of the
work thus forced upon it, as, in a very definite way, superior to them
all in opportunity and responsibility.
IV
THE EYE PROBLEM IN THE SCHOOLS
_A Paper read before the 1914 meeting of the North Dakota State
Association of Opticians. It was printed in the May, 1914, issue of "The
Optical Journal and Review," also in the same issue of "The Keystone"_
I do not know how fully people appreciate the importance of the eye as
an agent, or factor, of human cultivation. Judging from the amount of
work it is being made to do in our schools and in nearly all our
processes of education, we might perhaps be led to feel that its
importance is fully appreciated, indeed, that it is being looked upon as
the sole factor, or agent. But, on the other hand, this very excessive
use, especially in the early school years, leading, as it does in such a
large percentage of cases, to serious impairment of vision, almost tells
us that its great value is not appreciated. If it were, should we be
likely to abuse it as we do in these early years and thus render it
incapable of performing its larger, fuller use later on? The attitude
seems rather to be that its conservation is not thought to be necessary.
That, however, springs from ignorance rather than from studied
disregard.
But let us look for a moment at the processes of education and note
where the eye comes in. If there is anything upon which leading
educators are now practically agreed, or upon which they tend to agree,
it is that education as a process is a matter of development rather than
the learning of knowledge facts. Now, that development is analogous to
the growth and development of the plant, that is, it is brought about
thru nourishment. In the plant this nourishment is taken in thru the
roots, becomes absorbed and assimilated and thus ministers to growth and
development. In the child, looking at it from the physical point of view
and having in mind psychical, not physical, nourishment, the sense
organs serve this purpose. Did you ever stop to think that the sense
organs form the only connecting link between the great outside world,
which serves as raw material for the nourishment, and the inner life of
the child, the development of which we are seeking? Did you ever stop to
think that these sense organs, the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue,
and the surface of the body as the organ of touch, form the only
possible avenue of approach to that inner life? Cut off, or close up,
these avenues and no development of this inner life would be possible in
the slightest degree. Thus considered, these same sense organs, simple
as they seem to be, leap into importance that almost staggers one's
thought. The most priceless possession of any child, I often say to my
classes in education, is made up of their eyes, their ears, their noses,
their tongues, and their finger tips--simply because thru them is poured
the nourishment that sustains psychic life and ministers to the
development of the same.
Of these five sense organs, the eye is, par excellence, the one of
value. More psychic nourishment is poured into the laboratory of psychic
life thru this one channel alone than thru all others combined. Indeed,
one of our most eminent scientific psychologists after making most
careful investigation of the matter, estimates that the eye's
contribution is about 74% as against the other 26% that comes thru all
the other sources. If this relative value of the eye be even
approximately correct, how eminently important it is that it be studied
with close scientific accuracy, that it be guarded with the utmost and
intelligent jealousy, and that it be cared for with the most scrupulous
fidelity!
But what is the situation? The Optician and the Oculist have made the
most careful, scientific study of the eye. They know it thoroly, both
its possibilities of service and its limitations. And they have told the
rest of us all about it. But let us see how intelligent we are in the
use of the knowledge they have given us. They tell us that the eye of
the child is undeveloped and that in the undeveloped state it should not
be much used on small or close work. In other words, the child's eye is
far-sighted. But at the age of six years we place the child in the
school room, put a book in its hands, and compel its use, eyes or no
eyes, as long as the child remains in any institution of learning. Why,
gentlemen, we have gone mad on this book proposition. We act as tho we
think that it is only in the book that knowledge can be found. We act as
tho we think that it is only thru the printed page that psychic
nourishment can reach the inner life of the child, whereas, as a matter
of fact, both the knowledge and the nourishment that are appropriate to
the child in all its early years are better obtained thru direct contact
with the great outside world itself and by direct communication from the
lips of the teacher. If this fact were fully appreciated and acted upon,
we should, in two very definite ways, conserve this very important
organ; for we should use the eyes upon objects at a greater distance
thus preventing unnecessary strain, and allow other organs of sense to
share with the eye in the work of gathering information and of
appropriating mental nourishment.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not underestimating the place and
value of books, nor decrying their use. They are the storehouse of
knowledge and the source of inspiration, but not for children. Our young
children in school and out of school read too much--are too much tied to
the book. Thru this prolonged and close use of the eye upon small and
nearby objects for which, in its undeveloped condition, it is not
fitted, the organ is permanently weakened and rendered incapable of its
legitimate use later in life when the book is a necessity. And again,
this excessive use of the eye causes an atrophy of the other organs that
is really serious.
Nor is this all. The Optician and the Oculist have studied the matter so
carefully and know the eye so thoroly in its various stages of
development that they know exactly the size of type that children of
various ages should use. And they know, too, the kind of paper that
should be used in books for children. And they have told us all about
it. But we systematically disregard all this information gained with
such painstaking care, and instead of using the large clear type and the
unglazed, soft tinted paper recommended, we persist in tolerating the
unsatisfactory merely because it is a little cheaper. Penny wise and
pound foolish we surely are. What we save now we shall have to pay later
on with compound interest besides compelling our children to undergo
physical pain and mental handicap.
And yet again. We are told by our scientific friends the relative
amounts of window and floor space that the schoolroom should have in
order to be adequately lighted! Not one in ten has as much window space
as it should have, and a good portion of what has been provided is
frequently covered up by shades thru the teacher's perverted notion of
relative values--seeming to have greater appreciation for certain
so-called artistic effects than for eye comfort and safety in work. And
then again, these scientific friends of ours have told us that there
should be in the schoolroom no cross lights; that the light should not
shine upon the blackboards nor into the faces of the children, but that
it should come only from the rear and the left and from above. They have
found out, too, and told us, the proper shades of color for the
walls--scientific knowledge, all of it, and therefore thoroly reliable.
But how systematically do we disregard all this valuable information! In
the construction of a new school building there is nothing that should
receive more careful and scientific consideration than the matter of
lighting, but too often the architect is either entirely ignorant of the
entire matter, or else is selfishly interested in so-called
architectural effects.
I do not mean that we all disregard all these things, that we have no
school houses properly constructed, no school books properly printed,
and no teachers intelligent and sensible in their handling of boys and
girls. Not at all. During the last twenty years we have made long
strides in advance along many of these lines in many places. But the
bright spots are still the exception and not the rule. The friends of
children and of the race need to keep vigilantly at work.
Now, let us look at the matter from another point of view. Let us ask
what are the results of this persistent and widespread disregard of the
normal conditions under which the eye should work and of the fundamental
laws of eye development. What do we find? Why, we find just what you are
prepared to expect after considering the above disregard. We find that,
whereas at the beginning of school life the percentage of school
children suffering from visual defects is relatively small, that
percentage increases as we ascend the grades. In other words, the
regular, systematic work of our schools is all the time weakening the
eyes--all the time causing serious visual defects. Gulick and Ayers came
to this conclusion as one of the results of their exhaustive
investigation, made in 1908, which culminated in the well known work on
"Medical Inspection of Schools," published at that time. This is all the
more striking since they found that the prevalence of other physical
defects steadily decreases as the years pass.
An investigation carried on in Jefferson City, Missouri, in 1907-1908,
illustrates the point under discussion; 20% of all children in grades
one to three inclusive were found to have defective vision, whereas in
grades nine to twelve inclusive 40.5% were found thus handicapped. In
some parts of Germany the increase in defective vision as children
ascend the grades is seen to be much more marked than in our own
country. In one particular study that comes to mind, a study of
short-sightedness alone (published, however, some years ago) it was
shown that the increase was from practically none at all to
approximately 100%. In other words, the work of the schools had made
practically every child near-sighted. And the general tendency seems to
be in this direction. Indeed, I know of but one study in which a
contrary tendency has been observed. And that was in a rural
district--St. Louis County, Missouri--where a study was made about four
years ago. Under the conditions observed there, the frequency of
short-sightedness seemed to diminish with increasing age. And the
reasons for this local tendency, being so directly contrary to the
general tendency, men have been trying to understand. Various
suggestions have been made such as the atmosphere of the rural as
against the city districts being, in the main, more favorable from
hygienic points of view; or the fewer pupils in the classes in school,
thus enabling the teachers to give more personal attention so preventing
undue eye-strain; and the shorter school year maintained in the country
giving the children less prolonged periods of eye-strain. But whatever
be the explanation of this interesting exception, it yet remains true
that the regular work of the school, week in, week out, year after year,
causes the eyes of our children to deteriorate, or at least the two go
hand in hand with grounds for a very strong suspicion in the minds of
those who have expert knowledge of the general situation that the one is
the cause of the other.
With this point established, namely, that the work of the schools is but
ill-adapted to the structure the nature of the child's eye, resulting in
steady deterioration, let us try to see how widespread is such
deterioration and how serious. This can best be done briefly thru the
use of a few statistics taken from the results of investigations that
have been made as to the physical conditions of our school children.
From these results I disregard all figures save those that bear on the
matter of visual defects since that is our one topic of discussion.
In Cleveland, Ohio, in 1906-1907, a very exhaustive and illuminating
investigation was made under the general supervision of Dr. Wallin, one
of the most eminent authorities on the relationship of the physical and
the mental in the work of our schools. Dr. Wallin called to his
assistance many experts, both medical and physical, and his report was a
very noteworthy one from many points of view. I touch only two or three
points here and there. In one school, the Mayflower, located in a fine
residence section of the city, 972 pupils were examined, and 20% of them
found to be suffering from some rather serious form of eye defect. In an
East End school, another of the so-called better class of schools, 668
children were examined and 32.4% found with defective vision. Even more
startling than these were the results found in a school of about the
same size in what was called a "congested" district of the city. Six
hundred and sixteen were examined and 71.1% found defective.
Another very significant fact was brought to light by this
investigation--the disregard paid to the whole matter by parents and
teachers. Perhaps I should not include teachers in speaking of this
disregard since they have, at best, but advisory power. In the East End
school, out of the 668 children examined, 216, or 32.4% were found
defective, but only 43, or 6.4%, were being relieved by the use of
glasses. And in the "congested" district the disparity was even more
striking since out of the 437, or 71.1% of the entire number who had
visual defects, only 11, or 1.8%, were being relieved.
In one investigation made in New York City in 1908, 1,442 pupils were
considered, and 42% found suffering from eye defects. In Jefferson City,
Missouri, in 1908, the results of the examination of 1,000 white
children showed 36.5% suffering from somewhat serious visual defects;
and many others in lesser degrees. Of these 1,000 children, 410, or 41%,
were found to need the assistance of glasses, but only 38, or 3.8%, were
being thus assisted.
In Los Angeles, California, in 1909, 5,000 children were examined, and
61% found to be suffering from the same trouble. Again, in Philadelphia,
in 1909, the well-known Dr. Risley found, in an examination of 2,422
children, that 44.7% were continual sufferers from some form of eye
trouble. I could easily cite similar results from many more studies, but
surely these are sufficient. These are startling facts, and very serious
when we think merely of this one fact alone without considering it in
its relationship to anything else. But when we stop to consider the fact
that these sufferers are children, in the schools, and are thus
handicapped in their work of education--in their efforts to fit
themselves for the struggle of life--it assumes even larger proportions
and becomes truly appalling.
What does it mean? Why, it means, in terms of the school man,
retardation and elimination. To the layman those words may need
interpretation. Retardation means the checking of a pupil in his
educational progress thru the grades, necessitating the spending of a
longer period than that which is considered normal. For example, a
normal pupil is one who enters school at six years of age and is
promoted each year regularly; or "a pupil whose age and grade correspond
to this standard." Thus, the standard age for a second grade pupil,
during the year, is 7 years; for a fourth grade, 9 years; and for an
eighth grade, 13 years; or in every case, five more than the number of
his grade. If one is older than the number of his grade plus five, he is
retarded by the amount of the difference; thus a twelve-year-old child
in the sixth grade is retarded one year since a sixth-grade child should
be but eleven years old. Somehow he has lost a year. Thru failure to do
satisfactory work such a child has had to repeat the work of some one of
his grades. Elimination means the dropping out of a child from school
altogether before the regular course is completed. We find relatively
little elimination in the lower grades since the compulsory attendance
laws require attendance. But just as soon as the upper limit of age is
reached there is much of it.