character of the work in the elementary and secondary schools should be
different one from the other, different as to discipline, ends in view,
subjects of study, and methods of handling the same. In the elementary
school the pupil is a child, with the mind, the tastes, the ambitions of
a child, and he should be allowed to remain a child. The ends in view
are right habits, right ideals, and knowledge facts. In the secondary
school the student is an adolescent, with the mind of an adolescent,
having peculiar and erratic tastes, changing ambitions, and conflicting
emotions. He is neither child nor adult, but passing thru the most
dangerous and critical period of his entire life. The ends in view are
no longer merely habits, ideals, and knowledge facts, but, added to
these, and now more important for emphasis because presumably right
principles have already been established, breadth and fixity of
character, self-acquaintance, scholarship, and culture. Tell me that the
atmosphere, psychical and spiritual, and the training, academic and
professional, that will produce the ideal teacher of the child will also
produce the ideal teacher of the adolescent? Nay, verily! You might as
well tell the florist that the American Beauty rose and the Snow Flower
of the Northern forest will both reach perfection if grown side by side.
Then surely we need different kinds of institutions. I cannot better
conclude this thought than by using the words of Dr. Wm. T. Harris found
in the introductory paragraph of an article on "The Future of the Normal
School." (Ed. Rev., January, 1899, p. 1.) Dr. Harris says: "I have tried
to set down in this paper the grounds for commending the normal school
as it exists for its chosen work of preparing teachers for the
elementary schools, and at the same time urging the need of training
schools with different methods of preparation for the kindergarten,
below, and for the secondary school, the college and the post-graduate
school, above the elementary school."
The reason just given, the psychological one, is alone sufficient for
believing that the differentiation is logical. But let me add another,
almost equally effective--an academic reason, directly academic and at
the same time indirectly economic. This is found in the following words,
taken from Dr. Payne's "Contributions to the Science of Education." (Am.
Book Co., 1886, p. 538.) "If there is any well-established principle of
school economy it is this: The scholarship of the teacher should be
considerably broader than the scholarship of his most advanced pupil."
Nobody now questions the statement.
Upon the basis of that principle there is little criticism to be offered
of the academic equipment of our normal school graduates as teachers in
the grades. No normal school now completes its work with less than one
full year beyond the completion of a four-year high school course, and
two years beyond is rapidly getting to be the standard. So that normal
school graduation gives the prospective teacher of the grades at least
four years of academic, and from one to two years of professional and
academic work beyond the point to be reached by "his most advanced
pupil." To be sure, more would be better--a longer experience and a
closer acquaintance with the great character forming subjects, such as
literature, history, philosophy, etc. This would give breadth of view,
clearness of perception, and a right perspective--elements of
incomparable value in the equipment of the teacher. But yet, in view of
our economic conditions and of a general lack of understanding and
therefore of appreciation in the lay mind of the most vital and
fundamental work of the teacher, we cannot yet hope for teachers ideally
equipt. And our present standards, if insisted upon and the work thus
far be thoro and clear and faithful, will give us increasingly better
results and eventually lead to conditions more nearly ideal.
But this judgment as to criticism must be very different when we look
upon these graduates as possible teachers in the high school. The
scholarship of such a teacher there would be but little, if any,
"broader than the scholarship of his most advanced pupil." While there
is to-day no uniform legislation touching the requirements as to
qualifications of high school teachers in the United States, each state,
and even each school, being largely a law unto itself, there is getting
to be a very decided uniformity the country over as to practise, and in
many ways this is much more significant than formal legislation would
be. For without compulsion, the whole people, each section and each
state, independent of all others, seemingly by the very necessity of the
case, have fixt upon the same minimum standard of qualification for high
school teachers. And that minimum is the completion of a full four-year
collegiate course of instruction, including--indeed, in many cases,
plus--a certain emphasis to be placed upon the subjects to be handled,
and a certain amount of time devoted to strictly professional subjects.
To be sure, in some states legislation has spoken, as in Minnesota,
requiring completion of collegiate work, and practically so in North
Dakota, requiring completion of such work for superintendencies and high
school principalships, and strongly recommending the same for all
teaching positions in the high school. In California a step farther has
been taken in requiring, in addition to that, a full year of graduate
study. The tendency, in several states, seems to be in the direction of
the position taken by California. And with that tendency I am in
sympathy.
This movement upward, however, I do not want to see go any farther. I
deprecate the tendency, seen in some quarters, of setting up as the
symbol of the standard of qualification for the high school teacher, the
doctor's degree. I do not want the boys and girls of our high schools
taught, or rather directed in their upward development, by mere
specialists--doctors of philosophy, who know everything about nothing,
and nothing about everything. Nor do I want them directed by men and
women who are obliged to "cipher on page twenty while the class is
working on page nineteen." But I do want them directed by men and women
who are thoroly acquainted with the subjects which they teach, and who
know how to handle the same; but especially by men and women of broad,
liberal culture, men and women whose lives have been enriched by the
best there is in literature, history, art, science, and philosophy, and
who know life, and are in warm sympathy with young life. Teachers thus
equipt are able, from their high vantage point, to reach out here and
there and take as educative material that which will contribute to the
beautiful and strong development of each case at hand. And such an
equipment, on its academic side, comes not short of the master's degree,
or its equivalent.
My authority for the statement made above as to the growing uniformity
of practise in requiring as minimum qualification for high school
teachers a full collegiate course, and as to the tendency in several
states toward requiring, in addition, a full year of graduate study, is
found in an extended correspondence with normal school principals and
city and state superintendents representing the entire country.
These facts as to present-day requirements seem to me to fix somewhat
definitely the matters under discussion. Our normal schools, with
possibly two or three exceptions, are not equipt to give the extended
qualification now demanded for the high school teacher. Barring the two
or three, the best of them do not pretend to carry the student more than
two years beyond high school graduation. And whether it be one or two
years, the work is, as it ought to be, mainly professional--not
academic. Indeed, the presidents of many of our strongest normal schools
insist that they do not do any strictly academic work. And if the lack
is so great touching high school teachers, how much greater touching
positions still higher.
To be sure, the work of the normal schools might be sufficiently
extended to enable them to do this additional and advanced work. New
buildings might be erected, laboratory facilities increased, libraries
enlarged, additional and stronger teachers provided, etc. But is it
necessary? Is it wise? Is it likely to happen with our legislators
holding the purse strings so tightly tied? To all such questions the
answer must inevitably be negative. It is not necessary because not
really needed for the preparation of elementary teachers, while for the
preparation of secondary teachers other agencies are at hand. And if not
needed the unwisdom of such an extension can scarcely be questioned.
Certainly not, if, as urged above, different kinds of institutions are
needed for the preparation of the two grades of teachers. Then, if both
not needed and unwise, it is not likely to happen in any case where
legislators are intelligently informed as to the situation.
To indicate the feeling among many of our leading educators touching
this point, it might be interesting, in closing, to give a brief summary
of the correspondence mentioned above. This inquiry, was directed to all
our state superintendents, to forty of the leading normal school
principals representing all sections of the country, and to fifty-two
leading and representative city superintendents. The following questions
were asked:--
(1) Are your normal schools at the present time equipt to give
adequate preparation to prospective high school teachers?
(2) If you think they are not, would it be wise to add to their
present equipment such facilities as would enable them to give such
preparation, or can that work be better done in some other way?
REPLIES FROM STATE SUPERINTENDENTS
To question (1). Thirty-eight replies were received, of which
twenty-nine were negative and nine affirmative. Of the nine, however,
only one came from a state in which normal school facilities are at all
superior to what may be termed a fair average, and in that state these
facilities are found in only one of the five normal schools, whereas, in
five of the nine, these facilities are inferior to what may be termed a
fair average. In two of the nine, tho the state superintendents gave
affirmative answers, the consensus of opinion of the normal school
principals was negative. In a word, the nine affirmative replies
indicate individual opinions, and result from a limited perspective.
To question (2). Twenty-nine replies were received, of which fifteen
were specifically negative, five specifically affirmative, and nine
implied a misunderstanding of the question. But nearly all of the nine,
as well as the fifteen, stated definitely or clearly implied that such
work should be done in the colleges and universities.
REPLIES FROM NORMAL SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
To question (1). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty
were negative, and eight affirmative. Of the eight, three were from
states having but one normal school each, and perhaps, therefore,
admittedly strong; two from states having each one school much superior
to the others of the same state, and referring specifically to that
school. Of the remaining three, one was from a new state in the
Northwest, one from a Southern state, and one stated that only in some
branches was the equipment sufficient.
To question (2). Twenty replies were received, of which sixteen were
negative, and four affirmative. Of the four, not one said that all
should be so equipt. Each suggested that perhaps it would be well thus
to extend the equipment of one school in a state.
REPLIES FROM CITY SUPERINTENDENTS
To question (1). Thirty replies were received, of which twenty-eight
were negative, and two affirmative. The two were from a state in which
is to be found a single normal school, and that, one of the best.
To question (2). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-six
were negative, and two affirmative.
To be sure, correspondence upon this point was not sufficiently extended
to be conclusive, but yet my correspondents were, in the main, leaders
in their respective lines, and therefore represent the best educational
thought and practise of the times. The summary speaks clearly and to the
point, and to the same point, note, that the logic of events has already
brought us. The work of the normal school should continue to be, as it
has been from the beginning, devoted to preparation of teachers for the
grades, while prospective teachers in the high schools should seek their
preparation in the teachers colleges, under whatever specific names
known, where the professional phases of the work will be as much
emphasized, but be different, and be differently handled as befitting
the different character of the work to be done, and where they can
receive the broader academic outlook and equipment absolutely essential
to an adequate handling of the larger and more difficult situation.
NOTE.--Since the appearance of the January number of _Education_,
my attention has been called to the fact that in naming
institutions giving early attention to the preparation of secondary
teachers I omitted some that should have found a place in such an
enumeration. It is true that several others might well have been
mentioned. On page 286, line 5 (page 224, line 3 of this work), I
might well have added the School of Pedagogy of New York
University, also Clark, Stanford, California, and Teachers College,
Columbia, and again, "and others." And on page 289, line 18 (page
228, line 18 of this work), I certainly should have added the
School of Pedagogy of New York University and Clark University,
possibly others, for the work is progressing rapidly. But it was
the movement I had in mind rather than the specific contributions
of various institutions. The omissions were not born of any desire
to withhold from any institution the credit that it deserves.
Since this matter is again open, let me add an interesting fact in
regard to the New York University School of Pedagogy, just
mentioned. If I mistake not, we have here the first real "teachers
college," that is, the first instance in which we see a "Department
of Education," having merely equal standing with other departments
in a university, become, thru definite action of that university's
governing body, "a professional school of equal rank with the other
professional schools of the University." This change was made on
March 3, 1890. Judging by results, it has been amply justified. The
institution is doing a large and splendid work.--THE AUTHOR.
X
CREDIT FOR QUALITY IN SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
_From the "Educational Review," March, 1909, and the "Western Journal of
Education" (now the "American Schoolmaster"), May, 1909_
In the _Educational Review_ for May, 1908, Mr. W. B. Secor had an
article under the caption, "Credit for Quality in the Secondary School."
Mr. Secor says, in his opening paragraph, "The present system of giving
credit towards graduation in use in the secondary school, takes account
mainly of the amount of work done.... The student who barely passes his
work gets just the same amount of credit towards graduation as the one
who passes high in the nineties. It is to be expected, then, that the
student ... will reason something like this: I will be graduated if I
pass my work in the seventies just the same as if I pass it in the
nineties. What is the use of wasting time and effort in securing a high
average?" He then suggests a system of marking which "would not only fix
a minimum of quality, but would also recognize different degrees of
quality by giving more credit toward graduation for high quality than
for low," which system, he thinks, would also tend to "a strengthening
of the intellectual life of the secondary school." Mr. Secor does not
claim to be the originator of the idea, giving to President Hyde of
Bowdoin that doubtful honor. He also refers to two articles in the
_Educational Review_, one in the issue of April, 1905, written by
Professor Thomas, of Columbia University, speaking of the system as just
introduced into that institution, and the other in the issue of
December, 1906, by Professor Kennedy, describing the system as then in
use in the University of North Dakota. After these references have been
cited, the system is discust from various points of view and its
extension into the secondary field favored, tho, in his closing
paragraph, Mr. Secor says, "Now the plan here proposed does not claim
perfection. It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test."
Mr. Secor's article is but one of many evidences that the experiment now
being tried in a few of our higher institutions of learning, of
attempting to estimate and adequately reward quality as well as quantity
of work done by students, is attracting considerable attention. It is
not at all strange that these experiments are attracting attention, for
the idea is taking and its justice seemingly so apparent. Because of
this interest I desire to examine some parts of Mr. Secor's article and
in the process of that examination briefly discuss the so-called
"Credit-for-quality" idea. I shall be materially aided in such
discussion by my experience with the practical workings of the system in
the University of North Dakota, and shall take the opportunity of
letting the educational world know how the system is working and how it
is being regarded in the institution in which it has been receiving its
most extensive and thoro trial. For while the system did not originate
here, it was here first put into operation, and for years an earnest,
honest, heroic effort has been put forth in its behalf. I might say,
parenthetically, that the details of the system Mr. Secor suggests are
almost identically the ones that have been in use in this institution.
They were found to be faulty, however, and have been materially changed.
I have read and re-read Mr. Secor's article with both interest and
apprehension; with interest, because the "Credit-for-quality" idea has
been engaging my thoughtful attention on both its practical and its
theoretical sides for a considerable time; with apprehension, since the
article seems to recommend the system for use in our secondary schools.
I am sorry the recommendation has been made for the conclusions I have
reached from my double study are very different from those being held by
Mr. Secor. I seriously question the wisdom of extending the system at
all, even when dealing with students of college rank, much more
seriously, then, when applied to those of the secondary school who are
four years younger, much less mature, and therefore less able to profit
by the meritorious features and at the same time withstand the weakening
influences attendant upon the system. Indeed, I think its adoption in
the secondary schools would be nothing short of a calamity. Another
reason why I feel impelled to speak is that reference is made in Mr.
Secor's article to the working of the system in the institution with
which I am connected as "highly satisfactory." In justice to the system
itself and certainly in view of its suggested extension, that impression
should not be allowed to go forth without modification or correction. I
shall attempt, therefore, in this discussion, to do three things, tho I
shall not try to separate the three spatially: (1) to discuss this
marking system on its merits; (2) to report to the educational world our
findings after an experience with it of five years, and (3) to urge
against its extension into the secondary field.
Let me say, at the outset, that I have been connected with the
University of North Dakota for three years--the last three of the five
during which the system has been in use. I have had all the time from
one hundred to one hundred twenty-five students. The grading has had to
be done three times a year, since our school year, up to the present
time, has been separated into three terms. Let me also make plain the
fact that in all I say I speak upon my own responsibility, not for the
institution nor for its faculty, tho it is true that nearly, if not
quite, half the faculty hold practically the same views regarding the
system.
It is true, as Mr. Secor says, that "the present system of giving credit
towards graduation used in our secondary schools takes account mainly of
the amount of work done." It passes upon quality, as he says, only "when
it fixes a passing mark." It may also be true, as he takes for granted,
that it would be desirable to give credit towards graduation for quality
as well as for quantity, but of this I am very much in doubt, especially
in dealing with secondary students. It does not sufficiently take into
consideration the value of content, and that, it seems to me, is a
factor that should not be disregarded. I think I value as highly as most
men the discipline, or mental power, gained by close application;
likewise, the habit of thoroness gained thru doing work well; but yet,
in addition to those acquisitions, I confess that I also place high
value upon knowledge as a possession. In other words, I want the
student, both high school and college, to know something.
I will gladly admit, however, that it is very desirable to secure from
the student quality as well as quantity. That, I am inclined to think,
is the main thing that Mr. Secor is really after. He thinks the best
way, or, at any rate, a very good way, to get it is thru the device of
giving extra credit toward graduation for the higher grades of work. My
experience with the system does not lead me to that conclusion. Interest
in the subject matter itself is always essential to the doing of a high
quality of work. And such interest in the subject matter of school
studies is scarcely secured by anything so artificial as rewards
smacking of the market. So far as it can not be secured directly, and
resort must be made to artificial incentives to secure it, I think that
incentives can be found much more in keeping with the general spirit and
purpose of education than the constant appeal to the commercial value of
the grades being obtained. The ordinary monthly report card sent to the
home, on which the quality of work being done in the various subjects is
indicated by "excellent," "good," "poor," etc., and even by the too
common "per cent," is artificial stimulus enough. Every teacher knows
what an incentive the report card can be made. To be sure, teachers
differ greatly in their ability to use this card skilfully, but
so used it can exert great power. Not long ago I discust this
"Credit-for-quality" matter with a class of about thirty university
students, mostly freshmen, and, somewhat to my surprise, I discovered
that with the majority of them the chief reason for desiring the "A"
and "B" (our marks for extra credit toward graduation) was not that they
bore the extra credit, but that the descriptive terms "excellent" and
"good" secure extra appreciation from the home when term standings are
reported. This might not be true of any large percentage of university
students, certainly would not be of the upper classes. Added years have
made them shrewder. Under the influence of our system they have become
keener to appreciate a "bargain." But it certainly would be true of a
very large percentage of secondary students.
Considerable experience in the secondary schools leads me to doubt very
much that the typical high school student reasons as Mr. Secor suggests
in his first paragraph. Some do, of course, and so do some university
students, but not the great body of either. Barring a small percentage,
students as they run, in both high school and college, are an earnest
lot of young people. They are in these institutions for a purpose. They
are seeking, so far as their vision extends, well-developed manhood and
womanhood. Their chief desire is not to slide thru. The two immediate
ends normally in view are consciousness of progressive growth and
appreciation from parent and teacher. How eager the majority are for
this appreciation is well known to all. All the stimulus needed, in
addition to what the subjects and the student's own desire furnish, the
resourceful teacher has at hand wrapt up in his own personality. If any
other stimulus is needed it can be given by a grading of diplomas as is
now being done in many high schools and colleges. I hold that to add to
the marks now in common use what may be called a monetary fringe is
both unnecessary and really subversive of the true ends of the school
work. As teachers we should seek to elevate ideals, not to lower them;
to furnish right motives, not wrong ones; to place before the developing
youth high incentives, not low ones.