Thus far it seems clear that an absolute standard is available for
testing the efficiency of training or habit building, and that a fairly
accurate standard may be developed for testing the efficiency of
instruction. Both training and instruction, however, are subject to the
modifying influence of a third factor of which too little account has
hitherto been taken in educational discussions. Training results in
habits, and yet a certain sort of training may not only result in a
certain type of habit, but it may also result in the development of
something which will quite negate the habit that has been developed. In
the process of developing habits of neatness, for example, one may
employ methods that result in prejudicing the child against neatness as
a general virtue. In this event, although the little specific habits of
neatness may function in the situations in which they have been
developed, the prejudice will effectually prevent their extension to
other fields. In other words, the general emotional effect of training
must be considered as well as the specific results of the training. The
same stricture applies with equal force to instruction. Instruction
imparts knowledge; but if a man knows and fails to feel, his knowledge
has little influence upon his conduct.
This factor that controls conduct when habit fails, this factor that may
even negate an otherwise efficient habit, is the great indeterminate in
the work of teaching. To know that one has trained an effective habit or
imparted a practical principle is one thing; to know that in doing this,
one has not engendered in the pupil's mind a prejudice against the very
thing taught is quite another matter.
That phase of teaching which is concerned with the development of these
intangible forces may be termed "inspiration"; and it is the lack of an
adequate test for the efficiency of inspiration that makes the task of
supervision so difficult and the results so often unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless, even here the outlook is not entirely hopeless. One may be
tolerably certain of at least two things. In the first place, the great
"emotionalized prejudices" that must come predominantly from school
influences are the love of truth, the love of work, respect for law and
order, and a spirit of coöperation. These factors undoubtedly have their
basis in specific habits of honesty, industry, obedience, and regard for
the rights and feelings of others; and these habits may be developed and
tested just as thoroughly and just as accurately as habits of good
spelling and correct syntax. Without the solid basis of habit, ideals
and prejudices will be of but little service. The one caution must be
taken that the methods of training do not defeat their own purpose by
engendering prejudices and ideals that negate the habits. It is here
that the personality of the teacher becomes the all-important factor,
and the task of the supervisor is to determine whether the influence of
the personality is good or evil. Most supervisors come to judge of this
influence by an undefined factor that is best termed the "spirit of the
classroom."
The second hopeful feature of the task of supervision in respect of
inspiration is that this "spirit" is an extremely contagious and
pervasive thing. In other words, the principal or the superintendent may
dominate every classroom under his supervision, almost without regard to
the limitations of the individual teachers. Typical schools in every
city system bear compelling testimony to this fact. The principal _is_
the school.
And if I were to sum up the essential characteristics of the ideal
supervisor, I could not neglect this point. After all, the two great
dangers that beset him are, first, the danger of sloth--the old Adam of
laziness--which will tempt him to avoid the details, to shirk the
drudgery, to escape the close and wearisome scrutiny of little things;
and, secondly, the sin of triviality--the inertia which holds him to
details and never permits him to take the broader view and see the true
ends toward which details are but the means. The proper combination of
these two factors is all too rare, but it is in this combination that
the ideal supervisor is to be found.