616 Purpose: To show the use of and." Q. Where is John [child comes forward on platform]?-Class. John is on the platform. Q. Who are on the platform now [there are three children on the platform]?-Class. Anna, John, Q. (Teacher places objects on the table.) What is on the table?-Leola. An album and a ball are on the table. Q. (Teacher places another object on the table.) What is on the table now?-Lucile. An album, a ball, and an ax are on the table. Purpose: To show the use of "was and " were," as singular and plural. Q. Was the book on the table [puts book on the table and takes it off]?-John. The book was on the table. Q. Were the books on the table [puts two books on the table and takes them off]?-Willie. The books were on the table. Q. Was the pencil in the box [puts pencil in box and takes it out]?-Barrett. The pencil was in the box. Q. Were the pencils in the box [puts two or three pencils in the box and then takes them out]?Tom. The pencils were in the box. Q. When do we use was?-Willie. We use was when we speak of only one. Q. When do we use were?-Eva. We use were when we speak of more than one. Q. I will give you one and you may tell me more than one: The book was on the table.-Hans. The books were on the table. The hat was in the cloakroom.-Mary. The hats were in the cloakroom. The picture was on the wall.-Johnnie. The pictures were on the wall. Q. I will give you more than one, and you may tell me one: EMERSON SCHOOL-MISS MATTHIAS, TEACHER. Q. What shall we write about to-day?-Johnnie. A horse. Q. Who shall own the horse?-Charley. Freddy owns the horse. FREDDY'S HORSE. Q. What mark shows that Freddy owns something?-Etta. The apostrophe s. Q. What color shall Freddy's horse be?-Decoy. Fred's horse is brown. [The italicized is the sentence the teacher writes on the board for the story.] Q. Where did Freddy get his horse--Charles. Fred got his horse at the barn. Q. What other word could we use for Fred? Johnnie. He. Fairy. He got his horse from his papa Kitty. He got his horse in the country. Nellie. He got his horse from the stock yards. Q. What would you say instead of got, I do not think got is as nice a word as we could use?-Decoy. Q. What did he name his horse! Q. When is he going to ride his Q. Tell me something about it. nice morning. What do you think is a nice name?-Charley. Bob. horse Bob?-Fairy. He went riding on Sunday. One Sunday morning, what kind of a morning was it?-Nellie. A Q. We do not want to say nice. -Nellie. He rode Bob one bright Sunday morning. Q. What happens to Fred?-- Fairy. The horse throwed him up in the air. Q. Yes, that is what the horse did, but who can tell it better? Charley. He kicked him up in the air. Nellie. Bob threw him off in the mud. Q. What made Bob throw him off in the mud?--Willie. Fred whipped the horse so hard that he threw him off in the mud. Q. Then we will write: While riding, Fred hit the horse so hard he threw him off in the mud. Q. What do you think of Fred for doing such a thing as that?-Nellie. I think Fred was a bad boy. Q. Tell me that, so that I can write it.-Nellie. Fred, Fred, you are a bad, bad boy! Teacher. Take your slates. We are going to write that story on our slates. Write it just as nicely He brought his horse from the country. He rode Bob one bright Sunday morning. While riding, Fred hit the horse so hard he threw him off in the mud. Fred, Fred, you are a bad, bad boy! CHAPTER XV. EDUCATIONAL VALUES. [The following article on educational values I reprint from the report of the St. Louis schools for the year 1872-73. It contains a somewhat fuller discussion of some of the points relative to the educative value of the several studies in elementary and secondary schools, and in this way may be useful in explaining points that are left obscure in the report of the subcommittee on correlation of studies.] The educator is called upon especially to scrutinize the character of his elementary work. He must see from afar the effects of the trifling things with which he makes his beginnings. It is the feeling of this duty that has in late years drawn so much attention to Froebel's theories of the kindergarten and to primary education generally. It is all essential that the foundation should be sufficient for the superstructure. Of late, therefore, much thought has been expended on the question of adapting the course of study in the common schools to the actual demands upon the citizen in after life. The same zeal which has challenged the methods and subjects of the common schools has with still more emphasis challenged the higher education in our colleges and universities. It has demanded the substitution of more practical studies for the traditional disciplinary course. It has asked for more science and less Latin or Greek and for a radical extension of the elective system of making up a course of study for each individual. Much has been accomplished by this movement toward gaining its points. Meanwhile a vigorous reaction has set in, and the old finds its defenders and apologists. The discussion widens its scope and extends to many other phases not originally called into question, not only the proper course of study for the public schools, but their right to exist on appropriations from the public treasury; especially with reference to the public high school the discussion is a warm one. Teachers and directors of public school systems have become suddenly aware that there may be an "irrepressible conflict" between the system of public and that of private instruction. It is somewhat startling to learn that there are two systems firmly established in our land confronting each other with radically different theories as to a proper course of study. Such hos By W. T. Harris, superintendent. tility could not but develop sooner or later into an open contest. Now that the general attention is directed to education as an element of national and social strength, we can no longer avoid a discussion of these differences and of the theories on which they are based. The peaceful victories of industry at Paris, London, and Vienna and the colossal victories of Prussian arms at Sadowa and Sedan have aroused statesmen and political economists to the study of public education as essential to national strength in productive industry and in the field of battle as well. What this education should be, how far it should be carried, whether compulsory or not, whether there should be different courses of education, adapted to the supposed destinies of the pupilsthese and other kindred questions must be discussed in the light of fundamental principles. On the one hand it is contended, in the interest of productive industry, that the public schools, being for the masses who are destined to fill the ranks of common laborers, should give a semitechnical education and avoid the purely disciplinary studies. The latter should be reserved for private academies and preparatory schools founded by private enterprise and open to such of the community as can afford to patronize them. The higher education in this country conducted in its colleges and universities should, according to this view, have no organic relation whatever to the public school system, but only to the system of preparatory schools and academies supported by private wealth. That the effect of such a state of affairs is to injure the cause of education in general, who can doubt, when he reflects that suchi isolation must have the effect of arraying the supporters of public schools and those who have received the primary education given in them against the supporters of higher education and against the class of citizens who have received it? For it will result that those who receive a higher education will have been, during their whole course in a system of schools founded on a basis different from the public schools, having a different course of study and supported in a radically different manner. That the graduates of higher institutions should under those circumstances be in sympathy with public school education is impossible. The public schoois would necessarily be the schools of a caste of the proletariat-the class whose chief organ is the hand, and whose brains are educated solely to serve the hand better. The very persons themselves are called "hands" very appropriately. In this country, with its boundless possibilities, living as we do largely upon our hopes, conscious of a rapid development in the past and of great prospects in the future, with a national history whose biographical side is the story of "self-made" men, aspiration is the leading characteristic of the people, and the poorest immigrant here soon kindles with its impulse, and while he endeavors by thrift to accumulate a fortune, he prepares for its perpetuity by educating his children. There is nothing more favorable to the character of the foreigner newly arrived on our shores than this, that he is everywhere eager to avail himself of the school privileges. To the self-respect born of aspiration, what greater shock can be offered than the establishment of caste schools-public schools founded especially for the industrial class, to the end that its children being born from "hands" shall be "hands" still, and shall not mingle with the children of the wealthy, nor with those of the liberally educated. Such discrimination leads the laborer to refuse all school education unless he can afford to pay for it in the private school. The complete degradation of the public school results. On the one hand those who have received higher education have been nurtured in an atmosphere of contempt for the free schools of the laboring classes. On the other hand the laboring classes themselves despise the symbol of their inferiority and the institution designed to make their inferiority hereditary. But it may be that a higher education demands a primary education specially designed as preparation and introduction to it. It is possible that an education, to be completed in three or five years, ought to be on an entirely different plan from that intended to cover ten or fifteen years. If such were found to be the case, our only remedy might be a twofold course in the public schools-a so-called "general course" and a "classical course." Where this were not feasible we might lament the fate of the public school, but could not remove its necessary evils. It would inevitably become the school of the proletariat, and the flourishing private school would draw away the children of wealth and competence and furnish them a different course of study. This question touches most vitally our whole public school system, and especially the course of study in the high school. Let us inquire, therefore, what are the current standards of education, as set up by the public and private schools. According to the theory on which college education rests, the preparatory schools should confine their work almost entirely to the disciplinary studies. The mathematics and Latin and Greek are the main requisites for admission. Not only is this the case, but for two years after admission there is very little deviation from this course. Harvard, by raising the standard for admission by at least a year's work, now makes Latin, Greek, and mathematics elective after freshman year, and requires physics, rhetoric, history, and elementary French as the regular studies of sophomore year. By this it will be seen that if public schools are to fit their pupils for the colleges they must adopt the same course as the academies and special preparatory schools and make thoroughness in collateral or information branches unessential for promotion. By the college system these collateral branches shall be reached only after the disciplinary course is finished. Even Harvard's recent and noteworthy changes consist in demanding another year's work in the preparatory school on Latin, Greek, and the mathematics. A small departure from this looks also in the direction of allowing previous work in French and other studies as an equivale for required work. The natural sciences are to be included in the preparatory work at some future time. It does not appear that any college has made so great a departure as to require for admission just what a public high school would consider a proper requirement for a diploma. The public schools have generally adopted a course of study resting on a different theory from the one on which that of the colleges is based. The course of study in the public schools assumes the principle that it is best to unite disciplinary studies with collateral studies intended to supply information and insight. This union of discipline. and knowledge must begin in the primary school and continue through the high school. The amount of actual culture (including under this term both discipline and knowledge) represented by the public high school course is almost equal to that attained by the students who have completed sophomore year in most colleges-that is to say, a graduate of a city high school is as able to pursue independent investigations into the various branches of science and literature, native and foreign, as the college student of two years' standing. What he has been obliged to do thoroughly in history, United States and European; in geography, descriptive and physical; in English literature and the grammars of English, Latin, and French, or German; rhetoricals, writing, spelling, and reading; in physics, chemistry, or natural history; in mathematics; in mental and moral philosophy-what he has done in these studies is an equivalent for the Latin, Greek, and mathematics of freshman and sophomore years, together with the preparatory studies actually required. Now, what are the facts as to admission to the colleges? The graduate of the high school is placed on the same basis as the specially prepared student who is really two years his junior in general culture. This injustice prevents the high-school graduate from resorting to the regular course in our colleges. The question is narrowed down to this, Which is the correct system, that of the colleges which separates, or that of the public schools which unites dicipline and knowledge? If the latter, then the colleges of the land ought to be reconstructed and adapted to the prevailing system of education here well established. If the former is right, then our public school system ought to be purged of the collateral work in its course of study. Finally, if both are right and necessary, each in its own sphere, then it is evident that there is required a system of private or public schools which occupy the place that the academy system in New England and New York occupies. Into these must be sent those pupils who expect to fit for a higher education. This latter alternative does not furnish a solution of the difficulty. There still remains, as has been stated at length, an irreconcilable conflict between the public school system and the system pursued in these preparatory schools. |