their instructions very intelligible, interesting, or profitable to their pupils, or present to them the motives best adapted to secure good lessons and good conduct, or, in a word, adopt such a course of training as would result in a sound development of the faculties, and the sure formation of a good character. I admitted that a skill and power to do all this might be acquired by trial, if teachers continued in their business long enough; but while teachers were thus learning, I was sure that pupils must be suffering. In the process of time, a man may find out by experiment, (trial,) how to tan hides and convert them into leather. But most likely the time would be long, and he would spoil many before he got through. It would be far better for him, we know, to get some knowledge of Chemistry, and spend a little time in his neighbor's tannery, before he sets up for himself. In the same way, the farmer may learn what trees, and fruits, and seeds, are best suited to particular soils, and climates, and modes of culture, but it must be by a needless outlay of time and labor, and the incurring of much loss. If wise, he would first learn the principles and facts which agricultural experiments have already established, and then commence operations. So the more I considered the subject, the more the conviction grew upon my mind, that by a judicious course of study, and of discipline, teachers may be prepared to enter on their work, not only with the hope, but almost with the assurance of success. I did not then, I do not now, (at least in the fullest extent of it,) assent to the doctrine so often expressed in one form or another, that there are no general principles to be recognized in education; no general methods to be followed in the art of teaching; that all depends upon the individual teacher; that every principle, motive and method, must owe its power to the skill with which it is applied; that what is true, and good, and useful in the hands of one, may be quite the reverse in the hands of another; and of course, that every man must invent his own methods of teaching and governing, it being impossible successfully to adopt those of another. To me it seemed that education had claims to be regarded as a science, being based on immutable principles, of which the practical teacher, though he may modify them to meet the change of ever-varying circumstances, can never lose sight. That the educator should watch the operations of nature, the development of the mind, discipline those faculties whose activities first appear, and teach that knowledge first, which the child can most easily comprehend, viz., that which comes in through the senses, rather than through reason and the imagination; that true education demands, or rather implies the training, strengthening, and perfecting of all the faculties by means of the especial exercise of each; that in teaching, we must begin with what is simple and known, and go on by easy steps to what is complex and unknown; that for true progress and lasting results, it were better for the attention to be concentrated on a few studies, and for a considerable time, than to be divided among many, changing from one to another at short intervals; that in training children we must concede a special recognition to the principle of curiosity, a love of knowledge, and so present truth as to keep this principle in proper action; that the pleasure of acquiring, and the advantage of possessing knowledge, may be made, and should be made, a sufficient stimulus to sustain wholesome exertion without resorting to emulation, or medals, or any rewards other than those which are the natural fruits of industry and attainment; that for securing order and obedience, there are better ways than to depend solely or chiefly upon the rod, or appeals to fear; that much may be done by way of prevention of evil; that gentle means should always first be tried; that undue attention is given to intellectual training in our schools, to the neglect of physical and moral; that the training of the faculties is more important than the communication of knowledge; that the discipline, the instruction of the school-room, should better subserve the interests of real life, than it now does ;-these are some of the principles, truths, facts, in education, susceptible, I think, of the clearest demonstration, and pretty generally admitted now, by all enlightened educators. The old method of teaching Arithmetic, for instance, by taking up some printed treatise and solving abstract questions consisting of large numbers, working blindly by what must appear to the pupil arbitrary rules, would now be regarded as less philosophical, less in conformity to mental development, than the more modern way of beginning with mental Arithmetic, using practical questions, which involve small numbers, and explaining the reason of every step as you go along.

So in the study of Grammar, no Normal teacher, whether a graduate or not, of a Normal School, would require his pupils to commit the whole text-book to memory, before looking at the nature of words, and their application in the structure of sentences. Almost all have found out that memorizing the Grammar-book, and the exercise of parsing, do very little toward giving one a knowledge of the English language.

Neither is it learning Geography, to read over and commit to memory, statistics of the length and breadth of countries, their boundaries, latitude and longitude, &c., &c., without map or globe, or any visible illustration, as was once the practice. Nor does the somewhat modern addition of maps and globes much help the process, unless the scholar, by a previous acquaintance with objects in the outer world, has been prepared to use them. The shading for mountains, and black lines for rivers on maps, will be of little use to a child who has not already some idea of a mountain and a river.

And the teacher who should attempt to teach reading by requiring a child to repeat from day to day, and from month to month, the whole alphabet, until he is familiar with all the letters, as was the fashion in former days, would deserve to lose his place and be sent himself to school. Could any thing be more injudicious? Is it not more in harmony with Nature's work, to begin with simple, significant words, or rather sentences, taking care always to select such as are easy and intelligible, as well as short? Or, if letters be taken first, should they not be formed into small groups, on some principle of association, and be combined with some visible object?

Surely, the different methods of teaching the branches above-mentioned, are not all equally good. Teaching is based on immutable principles, and may be regarded as an art.

Nearly thirty years' experience in the business of teaching, I thought, had given me some acquaintance with its true principles and processes, and I deemed it no presumption to believe that I could teach them to others. This I attempted to do in the Normal School at Lexington; 1st. didactically, i. e. by precept, in the form of familiar conversations and lectures; 2d. by giving every day, and continually, in my own manner of teaching, an exemplification of my theory; 3d. by requiring my pupils to teach each other, in my presence, the things which I had taught them; and 4th. by means of the Model School, where, under my general supervision, the Normal pupils had an opportunity, both to prove and to improve their skill in teaching and managing schools. At all our recitations, (the modes of which were very various,) and in other con-. nections, there was allowed the greatest freedom of inquiry and remark, and principles, modes, processes, every ng indeed relating to school-keeping, was discussed. The thoughts and opinions of each one were thus made the property of the whole, and there was infused into all hearts a deeper and deeper interest in the teachers' calling. In this way the Normal School became a kind of standing Teachers' Institute.

But for a particular account of my manner and processes at the Normal School, allow me to refer you to a letter which I had the honor, at your request, to address to you from Lexington, Jan. 1, 1841, and which was published in the Common School Journal, both of Connecticut and Massachusetts, (vol. 3.) What success attended my labors, I must leave to others to say. I acknowledge, it was far from being satisfactory to myself. Still the experiment convinced me that Normal Schools may be made a powerful auxiliary to the cause of education. A thorough training in them, I am persuaded, will do much toward supplying the want of experience. It will make the teachers' work easier, surer, better. I have reason to believe that Normal pupils are much indebted for whatever of fitness they possess for teaching, to the Normal School. They uniformly profess so to feel. I have, moreover, made diligent inquiry in regard to their success, and it is no exaggeration to say, that it has been manifestly great. Strong testimonials to the success of many of the early graduates of the Lexington (now W. Newton) Normal School, were published with the 8th Report of the late Secretary of the Board of Education, and may be found in the 7th vol. of the Massachusetts Common School Journal.

But it is sometimes asked, (and the inquiry deserves an answer,) Allowing that teaching is an art, and that teachers may be trained for their business, have we not High Schools and Academies, in which the various school branches are well taught? May not teachers in them be prepared for their work?

Where is the need then of a distinct order of Seminaries for training teachers? I admit we have Academies, High Schools, and other schools, furnished with competent teachers, in which is excellent teaching; but at the time of the establishment of the Normal Schools in Massachusetts, there was not, to my knowledge, any first-rate institution exclusively devoted to training teachers for our common schools; neither do I think there is now any, except the Normal Schools. And teachers can not be prepared for their work anywhere else, so well as in seminaries exclusively devoted to this object. The art of teaching must be made the great, the paramount, the only concern. It must not come in as subservient to, or merely collateral with any thing else whatever. And again, a Teachers' Seminary should have annexed to it, or rather as an integral part of it, a model, or experimental school for practice.

Were I to be placed in a Normal School again, the only difference in my aim would be to give more attention to the development of the faculties, to the spirit and motives by which a teacher should be moved, to physical and moral education, to the inculcation of good principles and good manners.

In conclusion, allow me to recapitulate. It was my aim, and it would be my aim again, in a Normal School, to raise up for our common schools especially, a better class of teachers,-teachers who would not only teach more and better than those already in the field, but who would govern better; teachers, who would teach in harmony with the laws of juvenile development, who would se cure diligent study and good lessons and sure progress, without a resort to emulation and premiums, and good order from higher motives than the fear of the rod or bodily pain; teachers, who could not only instruct well in the common branches, as reading, writing, arithmetic, &c., but give valuable information on a variety of topics, such as accounts, history, civil institutions, political economy, and physiology; bring into action the various powers of children, and prepare them for the duties of practical life; teachers, whose whole influence on their pupils, direct and indirect, should be good, tending to make them, not only good readers, geographers, grammarians, arithmeticians, &c., but good scholars, good children, obedient, kind, respectful, mannerly, truthful; and in due time, virtuous, useful citizens, kind neighbors, high-minded, noble, pious men and women. And this I attempted to do by inculcating the truth in the art of teaching and governing,-the truth in all things; and by giving them a living example of it in my own practice."

The following extracts are taken from the letter of Mr. Pierce, addressed to Mr. Barnard, Jan. 1, 1841, and published in the Conn. Common School Journal.

You ask for a full account of my manner of instruction in the art of Teaching. This, it is not easy to give. From what I say, you may get some idea of what I attempt; and of the manner of it. Two things I have aimed at, especially in this school. I. To teach thoroughly the principles of the several branches studied, so that the pupils may have a clear and full understanding of them. 2nd, to teach the pupils by my own example, as well as by precepts, the best way of teaching the same things effectually to others. I have four different methods of recitation. 1st, by question and answer; 2nd, by conversa tion; 3d, by calling on one, two, three, more or less, to give an analysis of the whole subject contained in the lesson, and 4th, by requiring written analyses in which the ideas of the author are stated in the language of the pupil. I do not mean that these are all practiced at the same exercise. The students understand that, at all the recitations, they are at perfect liberty to suggest queries, doubts, opinions. At all the recitations we have more or less of discussion. Much attention is paid to the manner in which the pupils set forth, or state their positions. I am ever mingling, or attempting to mingle, at these exercises, theory and example; frequently putting the inquiry to them, not only; 'how do you understand such and such a statement; but, 'how would you express such and such a sentiment, or explain such a principle, or illustrate such a position to a class, which you may be teaching? Let me,' I say to them, hear your statements, or witness your modes of illustrating and explaining.' In this connection I frequently call them to the blackboard for visible representation. They make the attempt: I remark upon their manner of doing it, and endeavor to show them in what respect it may be improved.

(428)

Sometimes, instead of reciting the lesson directly to me, I ask them to imagine themselves for the time, acting in the capacity of teachers, to a class of young pupils, and to adopt a style suitable for such a purpose. At many of our recitations, more than half the time is spent with reference to teaching the art of teaching.' Besides delivering to the school a written Formal Lecture once a week, in which I speak of the qualifications, motives, and duties of teachers, the discipline, management, and instruction of schools, and the manner in which the various branches should be taught, I am every day, in conversations or a familiar sort of lectures, taking up and discussing more particularly and minutely some point or points suggested by the exercises or occurrences, it may be of the day, relating to the internal operations of the school-room, or to physical, moral or intellectual education:-I say much about the views and motives of teachers, and the motives by which they should attempt to stimulate their pupils. And here I would state that my theory goes to the entire exclusion of the premium and emulation system, and of corporal punishment. My confidence in it is sustained and strengthened by a full and fair experiment for more than one year in a public school composed of seventy scholars of both sexes. I am constantly calling up real or supposed cases, and either asking the pupils what they would do in such case, or stating to them what I would do myself, or both. As a specimen of such questions, take the following, viz.: on going into a school as teacher, what is the first thing you would do? How will you proceed to bring to order, and arrange your school? Will you have many rules or few? Will you announce beforehand a code of laws, or make special rules as they may be needed? What motives do you purpose to appeal to, and what means will you adopt to make your pupils interested in their studies? What method will you adopt to teach spelling, reading, arithmetic? What will you do with the perseveringly idle and troublesome? What will you do if your scholars quarrel? lie? swear? What will you do if a scholar tells you he wont do as he is directed? If a question in any ordinary lesson, say arithmetic, comes up, which you can not solve readily, what will be your resort? Should you be chiefly ambitious to teach much, or to teach thoroughly? How would you satisfy yourself that your teaching is thorough, effectual? To what branches shall you attach most importance, and why? Will you aim chiefly to exercise the faculties, or communicate instruction? Besides these daily discussions or conversations, we have a regular debate every Saturday, in which the principles involved in these and similar questions are discussed.

Reading, I teach by oral inculcation of the principles as contained in Porter's Rhetorical Reader (which strike me as in the main correct), and by example; reading myself before the whole class; hearing the pupils read, and then reading the same piece myself; pointing out their faults, and calling upon them to read again and again, and even the third and fourth time. They also read to each other in my presence. This is a most difficult art to teach. Very few good readers are to be found either in our schools or elsewhere. Spelling I teach both orally and by writing from the reading lesson, for I think each method has its advantages. Orthography has not yet received quite its merited attention in our schools. Most persons in business life have to write; few comparatively are called upon to read publicly, for this reason it is more important to be a correct speller than a fine reader.

I have adopted no text-book in teaching Geography. Worcester's is chiefly used. My method has been to give out a subject (a particular country, e. g.) for examination. The class make search, using what maps and books they have at command, and get all the information of every kind they can, statistical, historical, geographical, of the people, manners, religion, government, business, &c., and at the recitation we have the results of their researches. Giving to each a separate subject, I sometimes require the pupils to make an imaginary voyage or journey to one, two, three, or more countries, and give an account of every thing on their return. If I were to teach Geography to a class of young beginners, I should commence with the town in which they live.

In Grammar, I have adopted no particular text-book. I am teaching a class of beginners in the model school without a book.

In Moral Instruction we use both Wayland and Combe; and our recitations are conducted as above described. There are no subjects in which scholars manifest more interest than in questions of morals. This I have noticed in all

schools. It shows how easy it would be to do what is so much needed, if the teachers are disposed; viz., to cultivate the moral faculties. In connection with reading the Scriptures at the opening of the school, it is my practice to remark on points of practical duty as far as I can go on common ground.

Allow me to express my high gratification in your late visit to the Normal School. You have had much opportunity to see and compare many schools. For any suggestions in regard to what you saw at Lexington for the improvement of the school, I would be very thankful. I have undiminished confidence in the feasibility of the plan of Normal Schools, if sustained by the sentiment of the community, it could be allowed to continue in operation long enough to make a fair experiment. But on this point I have increasing fears.

That there could ever have been any serious doubt of the permanence of an institution for the professional training of teachers in the State of Massachusetts, as is expressed in the closing paragraph of Mr. Pierce's letter, can with difficulty be credited in 1872, when Normal Schools, Teachers' Institutes, and City Training Schools, are liberally provided in every State, and nearly every large city-as essential features in any efficient system of public instruction. And yet such was the anxiety felt by Mr. Mann, Mr. Everett (at that time Governor of Massachusetts), and Mr. Dwight, whose benefaction of $10,000 (or so much as remained unexpended), it was then under consideration in the House of Representatives to return, that the writer of this note, in March, 1841, at the urgent request of Mr. Mann, spent two weeks in Boston, to manifest to members of the Legislature the interest felt by educators out of the State in a fair trial of the first experiment of a State Normal School.

Mr. Pierce died at West Newton, on the 6th of April, 1860, aged seventy.