Scientific management in education

Front matter

Book

CopightN".

CDIVRIGHT DEPOSIT.

Contents

PAGE

I. Educational Research 1

II. Obstacles to Rational Educational Reform 20

II

The purpose of the present article is to point out how, in my opinion, the obstacles to rational educational progress may be overcome, and the cooperation secured on the part of all forces toward the development of an ideal system of schools.

While in former years I entertained the belief, in common with others, that the cause of the obstacles to educational progress might be attributed to public indifference and its consequences — politics in school boards, incompetent supervision, insufficient preparation on the part of teachers, etc. — further study and reflection have led me to the conclusion that these elements are not the ultimate cause of the evil, but constitute only the symptoms of a much more deeply hidden disease which permits all sorts of havoc to be played with the schools. The evil to which I refer is this ; namely, that educators themselves cannot come to an agreement in regard to what changes, if any, are desirable or feasible. Many educators — men of learning and experience — do not appear to be in sympathy with the system of education advocated by reformers. Others, while admiring the spirit of the so-called "new education," ques- * December, 1896. [20]

tion the feasibility of carrying out its demands in the common schools. Last, the great mass of our teachers, who have not entered into the intricacies of the problem, finding that there are many sides to the question, are in a state of doubt, ready to be led by any faction.

The ultimate cause of the lamentably slow progress toward the introduction of educational reforms may be traced, therefore, beyond the province of the general public, into the professional circle itself; to an inner strife and turmoil consequent upon the uncertainties in which the entire problem of elementary education is involved. Consequently, in my opinion, the fate of educational reform rests entirely in the hands of educators, and will be decided by what is done, through their efforts, to dispel the uncertainties which have led the public to hesitate. In other words, if the educators can be brought to an understanding, the obstructions from without will take care of themselves. But is it possible for all educators to meet on a common ground and together lay out definite plans of action .^^

If the source of the difficulty could be traced to a material difference in point of view in regard to the purpose of elementary education — what, under ideal conditions, the elementary schools of our country ought to accomplish — then of course, endeavors to bring the various educational factions to an agreement would be as fruitless as endeavors to secure religious unity. A careful consideration of educational discussions, however, shows that a difference of opinion on the general purpose of our schools [21]

does not exist; for there is substantially an agreement to the effect that the general aim of the elementary schools of our country is to develop a moral individual, endowed with the power of independent thought, the ability to earn an honest livelihood, culture, refinement, and a broad and intelligent interest in human affairs. As the source of the conflict cannot be traced to the problem of educational purposes, we cannot fail to conclude that it must be sought at the practical end of the problem. And it is here that the difficulty actually lies. For, while we are agreed that the ultimate purpose of elementary education is to develop a good citizen, in the broadest sense of the term, we are by no means clear in regard to what to do, in order that the child may receive the benefit of all that can be done for him.

In matters pertaining to the practical conduct of the schools, our notions to-day are not much more definite than they might have been a century ago. Indeed, so crude are they that no sooner do we dip beneath the surface in our inquiries than we find ourselves surrounded by utter confusion. The statements made on practical questions, even among our leading educators, are conflicting to the point of absurdity. And, as there are no proofs to offer as to who is right and who is wrong, we are left completely without a guide; so that we do not know which way to turn. Everything is speculative : nothing is positive. "I think" and "I believe" are the stereotyped expressions of the educational world: "I know" has not yet been admitted. If our ideas on the practical side should be vague only in regard [ 22]

to certain subtle questions now under discussion in our leading pedagogical circles, and involving hairbreadth metaphysical distinctions, the weaknesses would certainly be pardonable. Perfection cannot be found in any department of learning. But the complexion becomes entirely changed when we consider that we have absolutely no definite knowledge in regard to the most elementary questions ; that our ideas in regard to a proper treatment of the old subjects — reading, spelling, penmanship, grammar, composition, and arithmetic — are fully as indefinite as they are in regard to what course to pursue in the sciences and the arts, or in the training of the moral character. Our leading educators are not even agreed, for example, as to whether the results secured by a five-year course in technical grammar are better than those secured by a one-year course, or whether the results will not be just as good if technical grammar be entirely omitted from the elementary schools. And, again, they are by no means agreed as to whether or not children who devote forty minutes daily to spelling turn out to be better spellers than those who devote, say, not more than five or ten minutes daily to that subject.

The element which, above all others, leads our people to doubt the feasibility of the new education concerns the problem as to whether or not there is enough "time" at our disposal to secure satisfactory results in reading, writing, and arithmetic, if new subjects be freely introduced into the schools. In view of what I have just stated; namely, that the opinions of the most experienced vary enormously [23]

on the question of the time required to do a piece of work, it may readily be seen that whatever may be said on the subject at present is merely a random guess. Many of our reformers have endeavored to evade this question altogether by arguments to the effect that the three R's are merely the tools of knowledge, and that, consequently, they are of much less educative value than the matters on which the new education lays stress. But such arguments will not aid the cause; for, whatever our individual notions on the point at issue may be, we cannot escape from the fact that the citizen who is not properly grounded in the three R's labors at a disadvantage in the struggle for existence, so that duty compels us to check our individual inclinations and to bow gracefully to the inevitable.

Until the truth is known concerning the possibility of broadening the curriculum without detriment to the three R's, educational conflict will not abate, and the road to progress will continue to be barred. Therefore, the work which, above all others, ought now to engage the attention of our people, in order that the children may receive the benefit of all that it is possible to do for them, is to undertake measures that will lead to the positive discovery as to how much time is actually required to secure satisfactory results in reading, writing, and arithmetic. That to-day we are utterly unable to give an intelligent answer to this question is due simply to the fact that we have not yet made an attempt to discover the landmark which must serve as a guide in directing our judgment. And, before we shall be able to make any progress in the solution of this problem, it will be necessary definitely to locate the central point around which the entire problem of educational reform revolves. The landmark to which I refer is simply this: namely, a clear definition of what is meant by the term "satisfactory results." If we do not know what we mean by satisfactory results, how shall we be able, with any degree of intelligence, to judge when our task has been satisfactorily performed? If we have no definite goal, who can tell how long it will take to reach it, or what road will most directly lead to it? Until we come to a definite understanding in regard to this matter, our entire educational work will lack direction, and we shall continue, as heretofore, to grope our way along passages completely enveloped in darkness, in an endeavor to land we know not where. If we might have a standard which would enable us to tell when our task had been completed, our attention might be earnestly directed toward the discovery of short cuts in educational processes, which would enable the child, by the expenditure of very little time, to acquire the demanded knowledge and skill in branches whose educative value is small. Thus, by securing a standard of measurement for determining the results in the three R's alone, our progressive educators might become freed from the fetters of prejudice, to labor, without restraint, toward the realization of higher ideals. Moreover, in the branches 'that are distinctively educative, a definite goal is necessary in order to determine the feasibility of certain methods of instruction. How, [25]

for example, will it be possible to determine whether or not satisfactory results can be secured in history and geography, if these subjects be unified in instruction, unless we have an understanding in regard to what is meant by satisfactory results in these branches? Or, how shall we be able to tell to what extent arithmetic may be successfully taught in connection with other branches, unless we know what is meant by satisfactory results in arithmetic?

When a standard is recognized in regard to the knowledge and skill which the child ought to possess in spelling, reading, penmanship, language, arithmetic, and so on, then all teachers may benefit from the labors of others directed toward the discovery of both economical and interesting methods of teach-v ing. For want of such a standard, each individual teacher has, thus far, been a law unto himself ; permitted to experiment on his pupils in accordance with his own individual educational notions, whether inherited from his grandmother or the result of study and reflection, entirely regardless of what was being done by others. So long as this condition is possible, pedagogy cannot lay claim to recognition as a science. In the recognized fields of science, such as physics, chemistry, medicine, etc., the members of the profession are not only willing to learn from each other, but they are compelled to do so under penalty of the law. Those who fail, in practice, to give due recognition to important discoveries are held responsible for the consequences. Before pedagogy can be recognized as a science, it will be necessary to discover at least some truths in regard [26]

to educational processes which, if ignored by the teacher, will make him fully as liable to prosecution for malpractice as the physician who has bungled in setting a bone. Until an accurate standard of measurement is recognized by which such truths may be discovered, ward politicians will continue to wield the baton, and educational anarchy will continue to prevail.

It may here be argued that it would be impossible to secure a definite standard for measuring results, generally applicable in our country, on the ground that the needs of our people vary in different localities. While this sentiment deserves recognition, it will become apparent, during the course of this chapter, that proper attention to local conditions, in the conduct of our elementary schools, would not tend in the least to alter the plan as a whole.

At present, our ideas in regard to what the elementary schools are in duty bound to accomplish, or how much may be reasonably expected of the pupil, do not extend beyond a few very general notions. There is an agreement, first, that the child, on leaving school, should be able to read; second, that he should possess the ability to write a letter or a composition in a neat, legible hand, without mistakes in spelling, grammar, or punctuation; third, that he should be skilled in the use of figures ; fourth, that he should have some knowledge of geography; and, fifth, that he should know some history. That we have no definite standard, however, in any one of these branches, becomes apparent so soon as we seek for definite information. How [27]

many and which words should the child be able to spell, on leaving school, without referring to a dictionary? Ought our citizen to be a litterateur, or will the ability to write a good English sentence be satisfactory? Shall the child's penmanship, on graduating from the elementary school, be of sufficient elegance to enable him to earn money by writing visiting cards, or will a legible hand suffice? A very important question that arises in connection with this apparently insignificant subject concerns a definition of what is meant by a legible hand. How far-reaching this matter actually is may be seen when we consider that the desire to secure an elegant instead of a neat handwriting may exert a great influence on the entire school course. The extra amount of time required in travelling from legibility to elegance might be, in itself, sufficient to crowd nature-study out of the curriculum. Moreover, the desire to secure elegant penmanship might necessitate a movement so slow in everything that the child was obliged to write as to interfere seriously with his development in other directions. Again, shall the child, when he graduates from the elementary school, be able, on demand, to solve any arithmetical puzzle that any one may choose to place before him? Or, last, shall he be able, on call, to rattle off the boundaries of Ethiopia? If not, where shall the limit be drawn?

For lack of a definite standard, the selection of

material for instruction has been made, thus far,

in an arbitrary way, under no control other than

that of tradition and individual opinion. The old-fashioned schoolmaster's method of procedure has been bj far the easiest. His plan has been to set aside a certain number of hours each week for instruction in a given subject, and, during that time, to crowd into the child's mind as many things as possible, in the hope that some of them will be remembered, but without any particular regard for the question as to what good they would do even if they should happen to be retained. The new school of educators, on the other hand, has endeavored to solve the problem by selecting material that will interest the child, whereby much has been done to relieve the work of needless drudgery. But this method, also, has failed to give satisfaction; for, while the reformers have criticized the old-fashioned system as wasteful, in so far as too many useless facts are taught, the criticism passed on the new plan of work has been that it is too indefinite, and that, in consequence, it destroys the backbone of the old system without putting anything definite in its place. That so much conflict should exist in regard to what ought to be accomplished in each branch is not due to the fact that there is no guide which will enable us to determine what is our duty. It is simply due to the fact that, for want of research in the proper direction, our notions on the subject have never become clear. When the matter is regarded in its proper light, it will be seen that, in solving the problem "What to teach," the individual educator is not entirely free to choose, but that, within certain limits, the matter is governed by definite laws. By reason of the fact that, within [29]

the prescribed limits, the same laws apply to all alike, a study of the laws which govern this matter would enable us to find a standard of measurement on which all our educators might agree.

The law by which the selection of material is governed is represented, at least in part, by the demands of society for a definite amount of positive knowledge and skill. That we cannot agree in regard to what must be done is due simply to the fact that we are not properly acquainted with what is needed. Consequently, the work which, above all other, should now absorb the attention of our educators is that work which will lead to definite information in regard to what is required, and how much can be expected of the child, in individual branches of knowledge. When our ideas on this matter are clear, it will be possible to secure a selection of material that will be no longer provided in an arbitrary way, but will be such as to satisfy the demands of all. When we are clear in regard to what is needed, it will be possible to determine what results in individual branches may be deemed satisfactory, and how much time will be required to reach this goal. By securing an agreement in regard to what must be accomplished by all, the educator would not be deprived of his individuality. On the contrary, he would be much more free than he has ever been; for, so long as the demanded results were obtained, he would be at liberty both to present the desired material in any form that he might choose and to do as much else as he might deem fit. How the necessary data which [30]

would lead to definite conclusions on this subject might be secured will be pointed out later on.

The establishment of a standard to enable the teacher to tell when his task in a given branch has been satisfactorily performed constitutes only one of the practical problems with which the educator is confronted. The remaining problem is concerned in the discovery of a standard by which may be determined how much time it is necessary to devote to a subject in order to complete this task. By the establishment of such a standard, we should be given a basis for testing the comparative economy of different educational processes. That the importance of labor in this direction cannot be overestimated becomes apparent when we consider that the extent to which the child's education may be broadened depends almost entirely upon the time required to secure satisfactory results in reading, writing, and arithmetic. That, at present, we are absolutely unable to form an intelligent judgment in regard to how much time ought to be consumed in completing a piece of work is proved by what has already been stated; namely, that educators are not even agreed as to whether better spellers will be produced by devoting forty minutes daily to spelling than by devoting not more than five or ten minutes daily to that subject; or whether the results secured by a five-year course in technical grammar are superior to those obtained by a one-year course.

Our lack of knowledge on this point, however, is not due to the fact that nothing positive can be [31]

known in regard to the comparative economy of different educational processes. It is due simply to the fact that the proper steps have not yet been taken which will give us the required information. That educators should thus far have failed to throw the needed light on the subject may be fully explained by the fact that they have endeavored to solve the problem by means of hypotheses based on psychology, whereas facts alone can tell the tale. In a word, they have made the fatal mistake of exactly reversing the true order of things. Instead of proving the accuracy of their hypotheses by a study of the results of a given process, they have endeavored to prove, in advance, what the results of methods based on these hypotheses must be. The plight into which this mode of procedure has brought us will become obvious by a simple illustration.

For example, psychology will permit one to argue that ideas will not be clear unless they have absorbed the entire attention for a time. This would indicate that, in arranging a school programme, it was necessary to set aside a certain period — entirely arbitrary, however — to be devoted to instruction in spelling. On the other hand, we are as fully justified in reasoning that in school the child is obliged to devote a considerable amount of time to writing; that whenever he writes he spells ; and that, in consequence, it is not necessary to provide any special time on the programme for spelling. Which of these two methods of reasoning is correct can be determined only by a study of results.

That general psychology, in itself, should fail to [32]

be of direct assistance in determining the question of economy of effort is due to the fact that this subject is purely a qualitative science, treating of the qualities of the mind, while economy of effort in teaching is strictly a quantitative problem. Psychology teaches us the laws in accordance with which the mind digests ideas ; but it gives us no information whatever in regard to the number of ideas that can be digested within a given period, or how much time is required to complete the digestion of a given number of ideas.

To illustrate : We learn from psychology that the concrete precedes the abstract. This has led many to believe, for instance, that in the early lessons in arithmetic the child should handle objects, in order that he may secure a clear conception of the meaning of numbers. But how many hours of the child's school time ought to be consumed in acquiring a clear conception of numbers up to ten cannot be learned from psychology, being purely a question of experience. Again, ias I have already stated, we are all agreed that when the child has completed his elementary school course he ought to be able to write an ordinary letter without gross mistakes in grammar. But what amount of time must be devoted to technical grammar in order to accomplish this result; whether it will necessitate a five-year course, or a one-year course, or whether it can be accomplished simply through incidental hints — these are questions upon which the most learned dissertations on the origin and psychology of language cannot throw any light whatever. There is only one method by [33]

which such matters can be determined, which is that of discovering how much time has been consumed by the most successful teachers in reaching a certain end. It is only in this way that we shall be able to learn how much time it is necessary to consume in order to complete a given piece of work, and, again, to discover which particular educational processes will serve to accomplish a given task by the expenditure of the smallest amount of time.

What must be done, then, in order that our system of education may be placed on a secure foundation is to institute researches toward obtaining facts that will lead, first, to the establishment of standards by which the teacher may be able to determine when his task in a given branch has been satisfactorily performed ; and, secondly, to the establishment of standards which will enable us to judge how much time is needed to secure a definite result. Once these truths are recognized, the factional lines between conservatives and radicals will cease to exist, and all will become co-laborers in the discovery of the laws that apply to all our educators, regardless of pedagogical creed.

In order to test the feasibility of researches such as I have outlined, I have devoted the past two years to examining children taught by every conceivable method, in schools representing a very large section of our country. By means of examinations in a number of school branches — spelling, penmanship, English composition, and arithmetic — I hoped to be able, first, to establish certain goals through the discovery of what our children might reasonably be [34]

expected to accomplish; and, secondly, by a comparison of results, to arrive at some definite conclusions concerning the comparative economy of different methods of teaching. The number of children examined has thus far reached nearly one hundred thousand; and care was exercised to secure exact information, not only in regard to the methods employed, but also in regard to the age, nationality, and environment of the children, in order that the influence of conditions might be duly taken into consideration. These examinations have brought some things to light, which, in my opinion, are destined to destroy many of our preconceived notions. The results will be published in detail during the course of this work.

The labor involved in taking the tests, in marking the papers, and in the preparation of the very elaborate statistical tables has been so great as to require the undivided attention of myself and a number of special assistants. Although for individual enterprise the undertaking may be considered as almost unwieldy, I have become fully convinced, as the result of my researches, that, by means of concerted efforts on the part of teachers, or by the establishment of a bureau supported by our National Government, not only would the work become comparatively simple, but it would lead to the very speedy solution of a number of vital educational questions, and would thus serve, in a comparatively brief period, to place our schools on a rational foundation. Moreover a study of this nature would lead, inductively, to the development of an educational psychology, of which we have long been speaking, but which, in fact, does not jet exist.

In closing, I desire once more to emphasize tlu^ point I hat the plan proposed in this chapter would not had to the destruction of the individuality of the teacher, but that, on the contrary, it woidd mean a degree of individual freedom far beyond any that has been hitherto enjoyed. While the necessity for completing a definite task in each school branch is recognized, notlilng is co!itained in the plan that would Interfere with the employment of any pedagogical scheme, or wllh the devi'lopment of the child In any direction, so long as the teacher would be able, by her methods, to secure the stipulated results. And, in my opinion. It Is not initil the standards that I have pointed out shall have been established that we shall have an Inti'lllgent basis upon which to construct a course of study, or to apportion the time in the arrangemeid of a school progrannne, or to form the slightest conception concerning the possibilities of elementary education.

Ill

THE ESSENTIALS IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION *

In the preceding chapter I discussed the possibility of securing satisfactory results in the so-called essentials if the course of study in the elementary schools were materially enriched. I argued that nothing definite could now be said on this subject, because no agreement had yet been reached, either in regard to what is essential, or as to what results in individual branches may be deemed satisfactory. Until our ideas are clear on these matters, we shall of course be unable to estimate how much time it is necessary to devote to the formal studies, and how much should be set aside for work that is purely educative in its nature.

Before it will be possible to decide how far the curriculum may be safely broadened, then, two questions will have to be answered much more satisfactorily than has been thus far the case. In the first place, it will be necessary to arrive at a much clearer understanding as to which of the things commonly taught in the elementary schools are in fact essential, and which of them could be eliminated without material detriment to the child; and, secondly, it will be incumbent upon us to establish standards that ^January, 1897 [37]

will serve as guides in enabling us to tell how much time is required to cover satisfactorily the indispensable ground. In the present chapter, I shall try to throw some light on the first of these questions, while the next will be devoted to a discussion of the second.

In endeavoring to define the legitimate limits of the positive knowledge and skill that may be regarded as essential, a process of exclusion will be required. It will be necessary to exclude, first, matters belonging to the category of mental gymnastics, i.e., measures introduced into the school course solely with a view to the development of the faculties, and, secondly, matters of detail that the layman is not expected to possess in the form of ready knowledge, and which are found in the school course simply because they have been handed down by tradition.

At present the time devoted to the three R's alone, in the mechanical schools, is about 70 per cent. It might be possible, however, through a process of exclusion such as I have indicated, to reduce this time by 50 per cent or more. Indeed, so great might be the change brought about that what is now regarded as the body of the work of the elementary school might, perhaps, become merely a side issue. If this should be true, then naturally the possibilities of enriching the course of study would be almost unlimited. Moreover, the exclusion of unnecessary material would form only one part of the reduction in cime. An equal reduction might be secured by an exercise of economy in actual teaching — a subject that will be discussed in the next chapter. [38]