Our public schools, their teachers, pupils and patrons

Contents

Chapter page

I. The Purpose and Importance of our Public

School System 5

Chapter I The Purpose And Importance Of Our Public School System

THE free Public School System of the United States represents the Nation's most serious attempt to make valid the fundamental statement in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; for the public school is the one place in all the world where there is guaranteed absolute equality of educational opportunity to all, where wealth and ancestry, in and of themselves, count for nothing, and where brains and character and industry are certain to win the recognition they merit.

In the public school the rights of the children are sacredly safeguarded, their physical, mental, and moral life carefully conserved, and their liberties made possible and permanent by a training which teaches them to recognize and obey wholesome authority, kindly but firmly exercised, and to respect the rights of others — a training which is absolutely essential to any one who is ever either to pursue or to possess happiness.

The importance of an institution can be measured by the demands made upon it by its friends, who give to it their cordial support. By this standard the public school must be recognized as a large factor in the life of the people. Each year brings with it new demands upon the school. A few decades ago, its course of study was brief and simple, including little more than the "Three R's." Today, a multiplicity of subjects are found in the curriculum and the teacher of a public school is expected to be well informed on all of them.

The growth of the public school curriculum furnishes a most interesting study. To the critics who censure teachers for what is deemed an overcrowded condition of this curriculum, it can be truthfully said that the teachers are not responsible for it. Few, if any instances can be cited, of the addition of a new study, at the request or suggestion of a teacher. Many causes have contributed to the growth and enlargement of the course of study, the chief cause being an actual need in the life of the people for such growth and enlargement.

As our nation grew in population and expanded in territory, and as our trade with other countries developed, there arose a natural demand for Geography and it was added as an important study. History followed, because of a well founded belief that in such a government as ours, it is exceedingly important that the youth of the nation have an intelligent idea of its founding, development.

and purpose. Drawing was added soon after the Paris Exposition, held in 1867, largely as the result of a petition by manufacturers who had observed in this Exposition that America's exhibit was not up to the standard of other nations in artistic products. Later on, under the leadership of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, legislation was enacted in practically all the States of the Union requiring the public school to teach Physiology and Hygiene with special reference to the effects of alcohol and narcotics on the human system, and another addition to the curriculum was thereby made. Some of us, whose musical education has been neglected, are without training in this important branch, because in our youth the "singing school" of the neighborhood had ceased to be, and the public school had not yet taken up this branch which is now considered an essential in the course of study in all efficient schools. Within the memory of many is the time when practically all homes taught cooking and sewing. Now many homes, either because of indifference to the importance of such home training, or on account of the outside demands made upon the time and energies of the mother, give little or no attention to these essential household arts, and the school is required to teach Domestic Economy and Home Making. Not long since, local black-smith shops, wagon-maker shops, carpenter shops, and other similar institutions furnished the opportunity for boys to learn trades. Now since such shops no longer exist, the public school is called upon to provide manual training in all its various forms, industrial training, and vocational training.

The demands herein enumerated, all of which are reasonable, wiH serve to illustrate how rapidly the requirements made upon the public school have been increasing. It is evident that whenever anything which needs to be well done, ceases to be done by the home or by other private agency, the public school is expected to take up the work. Such demands and expectations on the part of the friends of the public school are highly complimentary to its efficiency and mark it as a most important institution in our national life.

The importance of an institution can also be measured by the destructive criticism directed against it by those who, for any reason, are unfriendly to it. Judged by this standard, the public school must again be recognized as a most important factor in the life of today.

Some of this destructive criticism comes from a class of would-be aristocrats who are not in sympathy with the "common school" because they are not in sympathy with the common people. To such critics education is considered a luxury which should be attainable only by the select few composed of the rich, the powerful, and the influential. To their narrow vision, education is really needful or beneficial only to the clergy or members of the so-called learned professions. In their opinion, to attempt to educate "all the children of all the people," is wrong in principle and harmful in practice.

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE d

Another class of destructive critics is composed of persons found in various walks of life, who have an unnatural craving for public notice. Since they lack the ability to furnish any evidence of original thought or constructive criticism and the industry to secure recognition by any service of real merit, their only hope of gaining the notoriety which they so constantly seek, is found in making some sensational statement which will secure for them prominent mention in the head lines of a sensational paper or the applause of an audience of unthinking people with itching ears for some new and strange doctrine, however false it may be. A consuming passion for such notoriety on the part of such critics is the only possible explanation for their extremely radical and equally false statements regarding the work of the public school. It is a matter of sincere regret that this class includes a few professors in colleges, universities, and training schools for teachers, who seem to be more anxious to be classed as "advanced thinkers'* or "original investigators," because of their startling statements which falsely describe the work of the public school, than they are to be honest observers of what really exists.

Criticism of this type is usually harmless and sometimes amusing, when presented for the consideration of persons who are intelligently informed as to what is really being accomplished in a modern public school. But in many instances harmful results come from such criticism, because uninformed people are often inclined to take it seriously on account of the natural, though incorrect, assumption that important educational positions in the higher educational institutions are always filled with intelligent and sensible occupants who are competent to criticise and honest enough to refrain from criticism when they are ignorant of conditions.

The most caustic type of destructive criticism to which the public school is subjected, finds expression in the columns of a few newspapers and magazines. While some of this criticism is, no doubt, due to ignorance, there is good reason to believe that much of it is published with a full knowledge that it is unfair and unjust. It is not unreasonable to presume that its publication is persisted in because of a belief that it will create a sensation and result in increased revenues to the publisher.

As an illustration of such criticism, attention is called to an article which appeared a few years since in the North American Review (Vol. 189, page 372), a magazine with a rather conservative record, but evidently suffering from at least a temporary attack of a desire to create a sensation. A few quotations from this article will illustrate the venom of this assault upon the commonly accepted theory of education in general and upon the elementary school system in particular.

"I do not deny for a moment, therefore, that the school and college system is developing and growing by leaps and bounds. All I desire to do is to warn the public that this educational ferment must not, on any account, be confounded with genuine reform. Far from this being the case, it is a dangerous and pernicious, although v/ellintentioned bolstering up and multiplication of one of the greatest factors for evil by which the world has ever been cursed.

"These schools (elementary) have cost the country hundreds, perhaps, thousands, of millions. It cannot be helped; but, the sooner they are pulled down the better for the interests of the nation. However excellent the teaching, these schools are hotbeds for the wholesale destruction of the individuality upon which the future might and greatness of the nation is dependent."

As an excuse for this wholesale and vicious attack upon the work of public education, the author presents an indictment against the elementaryschool system which is defined as being the system which gives a general education to children. This indictment is made up of three counts which can be summarized as follows:

1. The practice of ''heartless deception upon the great mass of the people, who, in their ignorance, put a blind faith in the practical value of the training which the schools purport to give."

2 . 'There can hardly be a doubt that the present education system helps to manufacture criminals."

3. "It lays to the charge of the elementary school system responsibility for the destruction of human life on a large scale."

All these "counts" are really "charges which are presented in place of arguments," to quote a phrase used more than half a century ago by Abraham Lincoln who, in his first debate with

Douglas, formulated an unanswerable reply to all such "charges":

"A man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says."

Inability to furnish "proof to show the truth of what he says" seems to be the most marked characteristic of the author of the preceding charges, as it is of all destructive critics whose sole purpose is to tear down. In the absence of any proof to sustain the charges made, there need be no attempt "to prove a negative."

Ignorance is the primary source of most of the destructive criticism of the work of the public school, and ignorance is always harsh in its judgments and dogmatic in its demands. Just as religion is most readily pronounced a delusion by those who have never experienced it, and the church condemned as a failure by those who never attend its services except to find fault, so the public school is most severely denounced by those who are without knowledge of either its purposes or accomplishments. In many instances, ignorance condemns what it merely presumes is taking place in the schools, when an attempt to discover the truth would certainly reveal the fact that the alleged objectionable feature, thus ignorantly criticised, has not had an existence for many years.

Ignorance declares that the public schools are destructive of individuality. The truth is that the public schools furnish the best opportunity in the world for the cultivation of all that is best, as well as the elimination of much that is worst, in individuality. Each year of our educational progress shows a marked advancement in the improvement of methods of teaching and of discipline. In the public schools of today, the burden of anxiety with all good teachers is the individual child and the question uppermost in their minds and deepest down in their hearts is how can the individual child be best served and his highest interests best promoted.

Ignorance publishes the statement that only an insignificant percentage of boys and girls ever attend the high school and that the small number in attendance is rapidly decreasing. The simplest computation in percentage, perfectly plain to any one whose stupidity is not abnormal, and equally convincing to all whose dishonesty is not incurable, proves the absolute falsity of the first part of this statement. Crowded high schools in township, village, town, and city and the inability of school authorities to plan and erect new buildings fast enough to meet the ever increasing demands of a phenomenally rapid increase of high school attendance, certainly furnish abundant proof of the falsity of the inexcusable misrepresentation persisted in by those who even pretend to believe the second part of the statement.

Ignorance charges that the public schools are immoral and that the children who attend them are in constant danger of moral contamination. To this charge, the personal experience of millions of men and women, educated in the public schools, enters a most emphatic denial and protest. They recall with pleasure and gratitude the many influences for right living and against wrong doing, which the public school constantly exercises.

In his excellent volume on The Teaching of Citizenship, Bishop Hughes, in commenting upon the moral training given by the public school says :

"Still allowing all the imperfections of our public school system at this point (Moral Education), the persons who have been the beneficiaries of the system and have reached the standpoint of maturity, will testify that the influence of the methods and instruction and the teacher in the days of youth all tended to make for manhood. The demoralization, if it came at all, came after school hours and was not a direct pi;oduct of the school itself."

Perhaps the most potent of all these influences is the personal influence of the teacher. All certificates granted to teachers in the public schools certify to good moral character as well as to academic and professional qualifications. The standard of morals for teachers is high. Immorality on the part of teachers is as exceptional as immorality on the part of ministers, and creates as much surprise and arouses as great indignation. It is impossible to estimate the value of the personal influence of a good teacher in the lives of boys and girls, but there are few, if any of us, who are not ready to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to the influence of the public school teacher in the formation of character.

In the daily work of the class room, the higfhest ideals of truthfulness, honesty, obedience, industry, promptness, and other virtues are constantly inculcated, and in the games of the play ground the great lessons of fairness, justice, self-control, and respect for the rights of others are learned as in no other experience. It is in the public school that many a strong-willed, high-tempered, hot-blooded little aristocrat, who imagines that he is monarch of all he surveys, learns his first lesson in the morals which are fundamental in the life of a true democracy. Fortunate, indeed, will it be for both his future welfare and that of the state, if he takes the lesson kindly and prepares himself for future leadership by present obedience and the development of a spirit of unselfish service for others. Equally unfortunate may it be, should his parents transfer him from the public school to some private school under the false impression that morals are taught in the latter and are neglected in the former. As a rule no great change for the better in the moral life of the young will be effected by sending them to private schools or academies. In the majority of instances the moral atmosphere of such schools is no better than that of the public schools and in some instances it is not nearly so good.

It must not be assumed that a defense of the public school and its teachers signifies a belief that perfection has been attained by either. It does mean, however, a well founded and deeply grounded belief that the public school is one of the most important factors in both the individual and collective life of our Nation, and an abiding faith in the competency and efficiency of a large majority of its teachers. There has been and is now too much condemnation of schools by ignorant, prejudiced, destructive critics who are ever ready to tear down but who seldom are able to propose anything to take the place of what they condemn and attempt to destroy.

The imperfections of the public school system and the deficiencies of public school teachers are well known to their friends. These friends, however, believe that such imperfections and deficiencies can best be remedied by that kindly, considerate, and suggestively constructive criticism which constantly seeks for something worthy of commendation as a foundation on which to build, and then outlines in a definite manner both the characteristics of the proposed improvement and the process by which it is to be realized. Criticism of this nature is most welcome and v/ill always be gratefully received and promptly utilized by the teachers and friends of the public schools.

With an abiding confidence in the beneficent mission of the public school as an institution, along with a full recognition of its imperfections and deficiencies; with an equally abiding faith in the growing efficiency of its teachers, together with an intimate personal knowledge of their readiness to admit their limitations and failures; with a firm belief that commendation of existing good is always more helpful than wholesale denunciation of everything that has been done, because some things may not have been well done; and with an earnest hope that something suggestively helpful may be found in this volume, it is presented for the kindly consideration of all teachers and friends of public education, who love the public school for what it has done and who are unitedly working to make its future more glorious than its past.

Chapter II

THE destructive critic who finds no good in the public schools as they now exist, usually insists that "An Educational Revolution" is the only means by which they can be improved. To him there is nothing in their past history or present practice which is worth conserving or worthy of serious consideration. Destroy everything in existence and start anew is his motto. On the other hand, the constructive critic believes that what the public schools need to enable them to keep on improving as they have been doing in the past and as they are doing at present, is not ''An Educational Revolution" but a continuation of the gradual but effective Evolution which has been going on all through the years since their establishment. He would build for the future upon the good which the past has achieved and which the present reveals, using the lamp of experience to guide him on the pathway of future progress. An intelligent study of the history of the progress of public education and a careful observation of current events and present tendencies in the educational world, plainly indicate that there are a number of important agencies constantly at work for the improvement of the public schools.

One of these important agencies is Legislation.

IMPRO\^MENT OF SCHOOLS 19

Any one who is at all conversant with the history of school legislation in the different states of the Union and who is well informed as to the more recent school laws enacted in many states, must be convinced that the public schools are gradually but surely growing in the public esteem as indicated by the increasingly favorable consideration accorded them by members of the legislature and other public officials. Practically all the recently enacted school laws indicate a serious purpose not only to eliminate the objectionable features and strengthen the weak points of previous laws, but also to provide for such additional aids in the improvement of the public schools, as legislation can reasonably hope to furnish.

Perhaps the most prominent features of all recent school legislation are the provisions which relate to teachers — ^their academic and professional preparation, certification, tenure of office, and salaries — and to a more definite and intelligent supervision of the work of the schools, especially in the rural districts.

The general purpose of such legislation is most commendable. It is important, hov/ever, that in executing all laws, especially new ones, the spirit rather than the letter of the statute should govern. In no instance should the legal demand for a specified amount of academic and professional training be so enforced as to work an injury to experienced and efficient teachers who may not be able to meet all the requirements of the exact letter of the law relating to such formal training, but whose success in the actual work of the school room, as measured by all reasonable tests, is unquestioned.

It is not wise to assume that all teachers, who have not been formally trained, are necessarily failures, or that all who have had formal training, for either a minimum or maximum period, are certain to succeed. Teachers cannot be labelled with a "guarantee" under the provisions of a school law, as foods and drugs are under the food and drug act, with date and serial number attached. In making these comments, no reflection upon the right kind of professional training is intended. Such training is all important in its place, and a reasonable enforcement of the legal requirements that teachers make better preparation for their work, will certainly result in an improvement of the public schools. i^ I

Closely related to the legal requirements for the better preparation of teachers for their work, is the question of their proper certification. In recent years there has been a rapidly growing feeling that in connection with such certification, many abuses have grown up and great injustice has been done to some of the most earnest and progressive teachers. Many teachers have a conviction that they have been singled out and made the victims of what they term the "examination grind."

Their feeling is aptly illustrated by the well known anecdote descriptive of the experience which came to a teacher in a dream. In this vision of the night, the teacher appeared before the pearly gates, hoping for entrance to the heavenly home for which she felt a life of faithful service had prepared her. With characteristic patience, she silently observed the methods of procedure pursued by others in securing recognition. First a minister of the gospel presented his claims and was immediately and cordially invited to enter the door which opened wide to receive him. A physician then told of his great service to humanity in relieving pain and healing sickness, and was bidden to enter. A lawyer eloquently pleaded his own case, was given a merciful verdict, and secured admission. With modesty and timidity, the teacher then told of her work with the children in training their minds and moulding their characters, and, in supplicating tones, asked if she might come in. A brief conference followed at the close of which she was informed that before entrance could be granted, she luoitld have to pass a teachers' examination.

It is no doubt true that, in the past, teachers have been required to pass too many examinations of the technical type, which are narrowing to the vision and deadening to the growth of all live teachers. School legislation, which purposes to remedy this wrong, is worthy of commendation. There is danger, however, that the reform may go too far and that schools of real merit and teachers of genuine worth may suffer as a result. The primary purpose of requiring teachers of the public schools to secure certificates, before entering upon the work of teaching, is to protect the boys and girls, who attend the schools, from ignorance, incompetence, and immorality. In thus protecting the children against inferiority, the more competent teachers also receive a benefit in being relieved from the harmful competition of a class of teachers — a competition which would not only lower educational standards but also reduce salaries, since such teachers would willingly teach for less because they know their services are worth less. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that a careful test of qualifications for teachers is of primary importance to the welfare of not only all the pupils but also the best trained and most competent teachers of the public schools.

It is certainly necessary that all who have not been specially trained for the work of teaching, should be required to pass a fair test of their knowledge of the subjects to be taught, before being granted a certificate to teach and there is no valid reason for exempting those v/ho have been specially trained for the work, from a similar test. There is always cause for suspecting the efficiency of the preparation of any one to do anything, when he constantly resorts to all kinds of subterfuges to avoid a reasonable test of the preparation which he claims to possess. The one important thing is that all tests be fair and that they be conducted by persons who are competent to judge of the qualifications of a teacher.

While it may be advisable, as a rule, to grant provisional certificates, valid for a brief period, to specially trained teachers upon the recommendation of the authorities in charge of the schools in which the special training is received, yet it is not unreasonable to ask all such teachers to give evidence of their qualifications to teach by passing a reasonable examination conducted by the state superintendent of schools, a state board of education, or other agency representing the state. Any institution whose work is well done should not and will not hesitate to have it fairly tested.

To presume that an examination by an appointed agency of the state cannot or will not be conducted in such a manner as to give justice to all, is unreasonable. The state carefully examines all applicants for entrance into the legal and medical professions and thereby protects, in a measure at least, future clients and patients from the harmful results of ignorance and incompetence of lawyers and physicians. A large majority of the complaints of unfairness or injustice resulting from these examinations, comes from applicants who fail because of poor teaching or lack of application as students, or from institutions without the necessary equipment to do efficient work. It is true that there is always a possibility that an examining board may have in its membership representatives of incompetency and inefficiency, and that examinations conducted by such a board may be unfair and unreasonable in the tests submitted and unjust, perhaps occasionally, even dishonest, in the certificates granted. It is, however, equally true that there is at least an equal possibility that the faculty of a training school for teachers may also have in its membership representatives of equal incompetence and inefficiency who may recommend for teachers' certificates those who are not at all qualified for the work of teaching. It can always be safely assumed that a large majority of the membership of both examining boards and training school faculties are competent, efficient, and honest. The best method of certificating teachers always recognizes the necessity of a friendly and sympathetic co-operation on the part of the representatives of both. A wise examiner of either pupils or teachers always gives due consideration to the work and recommendations of those who have prepared the applicants to be tested, and a successful teacher of either pupils or teachers always welcomes a fair test of the product of his teaching.

While the certification of beginners to teach involves a number of difficulties and should have the serious consideration of all who are charged with the responsibility of directing educational affairs, a much more difficult problem presents itself for solution in connection with the certification of teachers of experience. What policy should be pursued with reference to them? It is certainly unjust, unfair, and unreasonable to insist that really successful teachers should be subjected to repeated examinations in either the common or higher branches after they have given satisfactory evidence of a fairly broad and reasonably accurate knowledge of the subjects which they are required to teach. On the other hand there ought to be some method of eliminating the class of teachers whose increasing experience brings with it a corresponding decrease of knowledge of all subjects and of power to teach any subject. It is unfortunately true that teachers of this class can usually secure from some official source the recommendations necessary to meet any formal requirement of the law which provides that temporary certificates shall be made permanent, after a certain specified period of successful teaching. To such teachers a permanent certificate is considered a warrant to cease all further study or thought of growth. Could permanent certificates, held by indifferent or selfsatisfied teachers, who have no desire to add to their knowledge or to increase their teaching power, be revoked for indolence as well as for immorality, the best interests of the schools would thereby be conserved and the rights of deserving teachers protected.

All teachers, who are worthy of holding a permanent certificate, are constantly alert to the importance of self-improvement and better preparation for their work. To them such a certificate is something more than an insurance policy to secure them against all possibility of a necessity for future effort of any kind. While it is a much appreciated recognition of acquired knowledge and teaching skill, its greatest value is as an incentive to better scholarship and higher professional attainments.