Elementary school standards : instruction, course of study, supervision applied to New York City schools

Front matter

*

FMJL I

TO

Contents

Page Editor's Preface. By Paul Hanus vii

STANDARDS AND INSTRUCTION

Chapter

Chapter I Standards In General

INADEQUACY OF CUSTOMARY KNOWLEDGE TESTS AS A MEANS OF JUDGING INSTRUCTION

IT is customary to judge the quality of instruction by direct examination of children in subject-matter. 1 For instance, they are asked to state the causes of the Revolutionary War ; to tell who is the Vice-President of the United States; to name and locate the capitals of California and Kansas; and to make an outline drawing of South America. If most of such questions are correctly answered, the instruction is called good; if not, it is rated as poor.

The acquisition of knowledge is, of course, one of the

1 Attention is called to the fact that no attempt is made here to pass judgment upon the entire work of the kindergartens and elementary schools. The topic under investigation is the quality of instruction alone. There are aims of the school not fully included in the aims of its teaching, and there are important means for their accomplishment besides instruction, — such, for example, as the personal influence of the teacher. The investigation has been thus limited, with the idea that if this one broad topic were properly treated, more would be accomplished, considering the time and energy at our disposal, than if the entire field were covered.

Twelve persons have shared actively in the collection of data on which this portion of the report is based, visiting at least sixty schools in the boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. Altogether not less than three hundred lessons were seen, in the majority of which the observation covered all or most of the period. In addition, many teachers and principals (not less than one hundred in all) have been consulted at length as to the quality of the instruction and the conditions determining it.

I prominent aims of the school, and it should be considered in any careful investigation of instruction. But as the sole or principal test for judging instruction, it is inadequate for several reasons.

In the first place, the results depend too much upon accidental conditions, such as recency of review of the particular facts called for, or freedom from embarrassment or excitement.

In the second place, the customary examination is too superficial and narrow a test of knowledge. It is superficial because the good memory which enables one to reproduce facts, digested or undigested, is at a premium and often allows the thoughtless child to lead the class. It is narrow because the subject-matter of the studies is by no means all that one needs to know. Knowledge of right methods of work is probably more important. An enlightened professor in college is more interested in giving his students the proper method of studying the subject than a mere knowledge of it; and right methods of study are even more worthy of attention in the elementary school, because it is there, in the main, that right mental habits are acquired, if ever, by the great majority of our population.

In the third place, even if the customary examinations fairly tested the understanding of facts, such understanding is still not the most important of the things expected from instruction. There are several things above and beyond knowledge which instruction, according to its degree of excellence, does or does not include. Partly because the customary examinations fail to give information about these higher results of teaching, they do not alone constitute a satisfactory test.

Finally, such tests are unsatisfactory because at best they do little beyond revealing the present aims and results of the instruction. This investigation has not been undertaken solely with the idea of discovering present conditions. It has been undertaken with the additional purpose of pointing out ways in which, if changes were needed,

Customary Knowledge Tests 3

improvements might best be effected. For this reason, also, it was important to choose standards of judgment that would show how good or poor the instruction now is, and at the same time suggest directions that improvement might take.

RELATION OF STANDARDS TO AIMS OF INSTRUCTION

What standards, then, should be set up? The customary examinations do, at least, give one suggestion. Knowledge has often been used as the standard of value in instruction simply because it is one of the purposes of instruction, although not the most prominent. This suggests that purposes, in any field of activity, should be the standards of value in that field; this, in general, seems to us a sound principle, and it has been prominent in guiding this investigation.

Let us assume, then, that the leading purposes of instruction must form the basis for judging its quality; that instruction which accomplishes its aims fairly well is of a high order; and that instruction which does not accomplish its aims at all, or but poorly, is of a low order.

WHERE THE AIMS OF INSTRUCTION MUST BE FOUND

It is not easy to state the main objects of teaching. But since they are commonly supposed to include such a control of themselves and of the world's resources by pupils as will make them high-minded, appreciative, thoughtful, and generally efficient participators in the world's affairs, the more immediate purpose of instruction must be to impart the knowledge and power, and form the habits that determine a well-ordered daily life. That is, we must look directly to the life about us to find what subject-matter the school should offer, and how this should be treated. The curriculum will be good to the degree in which it contains problems — mental, moral, esthetic, and economic — that are socially vital and yet within the appreciation of the pupils; and its method of presenting that curriculum will be good to the degree in which it exemplifies the methods of solving problems found most effective by the world's most intelligent workers.

This proposition is, possibly, the most debatable one that we have to offer on the question of standards. For many schools that seem to accept character as their final aim, tend strongly to eschew any close relation between instruction and daily living.

We are convinced, however, that much of the present dissatisfaction with the schools, particularly with their waste, is due to neglect of this relationship. We are also convinced that this position with reference to the elementary school is in harmony with the best modern educational thought.

Chapter II Standards Used In This Investigation

ANY list of the main elements in daily living that might be taken as standards in judging instruction would vary according to the one who made it. Yet such lists would to a great extent duplicate each other, because there are certain essentials that are common to every person's welfare. The following four factors, because of their universality, are particularly worthy of acceptance as aims of school instruction; and, though others could easily be added, they are sufficient to test the general effectiveness of teaching.

FACTOR I. MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE PUPILS

One of these factors is motive. One of the great differences between efficient and inefficient men is found in the purposes that move them. The quality of a man's aims chiefly determines the quality of his character; their variety determines his breadth; and their intensity his energy of thought (including imagination), feeling, and action. Purposes bear the same relation to efficiency among young people as among men. One of the primary responsibilities of instruction, therefore, should be to inculcate objects in life, or purpose, on pupils.

This is necessary, first of all, for present conduct. If children behave badly in the street, or if they are lazy, the school is questioned. The public holds the school responsible for developing character now, while the pupil is still young. But it is necessary also for the future. When the time comes for the pupil to choose his vocation, he will make his selection blindly if he has no plans and no ardent desires. On the other hand, if his ambitions have increased and improved along with his knowledge, a way has been prepared to meet this crisis, and his choice is far more likely to be intelligent and confident.

Instruction cannot, therefore, rest satisfied with cold facts alone. Its quality is to be measured partly by its provision for growth in motive. One object of teaching a pupil how to keep the skin healthy should be to arouse in him a desire to obey the laws of health. One object of teaching him to play games should be to make him want to learn more games, even throughout life. One object of teaching the Crusades in history might well be, by showing how superficial were the causes and how fearful the cost, to influence the youth's attitude toward arbitration. One object of teaching about John Hampden is to lead pupils to determine to imitate him. One object of teaching the geography of Germany is, by showing how closely she is shut in by neighbors, to make pupils watchful for magazine and newspaper articles touching the German attitude toward war and her preparation for it.

Such an outcome of instruction cannot be left to chance. It must be secured by careful planning. First, a curricu^ lum must be selected that is near enough to the child's interests to nourish ambitions. Not every large topic can be of this nature, but every study may contain many large topics that have the power of arousing specific hopes for the future.

After such a curriculum has been secured, much depends upon the method of its presentation. An instructor in literature in a certain seventh grade, after bringing her class to a fair understanding of Browning's short poem, " The Patriot," raised the question, " Are we now through with this selection?" The pupils looked somewhat surprised, having supposed that their full duty was performed. But, seeing that more was expected, they replied, after some hesitation, " We might read it again." Also, " We

Standards Used in this Investigation 7

might memorize it." They were endeavoring to satisfy the teacher rather than to express any plan that had appealed to them.

Yet the poem might, without difficulty, have been so presented that the children would have replied with some enthusiasm : " I want to come back to this, particularly to enjoy the first two stanzas in contrast with the fourth and fifth. I wonder whether such a quick change of fortune often happens in real life. Does the fault, in such cases, lie with the man himself or with the people? ' ; The teacher possessed the skill necessary to secure such responses, but there was little evidence that she had planned for them. But definite planning and some skill, both in the making of the curriculum and in its presentation, are required, in order properly to inculcate motive, or to meet this first test of the quality of instruction.

FACTOR 2. CONSIDERATION OF VALUES BY PUPILS

A second extremely important factor in daily living is the weighing of values. The worth of a thing is one of the most common and necessary considerations in adult life. Any business man will illustrate this fact in five minutes of conversation. In any field of experience there are usually facts, ideas, and projects of varying value, and skill in distinguishing their relative merits is a kind of excellence that every one requires; it implies a study of causes or reasons and is synonymous with good sense, or wisdom. It is important to keep in mind that good judgment mainly signifies proper appreciation of relative values.

Considerations of worth are approximately as common and necessary among children as among adults. They judge the merits of teachers and the justice of treatment from both teachers and parents quite freely, whether we like it or not. They must often judge when it is safe to cross a street, what wrap they shall wear, what games it is best to play, what treatment they shall accept from their mates, and what kinds of reading matter they shall select. In all such cases they can blunder by overestimating minor matters, or they can show wisdom. Preparation for both their present and their future lives requires, therefore, that they be constant students of the worth of things.

This makes a study of value a prominent element in school instruction. All school branches contain facts of varying degrees of importance. Many names in history, many dates, many places in geography, many words that one might learn to spell, are insignificant and need not be emphasized. Other names, dates, places, etc., are vital and should receive emphasis. Since it is one of the main needs of children to distinguish between these two classes of facts, one of the main duties of teachers is to help them do this. If such distinctions are neglected, there are sure to be much waste of time and much misunderstanding of subjects; and by making such distinction, a close relation is established between instruction and growth in good judgment.

Provision for this selective habit in study again concerns both curriculum and method. Just as new truths can be understood only through related truths already known, so new values can be appreciated only on the basis of old values properly related. Therefore the topics in the curriculum must be near enough to things that are of vital interest to the pupil for him to feel their worth. If a seventh-grade class in history were asked to point to the most important paragraph in a chapter on the United States Bank, they would have to choose at random, for the topic is too foreign to them to awaken feelings of appreciation. Or, if they were frank, and were asked to state what they most valued in that chapter, they might reply, " Nothing at all." That answer would express their attitude toward many other topics often included in school curricula. In many such cases all that can be done by them is to try to understand whatever is stated, and memorize it passively, with no thought of its value.

Standards Used in this Investigation 9

But after only suitable subject-matter has been selected, much still depends upon method. Good method will ever keep pupils alert to values. For example, as some parts of a story are more important than others, and as some errors made by children are more necessary to correct than others, pupils even in the lower grades, with much emphasis on reasons, should be led to consider which are the more significant. Most pupils will distribute their time somewhat equally over a given list of words for spelling, unless they are taught to pick out the few that they do not know how to spell and to concentrate upon them. They will do the same in learning the multiplication tables and in solving problems in arithmetic, unless taught to select in accordance with their individual needs. There are few recitations in history, geography, literature, or any other subject in which the varying values of facts and tasks may not be distinguished.

FACTOR 3. ATTENTION TO ORGANIZATION BY PUPILS

A third factor of special importance in daily life is organization of ideas, or system. How essential this is to success in adult undertakings of all sorts every one knows. No subject is mastered until the relation of its parts to one another is determined, until the facts bearing on each phase are separately grouped, and until enough such facts are collected to give fair support to each leading idea. Good organization of ideas means just this; it signifies such order and completeness as will assure thoroughness or fulness of comprehension and consequent force in presentation.

The need of organization of facts and ideas by children for the accomplishment of their purposes has received little attention, although we know that scattered thinking is a common enough cause of failure among them. But the importance of orderliness of thought in later life is so generally recognized that few people hesitate to place upon io Standards for Instruction

the school, from the kindergarten on, the responsibility for careful training of children in this respect.

The school curriculum meets this responsibility to some extent by making the organization of ideas a prominent part of the study called composition ; sequence — causal or otherwise — and grouping are there emphasized. But to depend upon that subject alone for securing systematic thinking would be much like depending upon grammar alone to secure correct English. The organization of the subject-matter in each study must be scrutinized, particularly the extent to which each topic is a well-rounded whole, having a central idea that is strongly supported by subordinate facts brought into close sequence. Many curricula give the impression of being composed largely of detached facts.

The teacher's method of presenting facts and the kind of response that she accepts from pupils also have great influence on habits of organizing ideas. In a certain geography class a teacher, by actual count, put 18 questions in two minutes, a rate which seemed to be habitual with her. That meant approximately 360 questions in a period of 40 minutes. Of course, in such a case as that, each question can scarcely call for more than a single fact, and each reply must be very brief, usually only a fragment of a sentence. In a subject like geography in particular such teaching indicates utter neglect of causal sequence. Yet that kind of recitation is not uncommon, and its influence is directly destructive of orderly, systematic thinking.

The scope of a teacher's questions, therefore, and the fulness of the pupil's answers, should receive close attention in judging the quality of her work. Broad questions indicate a grouping of the facts in the teacher's mind, and if well worded they signify much care in that respect. But even where such questions are put there is a tendency, both in school and college, to accept any lame answer that is correct, without reference to the arrangement of ideas or to their forceful, logical presentation. Here is a test

Standards Used in this Investigation n

of good teaching. Correctness of statement alone is far from sufficient. The answer should be as broad as the question; and it should be quite common, rather than unusual, for a pupil to talk one, two, or three minutes in order to make an effective reply.

FACTOR 4. INITIATIVE BY PUPILS

A fourth factor in daily life that ranks with those already named is initiative. In the world at large possibly the most highly valued quality of character is self-reliance, i. e., the ability to act as a leader whether in one's own affairs or in the affairs of others. Every intelligent parent desires to see the right kind of independence developed in his child.

The relation of this power to school instruction is not difficult to discern. Children can be furnished with desirable aims by the teacher; they can also, under the teacher's direct stimulus, pass judgments about values and organize their facts. Or they can do these things and many others in school largely under their own direction. Since they must finally do all of these alone, and since they are supposed, even as young children, to do many of them alone when they study, it follows that the school in particular is the institution that should cultivate in them the power of self-direction.

This quality, like some of the others already mentioned, requires a curriculum intimately related to the child's experiences ; for the self-confidence and energy necessary for its exercise can never be evoked when the subject is beyond the comprehension of the child or is foreign to his interests.

Good teaching is always related to initiative. In all instruction some one must determine the work to be undertaken, must ask questions, and must accept or modify answers. The teacher can assume full leadership, making all the plans and deciding when each has been executed; or she can accustom pupils from the kindergarten on to share this responsibility, until in the higher grades they can bear a good portion of it. Almost every recitation will reveal her attitude in this matter, and the procedure that she adopts with regard to it will be one of the best single tests of the worth of her instruction.

Chapter III Value Of These Standards

I. AS TESTS OF HABITS FORMED

THE relation of these four standards to habit is one proof of their significance as tests of teaching. Conduct is often defined as a bundle of habits ; and since good conduct and purposeful activity are the aim of the school, it is not surprising that the superintendent of schools has in recent years laid so great emphasis on habit formation. The value of school government is largely measured by the extent to which it influences such habits as punctuality, regularity, and neatness.

It is the duty of instructors to supplement good school government by inculcating other habits more intimately connected with the acquisition and use of ideas. Instruction is always exerting a strong influence in this direction whether the teacher is conscious of it or not; it is always inculcating either good or bad ways of using the mind. It may easily accustom young people to working in a listless way, without reference to the comparative values of ideas, without organizing scattered facts into significant relations, and in helpless dependence on the teacher; or it may habituate them to better ways of working. As it does the one or the other, it allows waste without limit, resulting in general inefficiency, or leads to great economy and consequent efficiency. A test, therefore, of the principal habits inculcated by the instruction is one of the most effective means of determining the quality of that instruction.

In this respect the standards presented above possess peculiar merit. They center attention directly on the leading habits of thinking that pupils are forming, particularly the habits touching motive, value, system, and independence. And although there are valuable habits not here included, these standards, by measuring what the children themselves are accomplishing toward the formation of certain very important habits, help to estimate the influence of instruction on habit formation in general.

2. AS TESTS OF THOROUGHNESS OF KNOWLEDGE

In any attempt to organize ideas one is primarily concerned with the relations that those ideas bear to one another. They must be grouped and arranged in sequence in accordance with their inner connections; and the excellence of the organization is directly proportionate to the fulness of insight into these relations. Careful attention to organization is, therefore, one important means by which fulness of insight, or thoroughness of comprehension — in the scholar's sense — is attained.

Attempts to distinguish the varying values of facts show a desire to go beyond the mere connections that they have with one another and to consider their bearings on human affairs. The insignificance of some things is due to the fact that they have little to do with our interests ; and the significance of others is that they are vital to us. Careful attention to relative values, therefore, gives assurance of an additional kind of insight or degree of thoroughness; not the kind that the scholar, as such, requires, but the kind that any one needs who expects finally to make use of his knowledge.

The requirement that instruction should exert an influence on hopes and purposes carries this latter insight a step further by individualizing it. It is the particular pupil, each time, whose hopes and ambitions are to be affected, and if that is to be accomplished he must see the peculiar bearings of the instruction — whether theoretical or practical — upon his own career. In this case the insight must

Value of these Standards 15

be so thorough as to lead to some degree of feeling and volition.

Finally, the demand that instruction assume responsibility for the exercise of the pupil's initiative aims at an insight that will allow one to go still further and to use knowledge. Up to this point knowledge is only comparatively thorough, because it is theoretical. But the exercise of initiative involves to a considerable degree the independent use of knowledge, and therefore control over it; and thus it greatly increases the degree of thoroughness.

Every one knows that the word " knowledge " is used in many senses, signifying different degrees of thoroughness. The four standards that have been proposed test four of these degrees, beginning with the thoroughness of the scholar, which really insures only information, and ending with the use of knowledge, which insures control of information — a far higher degree of thoroughness.

3. AS TESTS OF INSTRUCTION IN THE THREE r's

It may be admitted that, when thinking constitutes the bulk of the work, as in studies in which the results are not largely dependent upon repetition or drill, these standards may prove admirable tests of thoroughness of understanding. But what is their value as tests of such subjects as spelling and the three R's?

In finding an answer it is necessary to recall the fact that these are often called the formal subjects, because they deal so extensively with forms or symbols. The great danger is not that these subjects will fail to receive a fair amount of attention, but rather that they will be taught formally, or too mechanically. That is, the children are in danger of learning to read without expression ; of spelling words wrongly in writing letters to friends which they spelled correctly in lists; of adopting a stilted style in composition because, having really nothing that they want to say, they are thinking mainly about words; of failing to solve simple real problems even though they have learned to solve book problems that are more difficult. In other words, there is even more danger here than in other subjects that the work will be superficial, taxing the memory mainly. In that case, interest is wanting, attention is divided, and little is finally learned.

The crucial question, then, in these subjects is : Do the words stand for real thoughts? or, How live-minded are the pupils? That is just the question that the proposed standards help to answer. Inasmuch as they direct attention to provision for motive, for exercise of initiative, for selection according to values, and for grouping according to relationship, they gage the thoughtfulness of both teachers and pupils in these branches. For example, they note whether or not a teacher is making selections in beginning reading that are interesting; whether she is directing the pupils at every step, or is leading them largely to direct themselves; whether she is causing special emphasis to be placed upon a word or a sentence or a paragraph that is especially important, or is treating all such things as of equal value; and whether she is having a story read by its natural parts, or is making the individual word or some other small part the conspicuous unit of advance. Thus the life-giving qualities in these formal subjects are tested by these standards.

But, granting so much, the question may still be asked, " Do these standards test the knowledge of words as required in reading and spelling, and of the fundamental operations in arithmetic? "

We admit that there is more doubt here. Some teachers assert that live thinking in these subjects is the best possible guarantee of mastery of the mechanical facts in them, far better than frequent drills. Others assert that frequent drills are the only guarantee.

On account of this doubt we have deemed it wise to fortify our investigation at this important point by supplementing the proposed standards with some actual ex-

Value of these Standards 17

aminations in formal facts. The Courtis tests have been used for this purpose. These are discussed, along with the conclusions reached, in another book of this series by Mr. S. A. Courtis.

4. AS SOURCES OF SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT

It was deemed important that the standards chosen for judging the quality of instruction do more than show merely whether it was good or bad. Very often after an examination has proved that teaching in the three R's has been poor, a cry is raised for more drill as the remedy. But that suggestion is a mere guess. In fact, " being poor " in reading has usually been found to mean that it was too mechanical; and more drill would only make it still more mechanical, and therefore worse. Whatever be the quality of instruction, then, standards for judging it should be chosen that suggest desirable ways of improving it.

Here, we think, is revealed one of the merits of the standards proposed. While not testing primarily what children know — although, as explained, they include that — they do two things: they fix attention (a) on what the children are doing, and (b) on the value of it as judged by its relation to the purposes of instruction.

Suppose, now, that a teacher is found asking a great number of questions in geography, which the pupils are answering as best they can. They may or may not show much knowledge. But since self-leadership is one of the purposes of instruction, the pupils should at least participate in proposing the questions. And since organization of ideas is another prominent object, the many detailed questions should be reduced to a smaller number by a more careful grouping of details. Thus such instruction would be shown to be weak, probably, in two respects; and improvement would consist both in throwing more responsibility upon the pupils, and in studying the organization of the facts presented.

These standards, therefore, by fixing attention on the chief things to be accomplished in teaching, directly suggest ways in which improvement might be effected when that teaching is poor.

5. AS TESTS OF THE CURRICULUM

Not seldom is the teacher's method of presenting subject-matter the sole question considered when the quality of class-room instruction is under investigation. But the subject-matter itself may have been selected without reference to the aims of the school. That is far from uncommon. Then, no matter how skilful the method of presentation, facts are acquired that have no purpose. That means waste. Or, while the facts are of general value, they may lack adaptation to the age or particular experiences of particular children. Then again even a skilful teacher must fail to secure assimilation of the facts. There is waste again. The curriculum, therefore, as well as the method of its presentation, is necessarily a very prominent subject of investigation when the quality of instruction is being considered. Both of these are continually in evidence in any recitation, and they together determine its quality. Any standards adopted must then be clearly applicable to each. In this way the work of the higher officials — the principals and superintendents — who make the curriculum, as well as that of the class-room teacher, receives a direct evaluation. It is partly because the standards above presented are so clearly related to the curriculum that we are convinced of their merit as a basis for testing the quality of teaching. (Their relation to the curriculum is more fully discussed later on.)