VIII

LOCAL WINTER SPORTS

A Paper read before the Franklin Club of Grand Forks, North Dakota, December 1, 1910, and printed in the Grand Forks "Daily Herald," December 4, 1910

It is no longer necessary to offer an extended plea for a recognition of the value of physical training. The human race, in its upward climbing, long ago passed the stage where the body was looked upon as a hindrance to the soul in its aspirations. We have likewise gone beyond that higher stage in which the attitude toward the physical being was merely negative, and have clearly reached an altitude upon which we recognize a well-defined relationship between the physical man and the mental and spiritual man. We know now that only as each is healthy and thus in a condition to do its own work well, is the other able to act normally. As the great English philosopher, Locke, said, "A sound mind in a sound body is a brief but full description of a happy state in this world." This is a well-recognized article of our educational creed, not only, but even the conservative religious workers have accepted the principle, and we find inscribed over the entrances to our Christian Association buildings the word "body" as well as the word more commonly found in such connection, "spirit."

But to go back just a moment: let us consider it from the standpoint of mere physical betterment. We know that a muscle unused means a muscle undeveloped, and that, on the contrary, intelligent, systematic use, with a definite purpose in view, will accomplish wonders in physical development. We know something as to what a physical trainer can do with a bunch of raw foot-ball material. We know how the gymnasium can metamorphose a loose-jointed, lop-sided, stoop-shouldered, shamble-gaited young fellow. We know what the brisk recruiting officer can do with the "awkward squad." In the one case as in the other, the physical training stands him upon his feet; it takes the kinks out of his back; it throws his head up; it unties the knots in his legs; it puts fire into his eye. The good red blood courses thru his veins, and even shows itself in his cheeks. He walks with an elastic step. Every organ of his body is doing its duty. He no longer needs liver pills, digestive tablets or wizard oil.

I said "mere physical betterment," didn't I? Well, you can not have "mere" physical betterment. In every case suggested above, there is something better than physical improvement. Without knowing why, or how, the young fellow, after the training suggested, in addition to being a more perfectly functioning animal, a better working flesh-and-blood machine, is several rounds higher up on the ladder of manhood. He looks you in the eye. He gives your hand a regular Stearns grip. He dares to say that his soul is his own. And why? Because the life-giving oxygen is getting down into the long-neglected corners of his lungs. Because his heart is forcing this purified blood thru his veins building up his system and incidentally throwing off the waste and poisonous matter, so that, relieved of the dregs, the bodily organs can really function. And if that is true of the "gizzard" it is likewise true of the brain. He can feel more keenly, think more wisely. But all this can be done by physical exercise alone. Some of the best of these results can be obtained by the use of the mere punching bag; by running around the house, if you run often enough and fast enough; all alone with the dumb bells or Indian clubs, if you keep at it long enough, or even by walking out to the University on the railroad tracks and saving your street car nickels. But taken thus, these exercises constitute a mere medicine. And people don't take medicine until they have to. And for some strange reason they won't take this kind even then unless some doctor prescribes it in consideration of the payment of a good sized fee. Why is it? Simply because we prize things in proportion to their cost?

Now, we want these results and even better ones. And we don't want to pay the doctor's fees for this or any other kind of medicine in order to get them. What are we going to do about it? Isn't there some sugar coating that we can put on to these physical exercise pills to make them a little more palatable? Can't we in some way make ourselves believe that we are eating candy instead of taking quinine? For you know that we grown-ups have not lost all our powers of imagination. How often we play make believe, even yet! I'll tell you what we can do. Let's have this same physical exercise idea but introduce into it the element of sport which Webster defines as "that which diverts and makes mirth." Let's do these stunts "for the fun of it" instead of as a medicine. We'll get the results, just the same, and thus get double pay for our pains. I fancy that the skiing and the skating, the snow-shoeing and the curling of which we are to hear, all have that element tucked away somewhere in their anatomy.

But you may ask me what more there is than the results already mentioned to be gotten from these physical exercises, if we succeed in covering up the quinine with Mr. Webster's molasses. I've used Indian clubs and dumb bells by the hour; I've walked to the University in season and out of season; I've even run around the house—and as a result have experienced the exhilaration that comes from such vigorous discipline. I've been better for it, physically, and therefore, of course, mentally. More oxygen, better blood, firmer bodily tissue including better nourished brain cells, have done their beneficent work. But yet, as I look back and see myself going thru these various maneuvers, I am fully confident of the fact that all this time I was also doing something else—that my poor brain cells, which really needed recuperation more than any other part of my body, that these brain cells were still at work, that I was all the time carrying on a more or less strenuous train of thought as exhaustive as tho I were seated in my study chair, or standing before my class in the recitation room. More than one lecture, or address, have I worked out while walking to and from the University.

Now, one of the most important things for us to do is occasionally to stop thinking, or at least to stop thinking along our accustomed lines. We should give those few brain cells that are being made to work over-time a chance to rest once in a while. We are living too fast. Our lives are too intense. We are running our machines under high pressure, and some of them are already showing the results altho they are almost new. Unless there is a change, new ones will have to take their places ere long. The rate of speed of the life of the modern American business and professional man, the rate of speed of the life of the modern American society woman, is something terrific. We are wearing ourselves out before our time. Modern life is so complex, so exacting, so wearing, that we are losing all the joy of living. We are at our own firesides so seldom and for such short periods that we scarcely know our own little ones. Longfellow's "Children's Hour" that came "as a pause in the day's occupation," is almost wholly unknown in most American homes. There is no "pause" in the day's occupation. The occupation goes right on till after these "children" are soundly asleep in their beds and begins again before they are awake in the morning. And all this is true even of us, right here in this select circle, the "favored ones," many would call us.

But I am not giving a diatribe on American life, so will not pursue the matter farther. All that I am trying to do is simply this: to call attention to the fact that we are living fast—faster than our physical and mental make-up can long stand; that we have already reached the danger point. And what are we going to do about it? Well, we shall have to do many things before the problems are all solved, the difficulties all met. As a slight relief, and to answer a question raised a little earlier in the paper, I am suggesting the sports—those activities that both rejuvenate the physical man and also "divert and make mirth." Into these we can not carry our teaching and our preaching and our making of social calls. The goods of the merchant, the notes of the banker, the briefs of the lawyer, the annoyances of the teacher, and the cares of the housewife, alike, would all have to be left behind. The mind could rest while the body and the spirit are being recreated. An hour a day, in the open air, with fears and anxieties and schemes all cast aside, in companionship with kindred spirits similarly divested of that which troubles and makes afraid, all engaged in recreative sports, would do more to make us physically well, morally strong, and civilly decent than all the pills of the doctors, all the texts of the preachers, and all the keys of the jailers!

In keeping with the world-wide movement in this direction our own people, in their civic capacity, have already acted and have thus become the possessor of splendid park facilities which offer ample opportunities, when fully developed, for a sane out-of-door life of a population many times as large as ours at the present time. And as we all know, the Park Board has entered intelligently and systematically upon this matter of development and improvement. Much has already been done. Very much more is fully outlined in the minds of the Park Board. I think it is their purpose—and I fully believe that they will carry it out—to proceed in this matter of development just as rapidly as the people show, by their use of the facilities progressively offered, an appreciation.

Nearly all the work done thus far, such as clearing away the rubbish, making the shady retreats usable, fitting up picnic grounds, caring for the tennis courts, golf links, and other game reserves, as well as erecting pavilions and other conveniences, has looked toward putting the grounds into condition for summer use. And the response on the part of the people has been gratifying. As rapidly as the parks have been put into shape, they have been generously used by an appreciative people. It has done my heart good, many times, especially on Sundays in the hot summer months, to see the numbers of people, and the people, who were really using the parks. They have been the people, in a large mesure, who can not easily get elsewhere the best things that the parks give.

Thus far, as said, the plans for development have looked mainly toward summer use, But I am especially glad to note a recent improvement that shows that the Park Board has the winter use of the parks also definitely in mind. I refer to the new skating rink in Riverside Park. It is a most commendable institution. I very much hope that it will be extensively used, not only by the people living in that part of the city, but by those of all sections. It belongs to all of us. Here is an opportunity for a most delightful winter sport freely offered. If appreciated, as shown by its use, I have no doubt that it will be duplicated next winter, and on a larger scale, in Lincoln Park. And if we show that we appreciate this, other features will be added.

Perhaps I should stop here, but I can not lose the opportunity of saying just a word to connect this topic with the great playground movement, and therefore in behalf of providing facilities for winter and summer sports alike, for our boys and girls—our young people.

Do you realize fully that the boys and girls of to-day—yours and mine, yes, and just as truly those less favored—those into whose lives there comes but little cheer, into whose stomachs there goes but little nourishing food, and into whose lungs, but little oxygen—do you realize, I ask, that these boys and girls are to be the men and women of to-morrow, with all the responsibilities of the world resting upon their shoulders? Do we want them to enter upon the duties of life stoop-shouldered, flat-chested, spectacle-eyed? Do we want them to be anaemic, pessimistic, nervous wrecks? Do we want them to be mental weaklings and moral cowards? Do we want them even to approximate these conditions? No? Then, with all our provisions for their wants and their needs, let us be sure to develop those things which minister so largely to the development of the opposite characteristics. Prevention is not only cheaper than cure, it is also better. Let us see that our parks are developed with provisions for our boys and girls as well as for the adults. Let us see that playgrounds are scattered over our city and provision made for both winter and summer sports.

In addition to the Riverside Park skating rink, I wish the City Council or the Board of Education would establish one on the grounds of the Winship school, another at the Central building, and still a third on the Belmont grounds. This could be done at nominal cost. What a splendid opportunity it would give to all the children of the city to engage in this most healthful and invigorating sport! It would give them their needed entertainment and relaxation in the pure, invigorating, out-of-door air. It would surround them with an emotional atmosphere that is at once normal, natural, and spiritually health-giving. Instead of these conditions, what do we find? Many of our young boys and girls and very many of those a little older—those just entering upon manhood and womanhood, when both emotional and physical atmosphere count for so much in the forming of habits and the choosing of ideals—many of these future men and women are finding their entertainment and their relaxation (and mind you, at the close of a day in school or in the evening after a day spent in the poorly ventilated office or store) in the moving-picture show or at the vaudeville. And in these places the air is apt to be both hot and impure, and all the physical conditions enervating. The emotional atmosphere, too, is sure to be abnormal, unnatural, and spiritually deadening. We find here, and in too large quantity to be a negligible factor, the atmosphere, the conditions, the associations, that help greatly to breed incorrigibles, truants, and laggards in our schools; that develop juvenile delinquents, hasty marriages, and early divorces; that send into the world paupers, grafters, and criminals. Not all the conditions are such in all such places, it is true, but as affecting young life these are usually the dominating ones.

I am not condemning the theater. It has its legitimate place, and a large place it is, in normal, healthy, American life. I am merely declaiming against these lower forms as usually conducted for commercial gain—these perversions of the true theater idea—these institutions that deal so largely in the sensational elements and appeal so strongly to the passions. I am told that the cheap theater is the poor man's club. I very much doubt if that is its chief function or, rather, that its chief result is a wholesome quickening of the better nature of this poor man—that its chief accomplishment is to send him back to his home kinder, truer, and stronger, thru either the relaxation or the instruction, to grapple with the difficulties of life. I greatly fear that, as usually conducted, its influence upon the adult is at best but the temporary slaking of an unhealthy and never-satisfied thirst, and that upon the child and the adolescent it is a distinct blunting of all the finer sensibilities and elements of character. But even these lower forms are not all bad. There is enough of good in them to warrant an attempt at improvement rather than elimination. They can be improved, made clean, and wholesome, and thus become a positive factor in the development of right character. I doubt if it will be done, however, until some other motive than personal gain shall be responsible for their management. Still, as they are, they might be very greatly bettered if in some way those most deeply interested in the outcome could have a choice in the selection of the material to be used.

One of the best ways to counteract the harmful influence of the poorly conducted moving picture show and the vaudeville is to develop something better to take their places. Let it be something that contains the life-giving principles, something that will appeal with equal force to the impressionable youth, and yet be clean and wholesome and natural. Shall we not look upon the public playground for the children, and the park system, for all, as a promising hope? And, properly developed, would they not soon come to act on the young, both physically and psychically, as a prevention, thus making a later cure unnecessary? And upon adults, might we not reasonably expect their use to tend toward making less attractive, and so to the eventual abandonment of, many of these practises and forms of entertainment and recreation that are now so sapping of both physical and psychical life?



IX

THE FUNCTION OF TEACHERS COLLEGE

An Address delivered before the North Dakota State Teachers Association on December 27, 1906. It later appeared in the January and February, 1910, issues of "Education"

Among the various educational institutions of the United States to-day, the one which, as it seems to me, is attracting the most intelligent attention on the part of our educational thinkers, and the one upon the right solution of whose problems depends, in a high degree, the success of our entire educational system, is the institution for the education of teachers. For we all have come, finally, to accept as true the statement of the old German writer, "School reform means schoolmaster reform," also that other, used so effectively in the days of our own early educational revival, "As is the teacher so is the school." And we are ready to-day to admit that those statements are true whether applied to the ungraded rural school with its noticeable lack of needed equipment, to the perfectly graded school of the city with every facility that human ingenuity can devise and money procure, or to the college and university where scholarship and culture are supposed to make their abode and contribute of their fullness. For I care not, and you care not, what be the physical and material equipment of the school; I care not, nor do you, what be the scholastic attainments of the one called teacher; if he isn't able to teach, that is, to cause to learn, we all know that the school, in just the mesure of his inability, is a failure. One thing further we all know, and that is this: one plank in our great educational platform is belief in the necessity of an institution set apart for the preparation of teachers. We are irrevocably committed to the idea. It is a part of our educational creed. Fortunately, in our educational evolution we have left far behind us the stage when the wisdom of that institution was seriously questioned. Our pedagogical forefathers, valiant explorers, discoverers, heroes, educational statesmen—Carter, Mann, Page, Sheldon and others—have left us this priceless heritage. It remains for us to-day merely to analyze the institution, agree upon the respective functions of its various types, and then apply ourselves with intelligent vigor each to the solution of his own problems.

As we look around us, we clearly distinguish three distinct types of the institution under discussion. The oldest, best known, and most numerous is called the state normal school. It dates from the time of Horace Mann and Edmund Dwight, the former of whom recognized the need and knew how to inaugurate the movement, the latter, having unbounded faith in Mr. Mann, provided the funds. Nearly every state in the union has now one or more intelligently at work. All that have not, have practically the same thing under another name—normal departments in connection with the state universities.

The next type, in order of time and numbers, as well, is found in connection with the higher educational institutions of the country. It has various names, as "Department of Education," "School of Education," "Division of Education," "Pedagogical Department," "School of Pedagogy" and "Teachers College." Probably the name most common in the past has been "Department of Education," or "Pedagogical Department," tho in the developed form it is changing to "School of Education" or "Teachers College." Of these, there are at work, according to the 1909 report of the Commissioner of Education, 171. That is, there are 171 colleges and universities maintaining at least a department, or chair, of education, and giving professional instruction of college grade.

The third type, latest in appearance and as yet fewest in number, but with fair promise of rapid increase and great usefulness, is the county school, called "County Normal Training Class" in Michigan and "County Training School" in Wisconsin, in which two states the movement is at its best. Indeed, I do not know of any other state in which the work has been thus definitely organized. Of these, Michigan had, a year ago, forty-one, and Wisconsin, twenty. Possibly in this connection one ought to mention the good work being done in high schools in several states, but seen at its best in Nebraska and New York. Yet this work is but an adjunct to the high school, and does not so clearly approach a separate institution.

Of these three types it is the second which is the subject of the present discussion—whose function I seek. It is really immaterial whether we use, in the discussion, the appellation of Minnesota and say "College of Education," or that of Harvard and call it "Division of Education," or that of Columbia, Missouri, and North Dakota, and say "Teachers College." For they are all one and the same institution with but slightly different systems of organization. I use the latter term because more familiar and more likely, I think, as time passes, to prevail.

But these three types are so closely connected that the function of one cannot be clearly seen alone. Therefore I propose very briefly to examine the establishment of each so as to learn why it was called into existence—what function it was originally expected to perform. I shall then briefly examine present conditions, trying to discover if any changes have taken place in the general educational situation of sufficient moment to make necessary a rearrangement or readjustment. Finally, I shall draw my conclusions as to present functions, and with a more careful analysis of certain factors state the reasons for those conclusions as briefly as possible.

First, as to state normal schools: it is, of course, entirely unnecessary to go into details as to organization or early work of this institution in our country. I am stating what is known to all when I say that Horace Mann in Massachusetts, Henry Barnard in Connecticut, David Page in New York, and William Phelps in New Jersey had one and only one thought in view in working for the establishment of normal schools and for the development of their work. They, one and all, were seeking some means for providing better teachers for the common schools. No one, so far as I am able to discover, at this time even suggested that any other teachers needed a special preparation for their work. To be sure, the American high school was hardly under way when the normal school movement was inaugurated, in 1839, there being then but half a dozen in the entire country. Ten years later there were but eighteen. There was, however, in those days a large number of academies giving secondary instruction. But there was no thought of looking to the normal schools for academy teachers, they came from the colleges. Indeed, generally speaking, the academies and high schools as then being developed, were offering a higher grade of academic work than the normal schools, and they were rather assisting the latter in the production of teachers. This was especially true in New York, a movement having there been inaugurated by which, thru financial aid from the State, many of the academies were offering normal school instruction and sending out into the rural schools and city grades a very creditable product. And the character of the movement in the East has continued to be the character of the movement as it has swept Westward. I think there has not been established in the United States a single state normal school whose function has not been understood to be the preparation of teachers for the common schools. And by "common schools" I mean the first eight grades of the public school, including both rural and urban communities, for it has been only in recent years that we have carefully discriminated between the two.

Next, let us look at the teachers college. Bear in mind that I use the term as referring to the institution, or department, under whatever name it may be known, that is doing professional work in the preparation of teachers in connection with colleges and universities. In taking up the topic, attention needs first to be called to two facts: the rapid development of our high school system and the high degree of success already attained by our normal schools.

After the close of the Civil War our high schools began to multiply—rapidly from 1870 to 1880, by leaps and bounds from that time to the present. In 1870 there were 170; 1880, 800; 1890, 2,526; 1900, 6,005; and in 1908, 8,960. (Annual reports of the Commissioner of Education.) But no sooner had the high school movement obtained good headway than the serious problem arose as to the supply of teachers. And so well, on the whole, had the normal school done its work that it had more than justified its existence. Thru its work the character of the teaching in the elementary schools had been greatly improved. Teachers, with normal school equipment, were everywhere recognized as superior to those otherwise trained or not trained at all. Very naturally, then, when the problem of high school teachers arose, professional preparation was demanded. But where could it be obtained and how?

The state normal schools, true to their function of preparing teachers, tried to satisfy the additional demands placed upon them. They added to their equipment, modified and extended their courses, and in every way did all they could. Indeed, they did all that was done in a professional way for nearly a generation. But the high schools were increasing, both in numbers and in academic requirements of students and teachers. City school systems were being developed and extended in a most unprecedented manner, calling for skilled superintendents, supervisors, grade principals, special teachers, etc., until, finally, thoughtful men began to see that the impossible was being asked of the state normal schools. For two reasons, it was seen, they could not do the double work; in the first place, they had more than they could do in their original sphere of providing teachers for the elementary schools, and secondly, their academic possibilities, even increased as they had been in attempting the work, were clearly seen to be wholly inadequate. It was discovered, also, that, in spite of the efforts being put forth by the normal schools, the higher teaching positions—superintendencies, high school principalships, etc.—were going to men of collegiate attainment, even at the sacrifice of professional training which was then being recognized as very desirable.

What was to be done? To make a long story short, the universities and colleges, with their more extended courses, better equipment, and stronger faculties, took the matter up and added educational departments in which could be given, with but slight additional outlay, both the academic and professional equipment thought to be needed by the high school teacher.

This work was first clearly suggested and outlined at the annual meeting of the Michigan State Teachers' Association in 1870. Dr. W. H. Payne, then city superintendent of schools at Adrian, Michigan, read a notable address upon the subject, "The Relation Between the University and Our High Schools." Eight years later, the Regents of Michigan University established a chair of "Theory and Art of Teaching," and to it called the man who had, by the address just mentioned, offered a practical as well as a logical solution of the difficult problem.

The example thus set by Michigan University was soon followed by others—Cornell, Ohio, Illinois, Harvard, Chicago and others, until now this new department is found in nearly every prominent college and university in the land. These are our teachers colleges or, rather, the sources from which they are springing. For, to be sure, not every pedagogical department found in a higher institution of learning, tho doing in a general way the same grade of work, should be called a teachers college. Tho having its roots in these, the teachers college proper differs from the most of them in several ways. The pedagogical department of a college, and too, a thoroly reputable college, may be, and usually is, merely one of the many departments of the institution, represented on its faculty by a single professor and offering but a limited range of professional work—a few courses in the history of education, principles of education, and "pedagogy," usually. A teachers college, on the other hand, has an organization and, sometimes, a financial status of its own. Its relationship to the institution as a whole is getting to be the same as that of the other professional schools. The movement is toward a separate faculty, headed by a dean, and representing all the different phases of both academic and professional work. While many of the members of the faculty do, and may continue to, give courses in the other colleges, they have a distinct, organic connection with the teachers college. The teachers college is also getting to have, as a vital part of its equipment, a model high school bearing to it the same relationship that the model, or practise, school bears to our normal schools. While this fulness of organization and equipment has not yet been reached by a large number, it has by several, among which are Columbia, Missouri, Chicago, and, approximately, North Dakota, with many others moving rapidly in the same direction.

Just a few words, now, as to the third type mentioned, the county normal school: As already suggested, the line of demarcation was not early drawn between the urban and the rural school. But cities grew; city school systems were developed; the normal schools, in spite of rapid increase, were not able to keep up with the rapidly increasing demands. And, since the field for normal school graduates has ever been an open one, they have located where the remuneration has been the most generous. Now, cities and villages are, generally speaking, the centers of intelligence as well as of population and wealth. The people of these communities have appreciated the superiority of professionally prepared teachers, and they have been able to pay the added price. The result has been that they have appropriated practically the entire output of the normal schools. None have been left for the rural schools.

And again, with these economic changes there came to be more and more clearly seen, as the years went by, a difference, internal and somewhat vital, between the schools of the rural and the urban communities, making in some ways a different sort of preparation desirable. Now, the state normal school, growing with the movement, and ever keenly alive to its opportunities for usefulness, noting clearly the location of its product, very wisely began to modify its work so as to make it better suited to the needs of its main customers—the well-graded schools of the city and village. And so it has resulted that, even if the normal schools could supply the demands for both country and city teachers, so far as numbers are concerned, the preparation given is not the most ideal for the former. And just as when professionally trained secondary teachers were needed a new institution was created for their preparation, in very recent years an institution has appeared to satisfy this new need, one whose function is as clearly announced, and one which seems to fit into the situation as well, and we have the county normal school of Michigan and Wisconsin, as mentioned above.

Whether we shall see a rapid extension of this new movement, making the county normal school as fixt an institution as the state normal school has become, and as the teachers college bids fair to become, or whether, thru consolidation, the distinctive type of our rural school shall disappear and our state normal schools be increased in number to meet the larger demands, only the future can tell. This latter, however, will not be in our generation, and I confidently look for the former. I believe the general adoption and adaptation of the county normal school idea would be one of the most economical and speedy means of solving some of our most serious rural school problems. And I also believe that it should be our next step, if we can take but one step at a time, toward professional education of teachers.

If I have analyzed aright the present situation, and have been fair in my all too brief account of the rise and development of these institutions, we see that we have in our midst to-day, as a result of the development of our educational system, and to keep pace with it, the development of the idea so long ago adopted—the value of the professional preparation of the teacher—three quite distinct types of an institution for such purpose. Enumerating now in order of grade of work rather than of historical development, we have (1) the county normal school, whose function is solely the preparation of teachers for the rural schools—sixty-one of them found only in Michigan and Wisconsin, sending into the rural schools of those states about 800 fairly well equipt teachers each year; (2) the old state normal school of historic fame, whose function is the preparation of teachers for the elementary grades of our city and village schools—195 there were two years ago—and they sent out into the schools approximately 10,000 teachers, mostly graduates; (3) the teachers college, found always in connection with a college of high rank or of a full-fledged university, offering work, both academic and professional, of full university grade and covering the full university period of four years. The number cannot be stated definitely, because the process that is transforming the old pedagogical departments into teachers colleges is at such varying stages of development. Its function is best stated in the words of the institution in which it was founded (Calendar of the University of Michigan for 1904-1905, p. 126):—

"1. To fit university students for the higher positions in the public school service.

"2. To promote the study of educational science.

"3. To teach the history of education and of educational systems and doctrines.

"4. To secure to teaching the rights, prerogatives and advantages of a profession.

"5. To give a more perfect unity to our state educational system, by bringing the secondary schools into closer relations with the university."

"Higher position in the public school service" meant, in the main, in the early days, city superintendencies and high school principalships. To these, others have been added, one by one, owing very largely to the great success of the movement and the growing appreciation of the value of professional preparation for occupants of such positions, until now they include city superintendencies, high school and grade principalships, subject supervisorships, high school, normal school, and college instructorships. Already the leading teachers colleges, the ones at Columbia, Missouri, and Chicago universities, are being definitely looked to for these later added and more responsible workmen.

Thus far I have but stated historical facts known to all who are reasonably well informed touching the history of education and current educational practise in our country. I have done this all too briefly, I am well aware. But the reason that I could do it briefly is the fact that the readers of this journal are well informed upon the historical phases of the subject. All that I needed to do was to cull out and bring to the fore the pertinent facts. But the question now arises, is this differentiation logical? Are there any reasons, psychological, economic, or otherwise, for such differentiation? If there are, it is going to continue, and these types of the institution which now seem to have been given each such a definite and separate work to do are going to be relatively permanent. If not, we shall continue to cut and try, undoing to-morrow what was done to-day, and chaos will result.

This institution, with its various types, is not one that has evolved from a careful theoretical study of our present or prospective educational needs, but one that has grown up, little by little, step by step, to meet and satisfy from time to time the present and pressing needs of the larger system of which it forms a part, and for the service of which it was called into existence. But is it not true that oftentimes the logic of events—the movements of history—reveal to us our fundamental principles, outline for us our policy of action, and even write out for us our program of procedure as correctly and even more irrevocably than philosophical formulation could do? Is not that especially likely to occur under such a form of government as ours? I think it has occurred in the present case.

It is interesting to note in this connection the fact that the logic of events has led us, in our efforts to solve the difficult problem of the education of our teachers, to practically the same solution as that already reached by France and Germany, which countries proceeded more nearly along the pathway of theoretical philosophical formulation.

I believe that at least two of these institutions, the state normal school and the teachers college, have come to stay, and with practically the functions outlined above. Of the county normal school, as said before, I do not feel quite so sure. I am led to the belief in the relative permanency of these types of professional school, not only by a knowledge of the history of their development, but also by the conviction, formed by a somewhat careful study of the entire problem, that there are fundamental reasons, psychological as well as economical, for the differentiation. In other words, my own somewhat careful study of the entire situation brings me to the same position that the logic of events has brought us all.

As to the county normal school: it is so apparent as scarcely to need mention that the teacher of the rural school needs a preparation differing in many ways from that needed by the teacher of the city grades. The environment, physical, psychical, and social, is so different that a teacher equipt to do thoroly good work in either one place might signally fail in the other. And the present economic situation speaks with nearly the same insistence. Even if our state normal schools were sending out teachers ideally equipt for service in the rural communities, the remuneration there offered is, and for an indefinite time will remain, so low as practically to keep them out of the schools. Either we must have special institutions for the preparation of the teachers of the rural schools, or else those schools must, in the main, continue to do without professionally prepared teachers.

Turning now to the other type, it is equally clear to me that the very character of the work in the elementary and secondary schools should be different one from the other, different as to discipline, ends in view, subjects of study, and methods of handling the same. In the elementary school the pupil is a child, with the mind, the tastes, the ambitions of a child, and he should be allowed to remain a child. The ends in view are right habits, right ideals, and knowledge facts. In the secondary school the student is an adolescent, with the mind of an adolescent, having peculiar and erratic tastes, changing ambitions, and conflicting emotions. He is neither child nor adult, but passing thru the most dangerous and critical period of his entire life. The ends in view are no longer merely habits, ideals, and knowledge facts, but, added to these, and now more important for emphasis because presumably right principles have already been established, breadth and fixity of character, self-acquaintance, scholarship, and culture. Tell me that the atmosphere, psychical and spiritual, and the training, academic and professional, that will produce the ideal teacher of the child will also produce the ideal teacher of the adolescent? Nay, verily! You might as well tell the florist that the American Beauty rose and the Snow Flower of the Northern forest will both reach perfection if grown side by side. Then surely we need different kinds of institutions. I cannot better conclude this thought than by using the words of Dr. Wm. T. Harris found in the introductory paragraph of an article on "The Future of the Normal School." (Ed. Rev., January, 1899, p. 1.) Dr. Harris says: "I have tried to set down in this paper the grounds for commending the normal school as it exists for its chosen work of preparing teachers for the elementary schools, and at the same time urging the need of training schools with different methods of preparation for the kindergarten, below, and for the secondary school, the college and the post-graduate school, above the elementary school."

The reason just given, the psychological one, is alone sufficient for believing that the differentiation is logical. But let me add another, almost equally effective—an academic reason, directly academic and at the same time indirectly economic. This is found in the following words, taken from Dr. Payne's "Contributions to the Science of Education." (Am. Book Co., 1886, p. 538.) "If there is any well-established principle of school economy it is this: The scholarship of the teacher should be considerably broader than the scholarship of his most advanced pupil." Nobody now questions the statement.

Upon the basis of that principle there is little criticism to be offered of the academic equipment of our normal school graduates as teachers in the grades. No normal school now completes its work with less than one full year beyond the completion of a four-year high school course, and two years beyond is rapidly getting to be the standard. So that normal school graduation gives the prospective teacher of the grades at least four years of academic, and from one to two years of professional and academic work beyond the point to be reached by "his most advanced pupil." To be sure, more would be better—a longer experience and a closer acquaintance with the great character forming subjects, such as literature, history, philosophy, etc. This would give breadth of view, clearness of perception, and a right perspective—elements of incomparable value in the equipment of the teacher. But yet, in view of our economic conditions and of a general lack of understanding and therefore of appreciation in the lay mind of the most vital and fundamental work of the teacher, we cannot yet hope for teachers ideally equipt. And our present standards, if insisted upon and the work thus far be thoro and clear and faithful, will give us increasingly better results and eventually lead to conditions more nearly ideal.

But this judgment as to criticism must be very different when we look upon these graduates as possible teachers in the high school. The scholarship of such a teacher there would be but little, if any, "broader than the scholarship of his most advanced pupil." While there is to-day no uniform legislation touching the requirements as to qualifications of high school teachers in the United States, each state, and even each school, being largely a law unto itself, there is getting to be a very decided uniformity the country over as to practise, and in many ways this is much more significant than formal legislation would be. For without compulsion, the whole people, each section and each state, independent of all others, seemingly by the very necessity of the case, have fixt upon the same minimum standard of qualification for high school teachers. And that minimum is the completion of a full four-year collegiate course of instruction, including—indeed, in many cases, plus—a certain emphasis to be placed upon the subjects to be handled, and a certain amount of time devoted to strictly professional subjects. To be sure, in some states legislation has spoken, as in Minnesota, requiring completion of collegiate work, and practically so in North Dakota, requiring completion of such work for superintendencies and high school principalships, and strongly recommending the same for all teaching positions in the high school. In California a step farther has been taken in requiring, in addition to that, a full year of graduate study. The tendency, in several states, seems to be in the direction of the position taken by California. And with that tendency I am in sympathy.

This movement upward, however, I do not want to see go any farther. I deprecate the tendency, seen in some quarters, of setting up as the symbol of the standard of qualification for the high school teacher, the doctor's degree. I do not want the boys and girls of our high schools taught, or rather directed in their upward development, by mere specialists—doctors of philosophy, who know everything about nothing, and nothing about everything. Nor do I want them directed by men and women who are obliged to "cipher on page twenty while the class is working on page nineteen." But I do want them directed by men and women who are thoroly acquainted with the subjects which they teach, and who know how to handle the same; but especially by men and women of broad, liberal culture, men and women whose lives have been enriched by the best there is in literature, history, art, science, and philosophy, and who know life, and are in warm sympathy with young life. Teachers thus equipt are able, from their high vantage point, to reach out here and there and take as educative material that which will contribute to the beautiful and strong development of each case at hand. And such an equipment, on its academic side, comes not short of the master's degree, or its equivalent.

My authority for the statement made above as to the growing uniformity of practise in requiring as minimum qualification for high school teachers a full collegiate course, and as to the tendency in several states toward requiring, in addition, a full year of graduate study, is found in an extended correspondence with normal school principals and city and state superintendents representing the entire country.

These facts as to present-day requirements seem to me to fix somewhat definitely the matters under discussion. Our normal schools, with possibly two or three exceptions, are not equipt to give the extended qualification now demanded for the high school teacher. Barring the two or three, the best of them do not pretend to carry the student more than two years beyond high school graduation. And whether it be one or two years, the work is, as it ought to be, mainly professional—not academic. Indeed, the presidents of many of our strongest normal schools insist that they do not do any strictly academic work. And if the lack is so great touching high school teachers, how much greater touching positions still higher.

To be sure, the work of the normal schools might be sufficiently extended to enable them to do this additional and advanced work. New buildings might be erected, laboratory facilities increased, libraries enlarged, additional and stronger teachers provided, etc. But is it necessary? Is it wise? Is it likely to happen with our legislators holding the purse strings so tightly tied? To all such questions the answer must inevitably be negative. It is not necessary because not really needed for the preparation of elementary teachers, while for the preparation of secondary teachers other agencies are at hand. And if not needed the unwisdom of such an extension can scarcely be questioned. Certainly not, if, as urged above, different kinds of institutions are needed for the preparation of the two grades of teachers. Then, if both not needed and unwise, it is not likely to happen in any case where legislators are intelligently informed as to the situation.

To indicate the feeling among many of our leading educators touching this point, it might be interesting, in closing, to give a brief summary of the correspondence mentioned above. This inquiry, was directed to all our state superintendents, to forty of the leading normal school principals representing all sections of the country, and to fifty-two leading and representative city superintendents. The following questions were asked:—

(1) Are your normal schools at the present time equipt to give adequate preparation to prospective high school teachers?

(2) If you think they are not, would it be wise to add to their present equipment such facilities as would enable them to give such preparation, or can that work be better done in some other way?

REPLIES FROM STATE SUPERINTENDENTS

To question (1). Thirty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-nine were negative and nine affirmative. Of the nine, however, only one came from a state in which normal school facilities are at all superior to what may be termed a fair average, and in that state these facilities are found in only one of the five normal schools, whereas, in five of the nine, these facilities are inferior to what may be termed a fair average. In two of the nine, tho the state superintendents gave affirmative answers, the consensus of opinion of the normal school principals was negative. In a word, the nine affirmative replies indicate individual opinions, and result from a limited perspective.

To question (2). Twenty-nine replies were received, of which fifteen were specifically negative, five specifically affirmative, and nine implied a misunderstanding of the question. But nearly all of the nine, as well as the fifteen, stated definitely or clearly implied that such work should be done in the colleges and universities.

REPLIES FROM NORMAL SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

To question (1). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty were negative, and eight affirmative. Of the eight, three were from states having but one normal school each, and perhaps, therefore, admittedly strong; two from states having each one school much superior to the others of the same state, and referring specifically to that school. Of the remaining three, one was from a new state in the Northwest, one from a Southern state, and one stated that only in some branches was the equipment sufficient.

To question (2). Twenty replies were received, of which sixteen were negative, and four affirmative. Of the four, not one said that all should be so equipt. Each suggested that perhaps it would be well thus to extend the equipment of one school in a state.

REPLIES FROM CITY SUPERINTENDENTS

To question (1). Thirty replies were received, of which twenty-eight were negative, and two affirmative. The two were from a state in which is to be found a single normal school, and that, one of the best.

To question (2). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-six were negative, and two affirmative.

To be sure, correspondence upon this point was not sufficiently extended to be conclusive, but yet my correspondents were, in the main, leaders in their respective lines, and therefore represent the best educational thought and practise of the times. The summary speaks clearly and to the point, and to the same point, note, that the logic of events has already brought us. The work of the normal school should continue to be, as it has been from the beginning, devoted to preparation of teachers for the grades, while prospective teachers in the high schools should seek their preparation in the teachers colleges, under whatever specific names known, where the professional phases of the work will be as much emphasized, but be different, and be differently handled as befitting the different character of the work to be done, and where they can receive the broader academic outlook and equipment absolutely essential to an adequate handling of the larger and more difficult situation.

NOTE.—Since the appearance of the January number of Education, my attention has been called to the fact that in naming institutions giving early attention to the preparation of secondary teachers I omitted some that should have found a place in such an enumeration. It is true that several others might well have been mentioned. On page 286, line 5 (page 224, line 3 of this work), I might well have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University, also Clark, Stanford, California, and Teachers College, Columbia, and again, "and others." And on page 289, line 18 (page 228, line 18 of this work), I certainly should have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University and Clark University, possibly others, for the work is progressing rapidly. But it was the movement I had in mind rather than the specific contributions of various institutions. The omissions were not born of any desire to withhold from any institution the credit that it deserves.

Since this matter is again open, let me add an interesting fact in regard to the New York University School of Pedagogy, just mentioned. If I mistake not, we have here the first real "teachers college," that is, the first instance in which we see a "Department of Education," having merely equal standing with other departments in a university, become, thru definite action of that university's governing body, "a professional school of equal rank with the other professional schools of the University." This change was made on March 3, 1890. Judging by results, it has been amply justified. The institution is doing a large and splendid work.—THE AUTHOR.



X

CREDIT FOR QUALITY IN SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION

From the "Educational Review," March, 1909, and the "Western Journal of Education" (now the "American Schoolmaster"), May, 1909

In the Educational Review for May, 1908, Mr. W. B. Secor had an article under the caption, "Credit for Quality in the Secondary School." Mr. Secor says, in his opening paragraph, "The present system of giving credit towards graduation in use in the secondary school, takes account mainly of the amount of work done.... The student who barely passes his work gets just the same amount of credit towards graduation as the one who passes high in the nineties. It is to be expected, then, that the student ... will reason something like this: I will be graduated if I pass my work in the seventies just the same as if I pass it in the nineties. What is the use of wasting time and effort in securing a high average?" He then suggests a system of marking which "would not only fix a minimum of quality, but would also recognize different degrees of quality by giving more credit toward graduation for high quality than for low," which system, he thinks, would also tend to "a strengthening of the intellectual life of the secondary school." Mr. Secor does not claim to be the originator of the idea, giving to President Hyde of Bowdoin that doubtful honor. He also refers to two articles in the Educational Review, one in the issue of April, 1905, written by Professor Thomas, of Columbia University, speaking of the system as just introduced into that institution, and the other in the issue of December, 1906, by Professor Kennedy, describing the system as then in use in the University of North Dakota. After these references have been cited, the system is discust from various points of view and its extension into the secondary field favored, tho, in his closing paragraph, Mr. Secor says, "Now the plan here proposed does not claim perfection. It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test."

Mr. Secor's article is but one of many evidences that the experiment now being tried in a few of our higher institutions of learning, of attempting to estimate and adequately reward quality as well as quantity of work done by students, is attracting considerable attention. It is not at all strange that these experiments are attracting attention, for the idea is taking and its justice seemingly so apparent. Because of this interest I desire to examine some parts of Mr. Secor's article and in the process of that examination briefly discuss the so-called "Credit-for-quality" idea. I shall be materially aided in such discussion by my experience with the practical workings of the system in the University of North Dakota, and shall take the opportunity of letting the educational world know how the system is working and how it is being regarded in the institution in which it has been receiving its most extensive and thoro trial. For while the system did not originate here, it was here first put into operation, and for years an earnest, honest, heroic effort has been put forth in its behalf. I might say, parenthetically, that the details of the system Mr. Secor suggests are almost identically the ones that have been in use in this institution. They were found to be faulty, however, and have been materially changed.

I have read and re-read Mr. Secor's article with both interest and apprehension; with interest, because the "Credit-for-quality" idea has been engaging my thoughtful attention on both its practical and its theoretical sides for a considerable time; with apprehension, since the article seems to recommend the system for use in our secondary schools. I am sorry the recommendation has been made for the conclusions I have reached from my double study are very different from those being held by Mr. Secor. I seriously question the wisdom of extending the system at all, even when dealing with students of college rank, much more seriously, then, when applied to those of the secondary school who are four years younger, much less mature, and therefore less able to profit by the meritorious features and at the same time withstand the weakening influences attendant upon the system. Indeed, I think its adoption in the secondary schools would be nothing short of a calamity. Another reason why I feel impelled to speak is that reference is made in Mr. Secor's article to the working of the system in the institution with which I am connected as "highly satisfactory." In justice to the system itself and certainly in view of its suggested extension, that impression should not be allowed to go forth without modification or correction. I shall attempt, therefore, in this discussion, to do three things, tho I shall not try to separate the three spatially: (1) to discuss this marking system on its merits; (2) to report to the educational world our findings after an experience with it of five years, and (3) to urge against its extension into the secondary field.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have been connected with the University of North Dakota for three years—the last three of the five during which the system has been in use. I have had all the time from one hundred to one hundred twenty-five students. The grading has had to be done three times a year, since our school year, up to the present time, has been separated into three terms. Let me also make plain the fact that in all I say I speak upon my own responsibility, not for the institution nor for its faculty, tho it is true that nearly, if not quite, half the faculty hold practically the same views regarding the system.

It is true, as Mr. Secor says, that "the present system of giving credit towards graduation used in our secondary schools takes account mainly of the amount of work done." It passes upon quality, as he says, only "when it fixes a passing mark." It may also be true, as he takes for granted, that it would be desirable to give credit towards graduation for quality as well as for quantity, but of this I am very much in doubt, especially in dealing with secondary students. It does not sufficiently take into consideration the value of content, and that, it seems to me, is a factor that should not be disregarded. I think I value as highly as most men the discipline, or mental power, gained by close application; likewise, the habit of thoroness gained thru doing work well; but yet, in addition to those acquisitions, I confess that I also place high value upon knowledge as a possession. In other words, I want the student, both high school and college, to know something.

I will gladly admit, however, that it is very desirable to secure from the student quality as well as quantity. That, I am inclined to think, is the main thing that Mr. Secor is really after. He thinks the best way, or, at any rate, a very good way, to get it is thru the device of giving extra credit toward graduation for the higher grades of work. My experience with the system does not lead me to that conclusion. Interest in the subject matter itself is always essential to the doing of a high quality of work. And such interest in the subject matter of school studies is scarcely secured by anything so artificial as rewards smacking of the market. So far as it can not be secured directly, and resort must be made to artificial incentives to secure it, I think that incentives can be found much more in keeping with the general spirit and purpose of education than the constant appeal to the commercial value of the grades being obtained. The ordinary monthly report card sent to the home, on which the quality of work being done in the various subjects is indicated by "excellent," "good," "poor," etc., and even by the too common "per cent," is artificial stimulus enough. Every teacher knows what an incentive the report card can be made. To be sure, teachers differ greatly in their ability to use this card skilfully, but so used it can exert great power. Not long ago I discust this "Credit-for-quality" matter with a class of about thirty university students, mostly freshmen, and, somewhat to my surprise, I discovered that with the majority of them the chief reason for desiring the "A" and "B" (our marks for extra credit toward graduation) was not that they bore the extra credit, but that the descriptive terms "excellent" and "good" secure extra appreciation from the home when term standings are reported. This might not be true of any large percentage of university students, certainly would not be of the upper classes. Added years have made them shrewder. Under the influence of our system they have become keener to appreciate a "bargain." But it certainly would be true of a very large percentage of secondary students.

Considerable experience in the secondary schools leads me to doubt very much that the typical high school student reasons as Mr. Secor suggests in his first paragraph. Some do, of course, and so do some university students, but not the great body of either. Barring a small percentage, students as they run, in both high school and college, are an earnest lot of young people. They are in these institutions for a purpose. They are seeking, so far as their vision extends, well-developed manhood and womanhood. Their chief desire is not to slide thru. The two immediate ends normally in view are consciousness of progressive growth and appreciation from parent and teacher. How eager the majority are for this appreciation is well known to all. All the stimulus needed, in addition to what the subjects and the student's own desire furnish, the resourceful teacher has at hand wrapt up in his own personality. If any other stimulus is needed it can be given by a grading of diplomas as is now being done in many high schools and colleges. I hold that to add to the marks now in common use what may be called a monetary fringe is both unnecessary and really subversive of the true ends of the school work. As teachers we should seek to elevate ideals, not to lower them; to furnish right motives, not wrong ones; to place before the developing youth high incentives, not low ones.

Mr. Secor says, "the proposed plan is superior to the present system in that it gives a natural and not an artificial incentive to high scholarship." By what process of reasoning he reaches the conclusion that mere "marks and honors" are more "unnatural" and "artificial" than the same marks and honors with a commercial tag appended, I fail to see. The truth of the matter is, both are artificial. As incentives, both are low, but it stands to reason that the latter is much lower than the former. The best friends of the system here, in the University of North Dakota, admit that, as an incentive, it is both artificial and low. Mr. Secor goes on to say, "the system" (that is, the "Credit-for-quality") "puts a premium on thorough-going scholarship by enabling the student to come up for graduation without being forced to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well." If our secondary school courses are so arranged as to force the student "to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well," then something is radically wrong with the courses of study. But no evil can be remedied by introducing a greater. As a matter of fact, the application of the system does not lead to "thorough-going scholarship," at least not in the University of North Dakota where, for five years, an honest and faithful effort has been made to secure that result. In all our discussions I have never heard one of its friends make that claim for it, altho the charge has been repeatedly made that it is destructive of scholarship. The writer goes on to say, "he" (the student) "may substitute depth for breadth, if he so desires, and is encouraged to do so." Shall we, in the secondary schools, encourage depth? Yes, to be sure, relative depth, but not too much of it, and not then at the expense of breadth. For is not the high school student in that stage of his development when he responds to the sense of breadth rather than that of depth? We could not make of him a student of research if we should try. Let us not try.

In the last paragraph of the article referred to we find a hint of a lack of thoro conviction on the part of the writer himself. "It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test," he says. Let me say that here, after five years' use, it is not proving to be satisfactorily "workable" even with students of college grade, and by a recent faculty action it has been entirely eliminated from our preparatory department.

This lack of conviction on the part of Mr. Secor calls to mind an interesting bit of history connected with the movement. As said before, it did not originate in the University of North Dakota. Dr. William DeWitt Hyde, President of Bowdoin College, is responsible for the suggestion. He sketched the plan in an Outlook article of August 2nd, 1902, but evidently lacking the courage of his conviction did not introduce it into his own institution, preferring, seemingly, that the experiment be made elsewhere. This has been, from the start, very suggestive to me. I have some admiration for President Hyde's shrewdness. The University of North Dakota fell into the trap thus skilfully set. And it is easier to fall into a trap than to get out of it. As a matter of fact, the system is more on trial now, after five years' use, than ever before. Other institutions would do well to await further developments.

In attempting to analyze the situation at the University of North Dakota, let me again refer to Mr. Secor's article. He says, "The plan, with some modifications, is at present being used in the University of North Dakota and in Columbia University with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory." To substantiate his statement he refers, in a foot-note, to the articles in the Educational Review from which he got his information. Now, the conclusion that Mr. Secor reaches from reading these articles is hardly warranted by the articles themselves. I fear he read too much between the lines. Let us see: Professor Thomas wrote of the Columbia system more than three years ago, and only a couple of months after its adoption; nor does he say anything as to its success,—in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say. He merely explained the new system and gave voice to his expectations. The Columbia system may be proving "highly satisfactory," but surely that article does not say that it is. And when the other article is analyzed, the case is found to be somewhat similar. Professor Kennedy wrote on the system in the University of North Dakota nearly two years ago, fully two academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the close of the first term of the year 1906-'07. Now two years in the life of an experiment of this kind is a long time. And Professor Kennedy in writing his article, did not put the case as strongly as does Mr. Secor from reading it. All that he said of its successful working was: "We ... thus far can truthfully say it is working itself out in desirable results—in more and better work than under the old plan." From these data, given when they were, Mr. Secor is certainly not justified in saying that "the plan ... is at present being used in the University of North Dakota with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory."

Professor Kennedy's statement was his individual judgment at the time he wrote his article. A considerable number of his co-laborers would not then have agreed with him. He probably would not write even as strongly as that to-day. If he should, a still larger number would disagree. He might write as strongly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness of the system, but that is quite another matter. As a matter of fact, during the last two years the weaknesses of the system have become so much more apparent that many members of the faculty then favorable, or at least hopeful, have at last come to despair of ever being able to eliminate the objectionable features and strengthen the weak points sufficiently to warrant its retention.

Professor Kennedy's article goes into detail as to the adoption of the plan, and clearly states its various changes up to the date of his writing. In our efforts, since then, to "improve" and "strengthen" it, various other changes have been made so that, as a matter of fact, one who knew it in its early history only would hardly recognise it as planned for use next year (quite different in detail from that now in use) save in the fundamental principle. That remains the same; the institution desires to secure a better quality of work from its students; it also desires to enable the student of exceptional ability or unusual industry to cut short his period of undergraduate study. To accomplish these ends it continues to use its so-called "Credit-for-quality" system of marking. This is done, altho a large and steadily increasing number of the faculty members feel that it does not do the first and that it overdoes the second.

As to these ends: I think that no one on the faculty really feels that, on the whole, we are getting a better grade of work than should reasonably be expected without the system; or, to put it in another way, no one would be bold enough to say that our students are doing better work than the students of similar institutions that do not use the system. On the other hand, it is true that some who have come among us since the adoption of the system give the comparison the less favorable turn.

Thru the operation of the system many can and do shorten their course; too many, I feel. Too many who have neither "exceptional ability" nor "unusual industry," unless it be ability "to work the Prof." and industry in that laudable enterprise. The course that normally takes four full years can be shortened from a portion of a term to a full year. Prior to June, 1908, the "time saved" could reach to a full year and a half. True, no one had actually completed a course in two and a half years, but one young lady's time was only slightly in excess of that and the excess was fully overbalanced by the time she gave to outside work—to library assistance for remuneration, and to journalism. And that gait was being struck by others. It only remained to be seen how long the wind would hold out. It was clearly possible. But the faculty became alarmed. Clearly recognizing the above stated possibility and being wholly unwilling thus to lower its high standard, it passed a resolution that arbitrarily limits the number of credits a student may receive in a given time to such an extent as to prevent graduation in less than three years. But several have gained, and others are gaining, sufficient surplus to enable them to complete their work in three years. From fifteen to twenty per cent, it is estimated, are enabled to shorten their course to that extent. Now some of these are thoroly good students, and, assuming that the system is sound in principle, well deserve to profit thereby. But others are just ordinarily good students, scarcely above the rank and file. In addition to those who complete their work in three years, some thirty or forty per cent more shorten it by lesser amounts, ranging all the way down to an inappreciable period.

But aside from the system's failure in reaching one of its ends and its too great success in reaching the other, it has developed numerous and unfortunate evils that many regard as exceedingly serious, and revealed weaknesses that seem well nigh impossible to eliminate. Space allows scarcely more than an enumeration of these, but a mere enumeration is better than to deal wholly in general terms. (1) In the first place, I should say that the "Credit-for-quality" system of marking as used by us places before the students unworthy ideals. Students of university rank can be led to seek knowledge for knowledge's sake, truth for truth's sake. They can be taught to see farther ahead than the close of the term, and something more precious than an extra three-tenths of a credit. But this thought has already been sufficiently treated earlier in the article. (2) It leads to faulty methods of study and unsatisfactory final results. In the preparation of the lessons, a good recitation, rather than thoro understanding of the subject matter, is too apt to be the objective point. Many good students have told me that they find it difficult to resist the tendency to subordinate understanding to memory. (3) It may lead, often does, to unwise election of courses. Some teachers mark higher than others. Under the influence of our system students are very quick to learn these individual characteristics, and those who have developed the "itching palm" know how to profit by that knowledge. (4) It places students who receive extra credit for quality at a disadvantage in seeking to enter other institutions of learning. The credits thus gained will not be recognized. This would operate only in making the transfer during the undergraduate period, but it does there.[1] (5)

[1] Experience has shown that I was in error in the statement of this sentence. It has been found to operate to the disadvantage of our students entering other institutions in graduate as well as undergraduate departments. Graduate schools have become very particular, some of them not being satisfied without passing in review well nigh the entire former school life of an applicant, apparently to assure themselves that no short-cuts have been made. This fact is an interesting confirmation of the position of this article relative to the importance of content—when it pleads for quantity, as well as quality.

This entire matter is made clear by referring to one instance. Others could be cited. One of our graduates, Miss Ethel J. May, a very strong student, "profited" by the so-called "credit-for-quality" system to such an extent that she shortened her undergraduate period of study by an entire year, receiving her degree with honor. Then she taught for a few years with signal success, later returning for graduate work. For her Master's degree she spent an entire year in study, since the system did not operate in the graduate department. Again she taught with success, later entering the University of Illinois as an applicant for the doctorate. Here it was that her troubles began, and all because she had thus "profited" way back in her undergraduate days. She was told that the year "saved" would now have to be made up—that the period of study for her doctorate would have to be at least three years, and this in spite of the fact that she held the degree of Master of Arts from a state university of the first class, and was planning to continue along the same lines of work. After considerable discussion and institutional negotiation, this much of a concession was made: "If your work proves to be excellent, your shortage will be disregarded." So she went to work with that incubus, or stimulus—whichever you wish to regard it—over her. Neither she nor her committee knew how to plan her work, not knowing whether it was to be for two years or for three. And not until the very close of her year's work was her status determined—full credit then being granted for her former degrees. Miss May's sane comment now is, "I would not advise any one to try to shorten the regular four-year undergraduate period of study." (Author 1918)

It is demoralizing to both students and teachers. I refer to the inevitable outcome of such a system; some students (sometimes few and sometimes many) develop considerable skill in "working the Prof." Teachers offering elective courses are constantly under great temptation and students are shrewd enough to know it. And again, under the same count: it is freely claimed by both teachers and students that the cheating in examinations, of which we doubtless have our share (some claim much more than our share, tho personally I doubt it), is very greatly increased if not largely caused by our system of marking. In hopes of remedying this some of the students are now urging the adoption of the "honor system" of conducting examinations. (6) It is impossible to create uniform standards corresponding to our various grades. There are as many standards for each grade as there are instructors. A grade of work for which one instructor would give an "A" (1.3), another would give a "B" (1.2) and still another a "C" (1.0). Standards can not be fixt. To show how greatly they differ, in marking the work for the first term of this year one instructor gave only seven per cent of his students extra credit, while another thus rewarded more than seventy per cent of his. This range, however, is abnormal. But a range of twenty-five per cent to sixty-five per cent is not, even tho the two instructors have approximately the same students and do approximately the same grade of work. Other evils and weaknesses might be mentioned, but these are sufficient to show the tendency.

On the other hand, what strong paints can be urged as an offset? The only ones I have ever heard offered are: (1) it is an incentive, and (2) it does enable students to shorten the period of undergraduate work. I grant them both, but I hold that the incentive is a low one—much lower than we need to use—and that the shortening of the course is far from being an unmixt blessing.

Let me again refer to the matter of content, upon our value of which, to quite an extent, our estimate of the merit of the "Credit-for-quality" system must rest. The young people in our colleges and universities, in planning for lives of usefulness and success, place themselves in our hands for direction and guidance. Knowing that we are older, wiser, more learned, and more experienced than they, they ask our advice and, in the main, follow it. To the incentives we use in dealing with them, they respond; the motives we supply urge them on; the standards of value we erect for them, they use; and the ideals we place before them, they try to reach. All this places large responsibilities upon us. Are we wise in telling from fifteen to twenty per cent of these young people that three years is all the time that it is wise for them to spend in college work? They will all remain the full four years unless we plan differently for them. To be sure, there is no magic in the number four as numbering the years of one's college course, nor in three, nor in two, nor in any other number. But would not any normal student who spends four years in the college atmosphere, mingling with college people, both students and teachers, doing college work, drinking from the pure fountains of literature, of history, of philosophy, of science, of art, et cetera, be broader in range and more fully equipt for the varied and complicated duties of life and for life's enjoyment, than he would be with only three years thus spent? And is not the fourth year by far the best of the four? Why shall you and I discourage him from doing that which we know to be well for him and which he is willing to do? Why deny him the rare fruitage of that fourth year? Why say to him when he is just ready to enter into the enjoyments of his student life, "you would better go?" After all, is it not this very three-year student with his finer ability, his keener insight, and his greater industry who can most greatly profit by the extra year? Shall we not rather encourage him to stay longer and delve deeper and reach to the very heart of things? Whether looked at from the standpoint of the student's own advantage, or from that of the world at large, which is to profit by his equipment, is it not really the four-year or even the five-year student who would better be excused at the end of the third year? Instead of being in a hurry to send our choice students away, let us get them to do their high quality of work just the same, but to do it during four years instead of three. They are the very ones who will most readily respond to such appeals and they will so respond unless we put other notions into their heads. It is sometimes urged, in justification of the "Credit-for-quality" idea, that one student in three years can accomplish more, in gaining both knowledge and mental power, than another in four. There is no doubt about it. Some can do more in two years than others in four; some in one, and some with no college work can easily outstrip others with the best advantages. Shall we say to such an one, "you do not need to go to college—it would be time wasted"? By no means. Above all others we want him because he can most largely profit by what he gets, and we shall reap the reward later on. But supposing one student at the close of his third college year is better able to make his way in the world than another at the end of his fourth year, that is not the question at all. The function of the college is not to bring students to a level, but to develop each one to the utmost. Each should be considered separately and the question asked, "the longer or the shorter term—which will do the more for him?"

Some other developments here can hardly fail to be of interest. Originally planned to operate in our entire institution, exclusive of the College of Law into which it was not allowed to enter, this system has gradually been eliminated from all the colleges save the College of Liberal Arts and Teachers College. True, in these colleges of exclusion the matter of content figures more prominently than in the others—the curricula are more fixt—but that is far from being the only reason for the exclusion. And even more suggestive as touching the secondary school extension recommended by the article under discussion, is our recent action excluding the system from our preparatory department, now being transformed into a model high school for Teachers College. This elimination, likewise, was in part due to the fixt number of courses demanded of all secondary schools, but yet, not largely so. When this matter came up for decision it needed no emphasis upon that point to carry the recommendation. It would have carried without those conditions. The strongest advocates of the system did not, by a single word, urge its retention in the Model High School. All felt, seemingly, that it was not well suited to students of that grade.

NOTE.—The reason for repeating this article here is largely historical, tho interest in the matter discust occasionally crops out even yet. It will be of interest to some who have not otherwise heard of it to learn that the University of North Dakota long since discarded the system. It was voted out completely early in the year 1910. And thus was realized Professor Kennedy's apprehension exprest in his Educational Review discussion of 1906: "We have, I grant, had our doubts and fears, knowing well that many a promising theory lies high and dry on the shoals of the past."



INDEX

Academies, 221

Adolescent, 46-49, 54-56, 67, 68, 74, 81, 85, 219, 231

Adults, 211, 212, 213

Aliens, education of, 25

Alien people, 21

Appleton's Cyclopedia, 165

Arithmetic, 154

Ayers, 120

Barnard, Henry, 220

Bay State, Old, 64

Binet, 57

Boards of Education, 45, 156, 195

Bowdoin College, 243, 250

Burbank, Luther, 166

Burns, Robert, 136, 138

Bureau of Education, 19

Butler, Nicholas Murray, 96, 97, 103

California, 233, 234

Carter, 218

Child, the, 43, 44, 45, 68, 116, 117, 121, 140, 141, 147, 151, 154, 195

Child Study, 43, 45, 49, 54, 58, 85

Child-Welfare, 49

Church, 133, 141-159

Civil War, 107, 222

College, 69-82, 104, 110, 165, 167, 217-237 Law, 260 Liberal Arts, 84, 99, 260

College, Preparation for, 71, 73 Teachers, 45, 219-238

Commissioner of Education, 27

Community Service, 73

Connecticut, 31, 220

County Training School, 219

"Credit-for-Quality" System, 243-260

Cronin, Dr., 125

Dante, 144, 145

Democracy, 29, 31-34, 41, 65, 171, 172, 173, 180

Department of Education, 20

Dewey, John, 42, 43

Diaz, President, 31

Dooley, Mr., 95

Dwight, Edmund, 31, 218

Education Boards of, 45, 84, 156, 195 Bureau of, 19 Department of, 108, 109, 218, 219, 223 Elementary, 65, 75 History of, 81, 82, 83, 84, 227, 228 Motive in, 38 Philosophy of, 81, 84 Physical, 50, 66, 155, 203 Principles of, 82, 83, 224 Professional, 81 School of in North Dakota, 82-85 School of, 83-85, 108-111, 218 Secondary, 75, 84, 85, 164 Universal, 24

Educational mesurements, 56

Educational psychologist, 56, 58, 59

Educational Review, 243, 251, 260

Educational Survey, 51, 52, 59

Elementary School, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 105, 106, 107, 108, 230, 231

England, 30, 173

Entrance requirements, 44, 48, 76, 80

Ernest, Duke, 32

Euthydemus, 98

Eye, 115-118, 120, 121, 129

Federal Government, 28

Folk, Joseph W., 173, 174

Foster, President, 95, 102, 105

France, 32, 229

Frederick the Great, 30, 32

Frederick William I, 30

Froebel, 39

Garfield, ex-President, 90

Georgia, 24

Germans, 30, 31

Germany, 32, 120, 229

Gladstone, William Ewart, 173, 174

Gotha, 32

Government, the, 19

Grand Forks, North Dakota, 186-199

Greek, 99, 100

Gulick, 120

Harris, Dr. William T., 231

Harvard College, 65, 219, 224

Heeter, S. L., 124, 125

Herbart, 39

High Schools, 44-47, 53, 55, 63-86, 107, 108, 220, 223, 233, 234, 247, 248

High School Teacher, 46-49, 80-85, 178, 222, 223, 228, 233-238

Hill, James J., 166

History, 154, 155

History of Education, 81, 82, 83, 84, 224

Home, 26, 66, 133-159

Homer, 99, 100

Hyde, President, 243, 250

Illiteracy, 20-24

Individualism, Theory of, 39, 43

Iowa, Legislature of, 49

Jefferson City, 120, 123

Johnson, Hiram W., 173

Jordan, David Starr, 72, 177

Kennedy, Professor, 244, 251, 252, 260

Law, School of, 108, 110

Leadership, 75-81, 163-181

Lecture method, 99-103

Lincoln, 166

Literature, 232, 234, 258

Lloyd-George, David, 166

Locke, 203

Longfellow, 207

Los Angeles, 123

Louises, the, of France, 32

McAdoo, Mr., 218, 220

Mann, Horace, 218, 220

Massachusetts, 24, 25, 31, 65, 107, 220

Medical Inspection, 22, 27, 193, 194

Medicine, School of, 108, 110

Methods of Teaching, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

THE END