Part 11
9. If by the term “oral,” as applied to lessons in biography and in natural science, the Committee means, as the word would imply, that the instruction is to be given in the form of lectures by the teacher, I cannot in full agree with the Committee’s conclusions. As I have already stated, in natural science the work should be largely that of observation, and in history and biography, while in the very lowest grades the teachers should tell the children stories, as soon as it is possible the desired information should be obtained by the student through reading. To this end the reading lesson in school should be properly correlated with his other studies, and he should be advised as to his home reading. The information thus obtained should be the subject of conversation in the class, and should furnish the material for much of the written language work of the children.
10. I must dissent emphatically and entirely from that portion of the report which recommends that a text-book in grammar be introduced into the fifth year of the child’s school life. It is a question in my mind whether it would not be better if the text-book were not introduced into the grades below the high school at all. Certainly it should not appear before the seventh year. Such knowledge of grammar as will familiarize the child with the structure of the sentence, the basis of all language and as will enable him to use correctly forms of speech which the necessities of expression require, should be given orally by the teacher in connection with the child’s written work, when needed; but against the introduction of a text-book upon grammar, the most abstruse of all the subjects of the school curriculum, when the pupil is not more than ten years old, I must protest. Instead of that, the child should devote much time, some every day, to writing upon proper themes in the best English he can command, furnishing occasion to the teacher to correct such errors as he may make, and acquiring by use acquaintance with the correct forms of grammar. If, as will doubtless be the case in most cities, local conditions render the introduction of Latin into the eighth grade inadvisable, this study of grammar may be made in that grade somewhat more intensive.
11. If by a text-book in geography is meant that which is commonly understood by the term, and not simply geographical reading matter, in my judgment, it should not be introduced earlier than the fifth year.
These suggestions and expressions of dissent, if approved by the Committee, would necessitate some change in the programme submitted, the most important of which would be the making room for the production of English in the grades. This could be provided in the first and second grades by taking some of the time devoted to penmanship and doing the work partly in connection with the reading classes. In the third and fourth grades it should take some of the time devoted to penmanship and should be studied also in connection with geography and reading, and in the fifth and sixth grades it should take all of the time given to grammar.
I regret to be compelled to express dissent upon so many points, but as most of them appear to me vital and as the differences appear to be not merely superficial but fundamental, affecting and affected by one’s entire educational creed, I cannot do otherwise. To most of the report I most gladly give my assent and approval.
BY L. H. JONES, OF CLEVELAND.
I agree most heartily with the main features of the foregoing report of the sub-committee on correlation of studies. It is so admirable in its analysis of subjects and in its statement of comparative education values, and so suggestive in its practical applications to teaching, that I regret to find myself appearing in any way to dissent from its conclusions. Indeed, my principal objection is not against anything contained in the report (unless it be against a possible inference which might be drawn at one point), but it refers rather to what seems to me to be an omission.
In addition to all the forms of correlation recommended in the report, it seems to me possible to make a correlation of subjects in a programme in such way that the selection of subject-matter may be to some extent from all fields of knowledge. These selections should be such as are related to one another so as to be mutually helpful in acquisition. They should be the main features of knowledge in the different departments.
These different departments from which the chosen subjects should be taken must be fundamental ones and must be sufficiently numerous to represent universal culture. The report itself indicates conclusively what these are.
Reference is made in the report to various attempts that have been made to correlate subjects of study.
A very just criticism is made upon that attempt at correlation by the use of the story of Robinson Crusoe as a centre of correlation. It is distinctly pointed out in the report that the experiences of Robinson Crusoe are lacking in many of the elements of universal culture, and in many elements of education needed to adjust the individual properly to the civilization of our time and country. It is equally evident that the attempt to make this story the centre of correlation leads directly to trivial exercises in other subjects in order to make them “correlate” with Robinson Crusoe. It is also shown in the report that it naturally leads to fragmentary knowledge of many subjects very much inferior to that clear, logically connected knowledge of a subject which may be had by pursuing it without reference to correlating it with all others.
It is at this point that in my judgment a wrong inference is permitted by the report.
It does not, as it seems to me, follow that because correlation based on Robinson Crusoe is a failure, all correlations having the same general purpose will necessarily prove failures. For my own part, I do not believe that correlation needs any “centre,” outside the child and its natural activities. If, however, it seems wiser to give special prominence to any given field of acquisition, it should, in my judgment, be accorded to language and its closely related subjects--reading, spelling, writing, composing, study of literature, etc., etc. Indeed, language as a mode of expression is organically related to thinking, in all fields of knowledge, as form is related to content. A “system” or “programme” of correlation on this basis would seek for fundamental ideas in all the leading branches and make them themes of thought and occasions of language exercises. The selections would omit all trivialities in all subjects, and would not attempt to correlate for the mere sake of correlation; but would seek to correlate wherever by such correlation kindred themes may be made to illuminate one another. To illustrate, concrete problems in arithmetic would be sought that would clearly develop and illustrate mathematical ideas and their application; but in a secondary way these problems would be sought for in the various departments of concrete knowledge--geography, history, physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, political, industrial, or domestic economy. But none of these themes would be so relied upon for problems as to compel one to choose unreasonable or trivial relations on which to base them. The problems themselves should represent true and important facts and relations of the other subjects as surely and rigidly as they should involve correct mathematical principles; and all such exercises should be rightly related to the child’s education in language.
In like manner, when a child is engaged in nature study of any kind, some valuable problems in mathematics may be found rightly related both to the subject directly in hand and the child’s natural progress in arithmetic. Also many of the lessons in nature study are directly related to some of the finest literature ever produced, in which analogies of nature are made the means of expression for the finest and most delicate of the human experiences. When the child has mastered the physical facts on which the literary inspiration is based is the true time to give him the advantage of the study of such literature. These ideas are not only rightly related to one another, but to the mind itself. It is, so to speak, the nascent moment when the mind can easily and fully master what might else remain an impenetrable mystery; and all because subjects and occasion have come into happy conjunction.
This is not the place in which to attempt any elaboration of such a system of correlation. But I feel that its absence from the report may make many persons feel that the latter is so far incomplete.
BY WILLIAM H. MAXWELL, OF BROOKLYN.
With the main lines of thought in this report I find myself in agreement. With many of its details, however, I am not in accord. I regret to have to express my dissent from its conclusions in the following particulars:--
1. The report makes too little of the uses of grammar as supplying canons of criticism which enable the pupil to correct his own English, and as furnishing a key (grammatical analysis) that gives him the power to see the meaning of obscure or involved sentences.
2. For the study of literature, complete works are to be preferred to the selections found in school readers.
3. That species of language exercise known as paraphrasing I regard as harmful.
4. The study of number should not be omitted from the first year in school. Practice in the primary operations of arithmetic should not be omitted from the seventh and eighth years. The quadratic equation should be reserved for the high school.
5. The foreign language introduced into the elementary school course should be a modern language--French or German. Latin should be reserved for those who have time and opportunity to master its literature.
6. In the general programme of studies, the school day is cut up into too many short periods. The tendency of such a programme as that in the text would be to destroy repose of mind and render reflection almost an impossibility.
7. I desire to express my agreement with the opinions stated in Sections 2, 3, 6, and 9 of Mr. Gilbert’s dissenting opinion; and, in the main, with what Mr. Jones says on the correlation of studies.
Dissent from Dr. Draper’s Report.
BY EDWIN P. SEAVER, BOSTON.
I find myself in general accord with the doctrines of the report. There is only one feature of it from which I feel obliged to dissent, and that is an important though not necessarily a vital one. I refer to the office of school director. I see no need of such an officer elected by the people, and I do see the danger of his becoming a part of the political organization for the dispensation of patronage.
All power and authority in school affairs should reside ultimately in the board of education, consisting of not more than eight persons appointed by the mayor of the city, to hold office four years, two members retiring annually and eligible for reappointment once and no more. This board should appoint as its chief officer a superintendent of instruction, whose tenure should be during good behavior and efficiency, and whose powers and duties should be to a large extent defined by statute law, and not wholly or chiefly by the regulations of the board of education. The superintendent of instruction should have a seat and voice but not a vote in the board of education. The board of education should also appoint a business agent, and define his powers and duties in relation to all matters of buildings, repairs, and supplies, substantially as set forth in the report in relation to the school director.
All teachers should be appointed and annually reappointed or recommended by the superintendent of instruction, until after a sufficient probation they are appointed on a tenure during good behavior and efficiency.
All matters relating to courses of study, text-books, and examinations should be left to the superintendent and his assistants, constituting a body of professional experts who should be regarded as alone competent to deal with such matters, and should be held accountable therefor to the board of education only in a general way, and not in particular details.
BY ALBERT G. LANE, CHICAGO.
I concur in the recommendations of the sub-committee on the Organization of City School Systems as summarized in the concluding portion of the report, omitting in item THIRD the words, “And that it be constituted of two branches acting against each other.” Omit FIFTH, “But we think it preferable that he be chosen in the same way that members of the board are chosen and be given veto power upon the acts of the board.” I recommend that the veto power be given to the president of the board.
Discussion on Report of Dr. Harris.
FRANK M. MCMURRY, _Franklin School, Buffalo_: My remarks have no reference to the dissenting opinions, but will be confined to the correlation in the main body of the report. So far, we have listened to the definition of correlation; my remarks refer to that, and to its influence on the course of study.
The address by Miss Arnold last night referred to correlation. That lecture is not in accord with the report of five in regard to this subject. We have been using two synonyms for correlation--coördination and concentration. Many persons have gotten their definition through their ideas of concentration. People have in mind, as I understand it, mainly the relation of studies to one another. Let me give one or two samples in addition to last night’s suggestions. Let me refer to Egypt. The geography will naturally take the Nile, the drawing will take up cardboard work, etc., the pupil will deal with the pyramid and the triangle in mathematics, and with language work in the whole subject. I give that as a simple illustration of concentration.
I turn to the part of the report where they take up correlation by synthesis of studies; that, as I understand it, was the thought in the mind of Miss Arnold, and it is what is in my own mind. They take up the subject of Robinson Crusoe. I think they should look into it further, but it is not my purpose to defend Robinson Crusoe. They have taken the story of Robinson Crusoe as a type and they have condemned that as a type. We may think they aim mainly at the story of Robinson Crusoe alone, but they say, “Your committee would call attention in this connection to the importance of the pedagogical principle of analysis and isolation as preceding synthesis and correlation. There should be rigid isolation of the elements of each branch for the purpose of getting a clear perception of what is individual and peculiar in a special province of learning.”
They warn us against having studies closely tied together. They do not realize, as it seems to me, that the chief fault of our present studies is that they do not support each other. The report is opposed from principle to this kind of correlation. They refer later to this matter in these words: “Your committee has already mentioned a species of faulty correlation wherein the attempt is made to study all the branches in each, misapplying Jacotot’s maxim, ‘all is in all.’” Farther than that, they show a large lack of sympathy with this point. They have no allusion to the fact that the different sciences have a relationship with one another. By their omissions, as well as their positive statements, they show their opposing attitude toward correlation.
They talk about having a proper sequence in the studies,--they do not insist upon it from principle. They say, “The most practical knowledge of all, it will be admitted, is a knowledge of human nature,--a knowledge that enables one to combine with his fellow-men and to share with them the physical and spiritual wealth of the race. Of this high character as humanizing or civilizing are the favorite works of literature found in the school readers, about one hundred and fifty English and American writers being drawn upon for the material.” In other words, they are in sympathy with the text-book readers. In enforcing that point further, “In the first three years the reading should be limited to pieces in the colloquial style, but selections from the classics of the language in prose and poetry shall be read to the pupil from time to time.” “In the years from the fifth to the eighth there should be some reading of entire stories, such as Gulliver’s Travels, Robinson Crusoe,” and so forth.
As I understand it, we should have wholes in literature from the beginning. There are sixty pages in this report, only two of them refer to the subject of concentration, and they condemn that subject from principle. They show that they do not, from principle, favor the idea of connected thought. That is my first point--opposition to the whole matter. [Applause.]
The next point is, What do they discuss? [Laughter.] They have four points in their definition of correlation. The fourth point is the chief subject. “Your committee understands by correlation of studies the selection and arrangement in order of sequence of such objects of study as shall give the child an insight into the world that he lives in, and a command over his resources such as is obtained by healthful coöperation with one’s fellows. In a word, the chief consideration to which all others are to be subordinated, in the opinion of your committee, is this requirement of the civilization into which the child is born as determining what he shall study in school.” There is the old idea of study, in which, from the adult standpoint, we decide that what the child will use as a man shall constitute his course. We have had the three R’s and we have tended to kill the children. The new education is based on child study, apperception, and interest. We have reached the conclusion that knowledge is not primarily for the sake of knowledge, but for use, and the only condition under which the ideas will be active is that they shall appeal to the child and shall fit his nature. Child study, interest, and apperception demand that the chief factor shall be the nature of the child--that is not the attitude of this committee of five. “Your committee is of the opinion that psychology of both kinds, physiological and introspective, can hold only a subordinate place in the settlement of questions relating to the correlation of studies. The branches to be studied and the extent to which they are studied will be determined mainly by the demands of one’s civilization.” Psychology, in a plain statement, “will largely determine the methods of instruction, the order of taking up the several topics so as to adapt the school work to the growth of the pupil’s capacity.” In other words, the committee have failed to be influenced as to a course of study by other considerations than the demands of civilization. They state plainly that psychology shall be a subordinate matter in determining curriculum. The fact is to be seen in their course of study. Reading, nature study, and history are the principal subjects, but in the minds of the committee the principal subjects are reading, writing, etc., for the first three years. I do not believe it. In the first three years, reading pieces; in other words, the first three years do not deal primarily in rich ideas. One objection to Robinson Crusoe--“It omits cities, governments, the world commerce, the international process, the church, the newspaper, and book from view.” They are not in sympathy with the child. I would choose Robinson Crusoe because it does not deal with subjects which are outside the child’s interest.
* * * * *
F. W. PARKER, _Cook County Normal, Chicago_: When I moved, two years ago, the appointment of this committee, I had in mind the careful study of the whole matter of correlation that teachers in this country should get from the highest sources the doctrine and the highest criticism,--that a report should be presented which should follow the greatest report upon education in this century,--the report of the Committee of Ten. I have not had time to study this report and can, therefore, say very little upon it. These subjects should be studied with the greatest care. It seems to me that there are some general criticisms which may be made in the brief time at my command.
We cannot doubt that these gentlemen have made the most careful study of the doctrine of Herbert and of his disciples,--Ziller, Stoy, and Rein; they have also had their eye upon the distinguished students of this doctrine in this country. The failure of this report is that they haven’t even given us the fundamental doctrine of Herbert. There is no doubt that the Herbartian doctrine and all other doctrines of concentration are ignored in their fundamental essentials. That is what this committee has left out--it is the old story, the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out, or to put it a little more mildly, Hamlet kicked out. It seems that this doctrine is the only doctrine which furnishes a grand working hypothesis to the teachers of the world. It should be examined most carefully, and what cannot bear the closest criticism should be rejected. The five, with the dissent of the Western men, have not deemed it worthy of this attention and have rejected it _in toto_.
Poor old Robinson Crusoe bears the brunt, notwithstanding our esteemed friends of the Normal University, who wish to interest the children in something. Sometimes we go into schools where there is not much interest, especially in spelling and grammar. I leave the defense of Robinson Crusoe to Mr. McMurry.
The other reference is to language. “It is not wise to stop a child to correct his mistakes in grammar”! “The development of language cannot be organically related to the development of thought”! It is one of the fundamental principles, if I understand it, that the development of thought should have as a necessity the evolution of language. This, says the report, cannot be done; grammar must be developed by itself and language by itself. If I am incorrect, I beg to be excused. I can only refer to a few features of this report in the tabulated programme. A course of study is absolutely necessary, but it should be marked “for this day only.” We take the subject of reading twice every day for the first two years, once a day for the next six years. Reading is thinking, it should be educated thinking. We cannot do thinking without the subjects to be learned--as geography and science. Science, according to the programme, is to be taught by oral lessons. The world is round, but children cannot reason. Would it not be well to go into the laboratory to see whether the children cannot reason? The child, by force of his nature, must reason--must find out these things. I am quoting from John Dewey. But we are told in this report that the subject of science, at least a few things in these subjects, must be told him first. I never knew a case of the kind, but it may be.
Now, I would say to this committee of five, have your reading the best literature,--there should be nothing but literature. Should we not have literature from the beginning? is the question we are asking. It seems to be the case that this report leaves very little to ask. The child spends all his time in reading--reading what? Can the child learn to get thought in reading? Some of us think he can. Is it not well to follow here the scientific method and find out whether the child can learn to read beautifully and well? The same of writing. I see the millions bowed down for years to the copy books. Is there no way out? Is there no relief? Is it possible for the child to learn to write as he learns to talk, or must he be bound to the desk? [Time]