same in both countries. Such a conclusion seems fair enough, as it is not easy to see that special difficulties can exist in the American mixed class and be absent in our own. Perhaps cherchez la femme may hold the truth. The overwhelming presence of women teachers is bluntly due to the desire to get work done on the cheap. We have it amongst ourselves to some extent we may as well admit. The American excuse that it is better to have a first-rate woman than a third-rate man is plausible enough, but it is beside the question altogether. It implies for one thing that a first-rate, or even a second-rate, man would be better in certain circumstances. Why, then, in the name of that American belief in education do they not pay for the best and get it? Palatial school premises are much to be desired no doubt, so is splendid equipment, but it is the man behind the machine that tells. When all is said and done there do seem some flaws in the armour of this vaunted American belief in education. The second point upon which the joint report is unanimous is "the absence of class prejudices and of any religious difficulty." Over this one may at the same time congratulate the Americans and commiserate ourselves, especially upon the latter part of the statement. Although class prejudice in our own country may not be now what it was formerly, there is still a far cry from our state of things to what evidently rules in America. Of the religious difficulty the less said the better. It will cease to be a difficulty with us only when religion is banished from the school-room, stock, lock, and barrel. In this respect at least the American teacher has reached his millennium for there, "Education is, as far as the public are concerned, treated on its merits; there is no acute religious question obscuring the great issues involved." The italics are my own. If the Americans have not these bugbears to contend with they have instead their own peculiar difficulty. This consists of the very large proportion of foreign children found in American schools. "In one school we saw children of twenty different nationalities." To the credit of the American school this seems to act as an incentive rather than as a deterrent. "It is not less than heroic we say when we see how they tackle the children of foreign parents." The situation is accountable, according to some of the reports, for the great attention paid to the teaching of English. Next to their great principle of "learning by doing," this subject may be looked upon as the corner-stone of their school curriculum, and, if it be going a little too far, as one critic does, to claim that English is taught as a humanity, still the attention given to it might well be imitated by our own schools. With us there is a strong tendency at present for the science teacher to adopt a distinctly supercilious attitude towards English subjects. The well qualified science teacher is, of course, generally above this sort of thing, but it is frequent enough amongst many men in our secondary schools. These individuals are even more blatant in the case of Latin, on the grounds mainly that they know even less about Latin than they do about English. What does science say of the American attitude towards Latin when we find that subject securing a much firmer footing than ever before? In fact as Dr. Harris, the head of the Governmental Department dealing with educational statistics, says, "the students in the secondary schools are increasing five times as fast as the population of the country, and those taking up the study of Latin ten times as fast." One Commissioner in commenting upon this regards the renewed run as a reaction from the unsatisfactory half-yearly courses. But why Latin, and not a modern language? Surely this is a rather amazing testimonial in favour of Latin, especially as we should not expect, at first thought, American aims to be particularly indulgent to such a subject. In the opinion of many wouldbe reformers in this country the removal of Latin from the school syllabus is imperative if the school is to be up to date. Evidently the Americans think otherwise, and rightly too. There are two other features in which we lag behind-the much closer connection between theory and practice in the American school, and their far more perfect system of manual training. As the latter illustrates very appositely their notions about the wedding of theory and practice, perhaps we may take it to show their superiority. In the first place they have what we emphatically have not a properly co-ordinated system from the kindergarten up to the technical college. We, on the contrary, have some kindergarten, then, as a rule, a long blank until the pupils enter the secondary school, that is, if we leave drawing out of the question, although in the American view it is a most important branch of manual work. In addition they have what we emphatically have not a regular body of duly qualified teachers for this subject. Teachers are trained as teachers of manual work, and, as a class, they stand much above our teacher, even although he is armed with a certificate from the London City and Guilds Institute. Far from speaking disparagingly of this examining body, still one can have but very shaky confidence in the experience and knowledge of their qualified teachers to tackle the co-ordination of woodwork with mathematics and mechanics. This, on the other hand, has been more than attempted in America, as it is already a practical success in the Washington schools, according to Principal Reichel's report. Further, as regards the actual teaching of the manual work itself, practice exercises, apart from objects to be actually finished, have been almost totally discarded. To my mind this is only reasonable, but have we not dreary joint-making still flourishing in our midst ? Are we not still content with a routine of exercises that are in the main utterly aimless from the boy's point of view? From personal observation I can vouch for little else. As a sort of concession third or fourth year lads may perhaps be allowed to make simple useful objects, but how much may they have been sickened before they attain this giddy height? There has always been a good deal of talk about the value of manual training in its power for raising the interests of the pupil. Let us grant that there is such interest and ask for its origin. The answer lies mainly in the fact that the boys like it in many cases for the greater freedom they have in the workshop than could possibly be permitted to them in a more formal lesson in the class-room. I am not for a moment denying manual work its due place in the school curriculum, but our methods of teaching it seem easy going and perfunctory compared with what is done in America. How many of our workshop classes, for example, could claim conscientiously to aim at this. "The bench work consists in the making of a series of prescribed objects, culminating in an original object, of which the main lines are suggested by the teacher but the detailed design worked out by the pupil." The artistic possibilities of the work have also far more attention paid to them than is the case with us. Pupils are encouraged not only to turn out a workmanlike job, but also to treat it, so far as their powers go, in an artistic manner. The æsthetic side has yet to be approached in our school workshops, and this will not be done successfully without a large modification of our present methods. America sets us a good example in the much greater liberality, both public and private, shown in the building and equipment of her educational institutions. Not that there is a total want of this in our own country, but the Commissioners imply in their remarks that it is a far more general feature in America. With us it is noticeable chiefly for its rarity. The one serious flaw in American achievement in this direction has been alluded to already, but its astounding incongruity may excuse another reference to it. Their niggardliness in the payment of teachers cannot but strike the intelligent observer with regret, while it will surely at the same time fill him with wonder that the American ideal should be so shortsighted in its policy. So far as one can judge they have succeeded in banishing the male teacher from the school-room, and for this they may pay dearly in more ways than one, as "it cannot contribute to the virility of a nation for a large number of its boys to be taught and guided almost entirely up to the age of eighteen by women." Even the small proportion of men left cannot have their hearts in their work, as they seem largely to regard their present position as a stepping-stone to better or at least more lucrative posts outside. Under the conditions, however, small blame can be attached to them if they are reluctant to adopt the profession of teacher as their life-work. It was once wisely said that "teaching is the noblest of all professions but the sorriest of all trades," and America is doing her best evidently to point the moral and adorn the tale. Some of the incidental points, raised in one or other of the various reports, are in themselves worthy of consideration. In the teaching of history, for example, the Americans have adopted a logical standpoint in admitting "civics" as a subject deserving of careful attention even as early as the infant stage. Quite apart from the desirability of children acquiring some knowledge of the general history of their own country, it surely seems preposterous to neglect equipping them with some account of "the history of the present time." Yet do we do so? I am afraid one may look long enough through the time-tables of our schools before a nook for this is found. In America, on the contrary, "civics," as they term it, receives "the most careful and detailed attention." The cynic may retort that little good seems to come of it, as the American citizen is more often than not a Gallio in the matter of civic pride, and painfully indifferent to the Tammany bosses and political jobbers flourishing in his midst. These sores, however, originate otherwise, and, if future generations are to stamp them out, a careful and systematic account of the rights and duties of citizenship cannot be too early implanted in the youthful mind. As a matter of fact if history is to be taught at all thoroughly, then the history of the present, in some of its aspects at least, must form very much more than a mere fractional part of that teaching. In the teaching of French and German, America can show no improvement upon us. Actual conversation teaching seems as rare there as it is here, while they pay far less attention to grammatical accuracy. Of one class we are told that it knew some of the literary aspects of the French Revolution but "it must be admitted it was from our point of view woefully ignorant of the niceties of French grammar, some of the pupils failing even in the conjugation of the verb 'avoir.'' A knowledge of the literary aspects of any great period is no doubt worth having. Whether children can really benefit by it is very much open to question, but there can be no doubt that it is out of place entirely when gained at the expense of almost total ignorance of the language itself. If the statement represents the general truth at all fairly, then all that need be said is that, bad though we may be in this ourselves, still we have much to be thankful for. On the whole our methods of teaching these and most other subjects seem quite as good comparatively, although on the other hand in organisation and administration America shows ns the way. For instance, we might with advantage follow in their footsteps and discourage our somewhat disreputable prize-system and our "pot hunting" especially in the higher domains of education. We might likewise lessen teachers' worries in examination matters by adopting their "accrediting" system and thus doing away with entrance examinations and their numerous evils. Yet again, the reports of the Commission do not call upon us to fall down and worship. We have but to take the remarks of those Commissioners, who from experience were best able to judge, in order to cull a considerable number of don'ts from the American system. Don't underpay the teacher. It is penny wise and pound foolish. Don't overcrowd your time-table. It may look imposing but at bottom it is a fraud. And above all; Festina lente, for “ this noticeable habit of universal hurry is decidedly injurious as regards solid education and workmanship in all schools." Many To many readers the report will come somewhat as a surprise, for our ears have been deafened for long enough by the shouts of kind friends eager to show us how immeasurably inferior we are in educational ways and means to both America and Germany. of us had got to such a pass that nothing was expected save another push deeper into the "slough of despond." In place of that we are told that we are not altogether so blind as we have been made out. We have got now, instead, just a shade of suspicion that there has been a considerable amount of cheap advertisement on the part of both of these nations, and a very large amount of vaporous talk amongst people in our country about our educational delinquencies. The report does not tell us that we are perfect by any means, but it comforts us with the truth that we are neither hopelessly outclassed now, nor likely with much certainty to be so in the near future. CHARLES MENMUIR. |