« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
tion is to be found in imitation. Men are vastly more susceptible to imitation, especially unconscious imitation, when they are in large bodies and in close contact. Modern life, with its trolley car, telephone and daily newspaper, has brought man into close contact, and has made millions as susceptible to imitation of a single leader as hundreds or thousands were in ancient days when crowded together in an army or popular assembly. The virtues and vices of modern society should be spelled with capital letters, not because they are deities, but because they are virtues and vices of society as a whole, rather than of individuals acting separately. Imitation implies someone who is chosen for imitation. Such persons society calls geniuses or leaders. The progress of society depends upon the capacity of its leaders to lead wisely and the capacity of the many to imitate or assimilate well.
Education as a social institution for the good of the many must produce these two classes of men. In producing excellent followers and assimilators education has been remarkably successful. In producing geniuses or leaders education has been doubtful, uncertain and sometimes hindering. And yet this work, the more difficult of the two, is surely of equal importance for social progress. To attain better results the schools must not treat all pupils alike, but they must select those most promising in capacity for leadership and give them especial training. They must provide teachers who are themselves leaders. The startling and rapid feminization of the teachers in our schools does not tend to produce boys with virile spirit of leadership. Boys who are capable of becoming leaders must come in contact with men who themselves have the spirit of
leadership. If our nation is to have wise leaders the schools must emphasize the responsibility of leadership. The true leader is not one who is victor as a competitor among equals, but one who advances himself and draws others up to him. He is a shepherd of the people. Our people are in dire need of such unselfish leaders. The schools as a social institution should produce them for society.
THE NECESSITY OF ORGANIZING CONTEM
PORARY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
PAUL H, HANUS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
About twenty-five years ago we began in earnest to improve our narrow and formal elementary school programs of study, consisting chiefly of reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar and statistical geography, by "enrichment;" and our equally narrow single high school program, consisting chiefly of Latin, Greek and mathematics, by the addition of semi-classical and non-classical programs.
This has led to some intelligent experimenting, much unintelligent imitation, and very general confusion, some congested programs, and not infrequently, scrappy and superficial work.
About fifteen years ago we began also to realize that the organization and administration of our town and city school systems had outgrown the simplicity and efficiency of earlier days; that the organization was often cumbersome, and wise administration of school affairs hampered and obstructed by the obsolete system
of organization then and still quite generally in force; and that both too often lent themselves to spoils-hunting politicians and other self-seekers. During the past dozen years, or more, thoughtful teachers and laymen have been earnestly endeavoring to secure improvement by a transformation that should adapt the existing organization and administration of schools to the changed conditions of the present day ;—to do this chiefly by the centralization of responsibility and authority in the hands of paid experts, responsible to Boards of Education or School Committees, and by the restriction of the duties of Boards of Education or School Committees to legislative functions. Progress in these matters is, however, very slow; because it is difficult to wrest power that has been and is always liable to abuse from those who have exercised it; because teachers, school officers, and especially the general public do not clearly see the immense harm in bad organization and administration; and because many are not convinced that the proposed schemes for the re-organization of city school systems must tend to remove the evils from which we suffer.
Accordingly, we are at the present moment, lost amid questions of what is a good course of study in history, mathematics, nature study, and the rest ; what is a good program of studies, i.e., what should be its scope, the sequence and distribution of the studies and activities provided, and how much time should be spent on them?
We are also lost amid questions of organization and administration. One city does this, another that; and no one is prepared to prove by an array of incontesti
ble facts just what the present evils are, or how the newer organization and administration tend to remove theni.
I. The contemporary condition of school programs is shown by the statistical tables A, B, and I to XI. (Table A is taken from the Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education, and shows the subjects studied in the elementary schools, together with the time devoted to those studies in twenty-one cities of the U. S. in 1888-89. Table B is compiled from reports prepared by the U. S. Commissioner of Education for the Pan-American Exposition, in Buffalo, in 1900, and shows the same things as table A for 18 cities. The remaining tables, i.e., I to XI were worked out by the students in the Seminary in education at Harvard University during the past year, and in various ways show for the present year the same facts as tables A and B for ten cities. [Boston and neighboring cities, and New York City.]
These tables accordingly show: I, The scope of elementary instruction in the cities chosen, and are fairly typical of the cities of the country. 2, Variations in time allotment for the same subject in different cities. In some cities certain studies receive three or more times the time devoted to them in others.
II. The study of these programs gives rise to the following questions: I, If the maximum percentage of time is necessary, how can the minimum percentage be justified ? 2, If the minimum percentage is adequate, why waste the pupils' time? Hence: 3, How shall the requisite amount of time be determined? This can be done as follows: aDetermine or agree on what should be done, accomplished in each study.
b--Agree on concerted experimenting over a sufficently wide area and for a sufficiently long time.
III. The diversity in the organization of city school systems is as great as the diversity in programs of study. They are:
a—Large Boards of Education. b-Small Boards of Education. 6-Many Executive Sub-Committees and limited
powers of the superintendent. d—No Sub-Committees or few Sub-Committees and
large powers vested in the superintendent. Which is best? We have no authoritative information on these questions. We have occasional reports of individual experience, but no comprehensive and convincing reports as to just how these different schemes of organization and administration actually work.
For example: Questions like the following constantly come to my desk-For what should the superintendent be held responsible ? For what the Board of Education? Who should select the textbooks? Who should determine the course of study ? Who should have the determining voice in selecting and rejecting teachers? What are the best ways in which a Board of Education can determine the character of the work done in school? At present such questions cannot be answered save from the standpoint of individual experience and observation. Such answers necessarily lack the convincing force which they ought to possess.
IV. To secure the comprehensive, and if possible convincing information needed on these questions concerning programs, and organization and administration, the National Department of Superintendents of