There is another agency much akin to this that has been greatly neglected. Every ward school should contain a minimum teachers' professional library. Such a library should contain, not only the most helpful books in education, but also such books as will enlarge a teacher's grasp of the subjects which she is teaching. If either of these two classes of books is to be slighted, let it be the first. Thorogoing grasp of the subject and life outside the school are the primary prerequisites to all good teaching. The need for reference material cannot be too much strest at a time, such as the present, when rapid reconstruction is going on in all our courses of study. The reaction from supervision, by means of these books, is probably quicker than from any other sort of supervision whatever. Suppose, for example, the teacher of geography of the United States is taking up the problem of food production in this country. Suppose the supervisor puts on the teacher's desk such books as the Statistical Atlas of the United States Census, calling attention to the product maps in it and offering a few suggestions as to how they may be used. Teachers who take offense at even constructive criticisms of teaching methods will accept such service without any irritation whatever. It is a highly impersonal thing.

Let us turn now to the personal agencies in maintaining leadership in a school system. The time of the superintendent will not allow him to do much of this work in person. All general policies must be directed, of course, from the superintendent's office; but who are to be the captains and lieutenants, who are to see that the superintendent's policies are carried out in practice? There are several possibilities. One is to attempt to do this work thru an assistant superintendent. But while this is a step in the right direction, it seems apparent from experience in the past that for cities of the size mentioned sufficient supervision cannot be maintained in this way.

Consider the possibility of solving the problem of immediate leadership thru establishing special supervisors, such as primary supervisors, intermediate supervisors, and handwriting supervisors. The mere problem of going from school to school, even in a city of 25,000, makes it very difficult for a supervisor to give close supervision to many teachers. Moreover, even in towns of 100,000 or more, it is very difficult to secure money to attract the right sort of people for these positions.

A third possibility is to put the responsibility of this work upon the ward principal. In the opinion of the speaker this is the strategic thing to do. The ward principal we have always with us. Thru him we can supervise with less administrative waste. In every school system in which the speaker has had an opportunity to visit a large number of schools it can be truthfully said, as is the principal, so is the ward school.

Of course a wholesale change of principals cannot be brought about in a day or in a year. But there can be a policy of insisting upon training for principals. Let them be found anywhere in the country. St. Louis has done it, with clearly favorable results. Other cities have done it.

Certainly we can stop the quite common practice of using the principalship as a form of teacher pension.

There will, of course, be difficulties. No change in school machinery is without its administrative puzzles. Such a change, however, is not an experiment. No case has come to the speaker's notice where a change in the direction of trained principals has been regretted.

These statements are not by any means intended to imply that no principal can be a valuable leader without a college education. We have all seen teachers as well as supervisors who have succeeded in spite of the handicap of insufficient college preparation. Such success has involved a disproportionate amount of labor, however, and comes to very few. On the other hand a college education is no guaranty of efficiency and leadership. After allowances have been made for native qualities much depends upon the sort of training received in the process of getting the Bachelor's degree or higher degree.

But no matter what supervising arrangement is chosen-whether it be an assistant superintendent, special supervisor, or principal-the men or women who are to furnish the leadership must be trained. From such evidence as I have been able to gather it seems clear that the superintendents in cities of the size of those represented in this audience have to depend for assistance in providing leadership upon supervisors and principals who have no more professional training, and in many cases actually less training, than the teachers who are to be led. For example, in a certain large city 74 per cent of the principals had normal training or better, while 83 per cent of the teachers had normal training or better. In the same city 3 per cent of the principals were college graduates, while 7 per cent of the teachers were college graduates. In another city the average years of professional training on the part of the men teachers is 2.88, while that on the part of men principals is 2.6. In a recent survey of thirty-eight principals, but one was a college graduate and but three had been to college. In the five cities studied in the report of teachers' salaries and the cost of living, the supervisory officials had an average training of 2.6 years, while the grade teachers had a training of 1.8 years. In the same system the average training of high-school teachers was 3.6 years.

Of what should the supervisor's training consist? Suppose that a teacher or principal now in service should desire to undertake a university course in order to fit himself more properly for supervisory work. Should he not be expected above everything else to pursue, first, those courses in education which deal in a practical and scientific way with the problems which arise in organizing and teaching common elementary-school subjects, and secondly, those courses in academic subjects which contribute most directly to scholarship in these school subjects?

In a certain university last summer seventy principals and superintendents elected a course which had for its problem the bringing about of

economy of time in the case of common school subjects. In each case a fairly exhaustive study was made of the data bearing on the teaching of the subject and these data were organized to throw light on such practical problems as confront the classroom teacher. The University Elementary School was used as a laboratory and demonstration school. At the end of the course each member was askt what he had obtained from the course which could be used to improve the teaching under his supervision. Is it not suggestive that no student mentioned any reading or discussion, but that each one named some problem which he had seen actually workt out under classroom conditions in the University Elementary School?

There is one more factor in providing leadership in a school system and that is the special survey. Special surveys have great advantages, particularly where the surveyor is employed to institute a constructive program in the course of study and in the method of teaching this course of study. The surveyor should be required to show precisely what should be taught and how it should be taught. It would be valuable too to have as a part of his contract a follow-up after a few months have elapst.

DISCUSSION

J. W. MCCLINTON, superintendent of schools, Pueblo, Colo.—We are subject to spasms. We are at times spasmodic in our teaching, spasmodic in our preparation, and spasmodic in our results. We take a course with some specialist in education and he is enthusiastic in his field, necessarily so. Under his spell we become charged with his enthusiasm and return to carry those particular principles to extremes. Here is where we need the balance of power and here is where we need the guiding hand. Here is where we need the trained individual to treat our spasmodic condition.

There is too much difference between the salaries paid to superintendents, principals, and supervisors, and those paid to teachers. Find a vacancy in your school system in a supervisory position and immediately you will have a dozen applicants from your teaching force. Examine into the motives of these applicants and it will readily be found that they were led to make application mostly because of the higher salary and the consequent influence that the position commands, and not because of any special adaptability on their part for this field of work. It requires more than salary and position of influence to produce a supervisor of worth. Dr. Horn has in mind an excellent plan for a special course for supervisors, a training for teachers of experience who on account of their experience have found that they are adapted for this important field of assemblage. This course as I understand it would attempt to develop course of study interpretation, course of study making, direction as to plans and methods for presenting various kinds of subject-matter, and the development of traits necessary in handling a teaching force.

I feel that as fine as all of this will prove there is still an additional phase that must enter into our consideration of a supervisor as leader. Leadership is an inherent trait not to be ignored. Show me a group of a hundred students and I will find in them a leader. Break this group into two of fifty and replace the one leader with another student and I will find for you a leader in each group. Take this hundred and divide them into groups of ten each and I will again find a leader in each of these ten divisions. Take the hundred and divide them into groups of two each and in each of the fifty divisions I will find you one of the two a' leader. What is true in general is true of teachers, and that supervisor who is going to prove the greatest leader is the one who is going to recognize that leadership in the teaching force in varying degrees.

A series of questions present themselves with regard to the relation of teacher and supervisor. How much must the teacher accept blindly, or shall we put more emphasis on routine thinking than on original thinking? When must the teacher lead and when follow in working out plans for vitalizing school work? Is there any room for initiative or independence on the part of the teacher in her relation to the supervisor? Shall we have a machine-run system of schools or a personally supervised? Shall the work be personally directed or presented by untried or too oft-tried regulations? How must these questions be answered if we are to have the leadership desired in supervision?

There is no place in the field of activity for blind following, and the person who is content to submit to this condition must necessarily, in the words of one of our leading educators, think potter's field thoughts and therefore find a potter's field resting-place in the science of teaching. The teacher becomes the leader when presenting something new and worth while, and the supervisor becomes an added leader when putting this contribution into the working system of the school. Independence is essential in school work when it is interpreted according to a more recent definition of independence as the choosing of whom to follow and not the selection of one's own devices. The original individual is the person who draws his own conclusions from varied propositions and discussions of others. It resolves itself to the philosophy of the superman, which, based on brute force, must go down, while that based on humanity and opportunity for service must come up.

Leadership such as we want for supervision must then be inherent and subject to a special cause of instruction for development. It cannot be effective as an office leadership, but must be active. It must show itself in classroom teaching by way of demonstration and conference with teachers for cultivation of ideas, plans, and purposes. It is not a glad-hand leadership, but a working, cooperating, investigating leadership based on scientific methods of instruction and subject-matter with its relation to new applications fitting the reconstruction period.

The supervisor to furnish the desired leadership must be an economist in human experiences. This is an age of conservation in financial, physical, and moral living. The principles of the new economics will apply to all. The same application must likewise be made to our educational methods and practices. In the schools we must have the principles of life tried out and tested. The supervisor must make the selection of essentials. The test for finding the supervisor with this ability as a leader will be in the people with whom that supervisor will work. If the members of the teaching force have been great in following, it is inevitable that they have been subjected to the great in leadership. In short, leadership in the new adjustment in education must be provided by the application of the principle of the superman as applied to the economics of experiences in our selection of supervisors.

C. DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN CITIZENSHIP IN THE

HIGH SCHOOL

MILTON BENNION, DEAN OF SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

The American public school systems were founded and have been maintained largely on the theory that they are necessary to the production of good American citizens. During the first few decades of our national life this effort toward citizen-making was confined chiefly to the public elementary school. It consisted in training in the tools of knowledge with the expectation that the prospective citizen would acquire also a rudimentary knowledge of American history and government. This rudimentary knowledge of American history and government was presumed to stimulate

patriotic action and to lead to emulation of the examples of national heroes. Thru ability to read it was assumed that the citizen might acquire knowledge of current political problems and exercise the franchise intelligently.

Secondary schools, under private control and supported, at least in some measure, by tuition, were serving the favored few by preparing them for college rather than for citizenship. The college, in turn, prepared for the professions. It is true that the ideals of the academy were more democratic. It is also true that these democratic ideals failed of realization. Even in the Philadelphia Academy Franklin's cherisht plans miscarried and his new English school was forst into an insignificant position.

The state's assumption of responsibility for secondary education, together with nearly two centuries of educational endeavor, has made the English school, with its emphasis upon study of the mother-tongue, history, science, and modern languages, the chief concern of public high schools today. An examination of these courses, however, readily reveals how little they contribute directly to understanding of problems of public

concern.

The high-school graduate with his commencement prize essay is commonly an object of indulgence or pity on the part of experienst men, largely because his notions of public affairs are too ideal, in the ethereal sense of that term. This of course is due to the fact that the whole course of his education tends to estrange him from the concrete problems of citizenship as they are. Furthermore the young citizen's failure to understand these problems and to harmonize his ethereal idealism with practical success often causes him to throw overboard all idealism and to set about the attainment of practical success with little regard for principle.

The reading of English classics designated for college-entrance requirements, the study of our own colonial and national history, and the history and anatomy of our government are more likely to impress the youthful mind with a democratic individualism impossible in the twentieth century than to lead to intelligent action in a social democracy.

Knowledge of what has been may be very helpful in facing new situations; mere knowledge of past events is not, however, sufficient to enable the citizen to grapple successfully with new situations; he must be master of fundamental principles and must have practice in applying these principles in concrete cases as they arise. In this respect, however, our schools have been lamentably weak—a weakness that can be overcome only by more direct instruction in citizenship.

The formula of the political philosophers of the eighteenth and early and middle nineteenth centuries, including Herbert Spencer, are in large measure unworkable now. This is also true of many of the practices of the American government prior to the Civil War. Thus it happens that that part of the high-school curriculum which is supposed to contribute most directly to preparation for citizenship must be reconstructed or fail in its