interesting lesson upon any topic will materially change the result. We took physiology, which Professor Barnes says is not liked at all. In a fifth-grade room this subject was not mentioned at all. The children disclosed no attitude toward it either of like or dislike. A week later, after oral lessons had been given in which there was some experimentation in which the children had an active part, seven pupils out of forty liked physiology best of all studies. Method is, therefore, seen to be a most important factor. I find sixth-grade rooms in which even grammar is much liked; yet this fact does not prove that grammar belongs in that part of the course. Under good teaching votes could be had for Choctaw as well. 4. While it is true that we ought to be influenced very greatly in our opinion of the existing course of study by the attitude of the child toward it, unless we select for our tests classes skillfully taught, we get no results that can be taken as a fair criticism of the subject-matter of the curriculum. Is not what we do get, if properly interpreted, a criticism of the teaching as shown in the selection of material, and the method used in its presentation? In the study before us undue emphasis seems to me to be placed upon the children's preference and dislike for studies as taught, since how and by whom they are taught are modifying factors unknown to the speaker. Even without any elaborate quantitative studies most of us readily agree to four of the six generalizations which Professor Barnes makes; but let us look for a moment at the fifth. Professor Barnes' statement is that "number is strongly disliked at the beginning of the elementary course." In two third-grade classes well taught the following results were obtained: On June 22 41 per cent. of the children chose arithmetic, while reading, which was second in popu larity, was chosen by only 8 per cent. of the pupils. In three other third-grade classes results were as follows: In class No. 1, 29 out of 35 present chose arithmetic-83 per cent. 5. It seems to me that we are not justified in saying that "the broadening and enriching of the curriculum has given us subjects that do not appeal strongly to children," when we base our judgment upon a questionnaire that does not allow the child to say what his attitude toward them is. We force him to select one of them either as his first choice or as least liked. They may be liked very well indeed without getting into the quantitative study. The phrase "under existing conditions" is the saving clause in this statement. Shall we throw the new subjects out or change existing conditions? Conditions are changing. Those now entering the service as teachers have been taught to draw and to sing; as pupils in the grades they have had sewing and industrial work of various kinds. They will teach these subjects as naturally and as readily as they teach any others. The teacher likes subjects which he can teach well, and as a rule children like what the teacher likes, if they like the teacher. Broadening and enriching the curriculum has not been long enough in evidence to produce its due effect upon the teaching force the country over. Fully one-half of the teachers now in the service have had to take up drawing and music after becoming teachers. In ten or fifteen years more this period of adaptation will have passed. The study that has been presented to us is extremely suggestive. It is highly desirable that teachers should find out the attitude of children toward what they are required to study, but it does not seem to me scientific to make such generalizations as have been made today from the data used. In my judgment, no amount of material thus selected would settle the question of the course of study. Social needs must largely control. Within the range of social needs the child's interest is an important factor, but we must guard against the error of thinking that a topic is not intrinsically interesting when, for all we know, the seeming lack of interest may be the result of indifferent teaching. Such studies as "The Growth of Personality," "Intellectual Accuracy," "The Property Sense," "Rewards and Punishments," and a score of others made by Professor Barnes, have in many a schoolroom given the teacher an entirely new point of view. Expectation has become more reasonable, procedure more rational, sympathy and patience greater, and there has been a more energetic and cheerful response. This is a sufficient justification of such studies, entirely aside from the disputed question of absolute scientific value. MISS ADA VAN STONE HARRIS, supervisor of kindergartens and primary schools, Rochester, N. Y.-We are given certain data in Dr. Barnes' paper from which anyone can draw any kind of a conclusion according to his or her experience. To draw conclusions with reference to the course of study in America from data collected from one or two states, or from several cities in one state, seems to me to indicate a lack of knowledge of the working results of educational methods in general. According to the figures given, we must conclude one of three things: that reading and number are vastly more important than any other subject; that all the others disliked are unimportant; or that the subjects disliked reflect on the teaching. To the first and second we cannot agree. To the latter, yes. I cordially indorse the statement that we begin number work too early, and that physiology, as required by law, has no right to the forced place it occupies, and brings not a shadow of the desired results expected from it. Reading and number are favorite subjects; they should be; they are utilitarian. They can both be taught mechanically with better results relatively than can geography, history, language, and other subjects. It takes more of an artist to teach the latter than the former with corresponding results. I agree also “that the preliminary work in reading is so handled as to command the children's interest, but when technicalities have been mastered the interest dies out." The reason for this is that after the children have mastered the mechanics of reading the teacher has other subjects to occupy her attention; therefore she pays less attention than formerly to her preparation for instruction in this subject. Teachers of children at this stage do not put the vitality into a reading lesson that a teacher of beginners does. The teacher of the beginners has to embellish her instruction in order to make the mechanics attractive. With older children the recitation is unfortunately inclined to consist mainly of the mere act of reading. The teacher's part is a direction to "read the next paragraph, and so on, around the class," rather than to clothe the subject-matter with life. Teachers themselves, as a rule, do not see and feel the beauties of the reading matter given to the children. They fail to recognize that a higher interest is implied in the upper grades than when teaching the mechanics of reading. "Our present language and grammar work annoys them thru its indefiniteness and emptiness." This generalization is, of course, based upon the old way of teaching language- that is, the teaching of technicalities, the glib use of certain terms, and the construction of meaningless sentences, rather than cultivating the power of beauty and elegance of expression by utilizing interest as a basis and the great thought subjects as material, thus making it more of a culture subject than formerly. It is because of the former being taught first that it is "indefinite and empty," and the young child sees "no value in it." As regards the statement that "the broadening and enriching of the curriculum has given us subjects that under existing conditions do not appeal strongly to children," I wish to say that enriching the curriculum does not mean simply the affixing of certain subjects to a list already existing; it does mean, in addition to appending these subjects, an infusion and a vitalizing of interest, a quickening of the blood, and a reanimation of the spirit and attitude of the teacher toward these subjects, toward her work, and toward the child. In our teaching of the subjects of the curriculum we have failed in the true interpretation, because so many of us fall short of the highest conception of what teaching and education mean. Having had the opportunity to study school systems in different parts of the country, I am convinced, from observation and actual contact with the children, that the results in any subject depend upon the way it is presented. If one subject is better liked than another, it is because it is better taught. If any school system excels in a certain subject, it is because that subject is well taught in those schools and the teachers excel in the teaching of it. I have known school systems which might reflect, in whole or part, the generalizations made, providing these questions had been presented to the children where the curriculum had been enriched in name only. I have also known school systems that have been enriched in spirit and in the interpretation of the letter. The results in answer to the questions in the latter case would widely differ from those in the former; hence the phrase "existing conditions" with which Mr. Barnes has modified his statement seems to me to center wholly upon weaknesses in the quality of the teaching. From personal investigations made at different times, under different conditions, I have found it is that subject which last held the attention under an all-around skillful teacher that was most liked by the children; e. g., on one occasion, at the close of a very interesting water-color lesson, in answer to the same questions which Mr. Barnes has used, it was found that 75 per cent. of the children liked the drawing hour the best. On another occasion, in questioning the children of the several class-rooms of a thoroly progressive school one where the principal and teachers had caught the real spirit of the enriched curriculum and had power so to relate the culture subjects as to lead the children to an equalization of interest in them it was found that the subject which last held their attention was the favorite one. In another school of like character the children had been given, with other stories, the classic tales of Beowulf and Sigfried. The stories had been told and retold, and discussed again and again. The teachers loved these old tales were inspired by their beauty and significance. The children had caught their spirit and enthusiasm, until they were as familiar with Beowulf and his fourteen men, with Alberick, Mime, Brunhilde, and Sigfried, as with the members of their own family. They were given opportunities for oral and written reproduction, and for representations upon the sand table. In this school, the children liked the story, literature, or language hour the best of all. In another school, where the interest and success of the teacher centered upon arithmetic, the majority of the children liked arithmetic best. There are children who would not like a certain kind of manual training, but in all of my observations I have found children so delighted with the hour that they would hasten to complete other tasks in order to have more time to devote to the making of some useful article. The fault in the educational system of today lies, not in the fact that there are too many subjects, but in the lack of preparation and lack of knowledge of the subjects on the part of the teacher. The trouble lies, not in a congestion of the course of study, but in a congestion of teachers illy prepared for the work they are supposed to undertake. The multiplicity of subjects grows out of the fact that teachers fail to interpret the work laid down for them. They are not prepared to correlate the various branches. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SECRETARY'S MINUTES FIRST SESSION.-THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1903 The first session of this department was called to order in the Central Congregational Church, Boston, at 9:35 A. M., by the president, Charles F. Wheelock, Albany, N. Y., who delivered the opening address. Reuben Post Halleck, principal of the Boys' High School, Louisville, Ky., read a paper on "Tendencies as to the Enlargement of the Secondary Field." The paper was discussed by George D. Pettee, principal of the University School, Cleveland; Wilson Farrand, head master of Newark Academy, Newark, N..J.; and Isaac Thomas, principal of Edmunds High School, Burlington, Vt. The president then appointed the following Committee on Nominations: E. W. Lyttle, Albany, N. Y. Edwin Twitmyer, Seattle, Wash. The meeting then adjourned to the different conferences, as follows: I. Round Table of Teachers of Classics, in the assembly room of the Central Congregational Church. Leader, Henry White Callahan, head master of the State Preparatory School, Boulder, Colo. II. Round Table of Teachers of English, in the First Church in Boston. Leader, Charles Swain Thomas, English department, Shortridge High School, Indianapolis, Ind. III. Round Table of Principals, in the chapel of the Central Congregational Church. Leader, William J. S. Bryan, principal of Normal and High School, St. Louis, Mo. The topic for discussion was "The Formation of a Federation of Secondary School Associations." SECOND SESSION.-FRIDAY, JULY 10 The meeting was called to order in the Central Congregational Church by President Wheelock at 9:30 A. M. G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, Worcester, Mass., addressed the meeting on "Coeducation in the High School." The paper was discussed by Frank Fosdick, principal of Masten Park High School, Buffalo, N. Y.; J. Remsen Bishop, principal of Walnut Hills High School, Cincinnati, O.; and J. A. Bivins, principal of High School, Charlotte, N. C. G. P. Baker, assistant professor of English, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., read a paper on "The Teaching of Argumentative Discourse in High Schools." The paper was discussed by J. A. Tufts, professor in Phillips Academy, Exeter, N. H.; and Charles S. Hartwell, teacher of English in the Boys' High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. The Committee on Nominations reported as follows: For President-Reuben Post Halleck, Louisville, Ky. The meeting then adjourned to the different conferences, as follows: Round Table of Teachers of Mathematics, in the assembly room of the Central Congregational Church. Leader, David Eugene Smith, professor of mathematics, Columbia University, New York city. Round Table of Teachers of History, in the chapel. Leader, James Sullivan, head teacher of history in the High School of Commerce, New York city. Round Table of Teachers of Modern Languages, in the First Church in Boston. Leader, Miss Augusta Prescott, teacher of French and German in the Edward Little High School, Auburn, Me. WILBUR FISK GORDY, Secretary. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS OPENING REMARKS CHARLES F. WHEELOCK, PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT As a brief preface to the important work that is planned for us today, I wish to occupy five minutes of your time in stating what seems to me to be the two most pressing problems of secondary education-problems to which no reference has been made in the program that is before us. Within recent times the secondary school has advanced from a position of questioned utility and of doubtful propriety into a firmly established place as an essential part of our system of public education. Most of us remember the time when a common-school education, limited by the three R's, was generally considered a sufficient preparation for the lifework of those who were not intending to enter the learned professions, and it was simply desirable, but not essential, for the latter class to have a more advanced training before beginning their professional studies. Only recently the secondary school was an institution specially intended for the well-to-do, for the more aristocratic portion of the community, and there was no thought of its being opened or required for the masses. The question of the justice of the maintenance of a public high school by public taxation has been openly discussed and frequently decided in the negative within our recollection; but, happily, all questions of this character have been transferred from the list of problems into the list of axioms. There is now no further question as to whether there shall be a high school or whether all our children should attend it. We are now occupying ourselves mainly in seeking to determine what kind of high school will best satisfy our needs. We have reached decisions regarding many of the important phases of this general question. We no longer insist that all students shall pursue the same course of study. The value of manual training is universally recognized. The commercial course is an established fact for those who wish to pursue it. But there are still |