pounds, shillings, and pence that the Science and Art Department would pay into the school treasury as the price of such instruction. It continued the miscellaneous character of the education given in the elementary schools, the nature of which was best portrayed in a clever article a few years ago by Mr. H. G. Wells. This represents the sole endeavor of the board school teacher to be able to turn out a pupil "sufficiently molded to the code pattern to earn a grant,"

a process that the pupil found "rather perplexing, but he struggled on and was successful in earning payments for his teachers and even in getting some knowledge himself.”

With the adoption of the plan for the supervision of secondary education by the recently created Board of Education the point at issue has been whether this secondary education should grow naturally out of the elementary education, or whether it should be organized as separate and distinct territory. In the opinion of all connected with the elementary board schools there has been but one answer to the question,they have protested most strenuously against the separation of elementary and secondary education into “water-tight compartments" and insisted that secondary education should develop naturally from elementary education and both be managed by the same authority. From the American point of view this theory is unassailable. We do not recognize elementary education as suited to one social class, and secondary to another, nor do we find difficulty in the control of both varieties of school by the same authorities. "The educational ladder from the gutter to the university," that the friends of the English elementary schools demand, is an accomplished fact in the majority of the American states, and its success has never been questioned. But this solution-so simple in theory -is apparently impossible in practice in England. It is the social class line that lies at the root of the difficulty. Those engaged in secondary education have protested against the management of secondary schools by those in charge of elementary schools; the teachers in the two classes of schools are

844 The Miscellaneous as an educational curriculum" (Educational review, London, November, 1892).

separated from each other educationally and socially by an impassable gulf, in spite of frequent disclaimers as to its existence. Everyone recognizes that these disclaimers are false, and that in spite of them the educational and social class lines are firmly drawn. Those engaged in secondary education have a contempt for those in elementary education. They distrust the latter because as a rule they lack university degrees and what these represent, and they deny them even the ability to educate properly those under their care. On the other hand, the supporters of the elementary schools look with similar feelings on those engaged in secondary education; the latter may have university degrees, but they have had no training for teaching and consequently "do not know their trade." Still more are the two classes of schools separated from each other socially, both as regards the social position of the teachers and that of the families from which the pupils come. But these are after all only the external manifestations of a social and educational question that goes still deeper. There is a deep-seated feeling that while elementary education should be given to the lower classes, the education of the secondary schools should be the special prerogative of the middle and upper classes. Expression was given this feeling at the Oxford Conference on Secondary Education in 1893, when one of the speakers said: "There is danger in England, as in Germany, of creating what the Emperor William has called an academical proletariat.' In the face of this great and increasing difficulty it is plain that nothing should be done to stimulate further the supply of such higher school education as is preparatory for professional life." Secondary and higher education is thus regarded as a preparation for the professions, for the army and the navy, or for the public service, but not as a preparation for a business career or as an end in itself. In other words, it is the old conflict between aristocracy and democracy, and class education is the weapon with which it is fought. This conflict will never cease until there is a clear and definite understanding of the meaning of education. That this definite understanding has not yet come seems apparent from the recently issued "Regulations for Secondary

Schools." The purport of these is most forcibly expressed by Dr. Macnamara when he says, "They fail entirely to treat the provision of secondary education as anything but a 'class' necessity. . . . Their purpose is rather to set up a complete and self-contained system of general education for the middle and professional classes as a thing entirely apart, than to fashion a compartment to be fitted harmoniously into the whole scheme of national education." This would seem to be the inevitable result of admitting children of eight or nine years of age to so-called "secondary education," since this must mean the establishment of socially select primary schools. The outcome of this apparent effort to square the educational circle must be watched with interest.

9

If in this discussion of English education emphasis has been placed on those phases of it that are weakest, it has been because in many ways educational conditions are similar in England and America. We are beset by the same materialistic demands to make our education "practical"; sectarianism has only a less firm grip on many of our educational institutions; democratic as we are in theory, we feel sometimes the weight of social distinctions; we assuredly cannot claim freedom from political taint in the management of our educational affairs; and "payment by results" was unfortunately long a principle adopted by New York State in the distribution of its educational funds. We also are in need of more clear thinking as to the aim and meaning of education, we too waste time and energy in duplicating one another's work, we have not yet learned co-operation, our teachers often lack a liberal education, and our scholars are not always inspiring teachers. Many of the incongruities of our system we have inherited from England, and we therefore have to meet the same difficulties in eradicating them. But in many cases these incongruities are not as yet deep-seated in our system. We can uproot them without feeling the wrench that would inevitably be felt in England should a similar reforming process be attempted. Long as is the roll of great teachers and eminent scholars of whom England may justly boast, and splendid as The Daily news (London), March 10, 1905.

have been her achievements in education in the face of almost unsurmountable obstacles, it is after all by way of warning rather than by example that we must learn from her. The hopefulness of the situation in America lies in the genuine and widespread love of education for its own sake and the willingness of the American people to make sacrifices to secure it, in the readiness with which the public and private funds are contributed to advance its interests, and in the sincere desire to learn from the educational experiences of other nations and to avoid their mistakes while adopting their virtues. LUCY M. SALMON

POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y.

VI

DISCUSSIONS

EXAMINATIONS AND REPORTS

The schoolman has had difficulty in determining a policy with reference to examinations. They are a necessity, and may not be dispensed with safely. In many cases the pupil bears the full weight. In the better systems the grammar school pupil has been freed from this heavy load, but college entrance requirements keep most secondary schools in this stage. Certain forms of the examination of teachers have been in common use, but as the training of teachers before they begin work and during their years of service is improved, the forms and methods of certification are also improving. A most important step in the division of this labor is reached when the examination includes with these a larger unit-the school as a whole at work. Our Central and Western schools have experimented in this direction. Other interesting examples are to be found in a report recently prepared by Dr. Patrick Geddes of that unique school Abbotsholme, and Dr. Michael Sadler's reports on secondary education in Liverpool, Sheffield, and Birkenhead. The Y. M. C. A. has during the last year subjected itself to the frank criticism of a number of experts. These examinations indicate an appreciation of the democracy of the school and of the value of tests of function.

In one of the leading educational monthlies appeared not long since a criticism of the report issued by one of our large city school systems. This particular review was perhaps too destructive, but its publication calls to mind a need which I have frequently had occasion to urge. One finds in the school publications very little mention of the great number of reports issued year after year. For the most part these have little more than local circulation, a good piece of work can scarcely hope for the commendation that will bring it to the notice of