Page images

Miss Tutweiler, of Alabama, asked some one to recommend to her some simple book on psychology.

The works of Allen, Hewitt, Brooks, White, Sully, Hopkins, and the forthcoming work of Baldwin were suggested by various members of the section.







CHICAGO, ILL., July 13th, 1887. The Department of Superintendence met according to previous announcement, at the rooms of the Board of Education, in the City Hall, July 13th, at half past two o'clock; and was called to order by the president of the department, Charles S. Young, of Nevada. Superintendent William Richardson, of Missouri, appointed assistant secretary.

John Hancock, of Ohio, then read a paper on the theme, "School Supervision in the United States and in other States Compared.”

The discussion was opened with a paper by Superintendent J. W. Akers, of Iowa, and continued by Superintendent Solomon Palmer, of Alabama.

The following committee on nomination of officers for the ensuing year was then appointed: W. B. Powell, District of Columbia ; Leroy D. Brown, Ohio ; Louis H. Marvel, Maine.

The department then adjourned.


The second session of the department was held at the same place, at half past two o'clock, July 14th, the president of the department in the chair.

The committee on nominations reported as follows: for President, N. C. Dougherty, of Peoria, Ill.; for Vice-Presidents, Henry A. Wise, of Maryland ; and J. G Schofield, of Kansas; for Secretary, W. R. Thigpen, of Georgia. The report was received and adopted, and the gentlemen declared elected.

Superintendent Dougherty, of Peoria, Illinois, then read a paper on the theme, “The Superintendent and Good Literature in the Schools."

In the discussion which followed the participants were Messrs. Richardson, of Missouri, Strauss, of Arizona, Hoitt, of California, Gove, of Colorado, Colston, of Texas, and Wolf, of Missouri; and Mrs. Rickoff, of New York.

After the customary resolution of respect to the presiding officer and the secretary, the department adjourned.




The following paper presents a far less complete discussion of its topic than I had hoped to make. Unavoidable duties, not anticipated when I consented to its preparation, were thrust upon me, and this with the difficulty of procuring necessary books of reference, has contributed largely to a result so meager. Had not the honorable and learned J. George Hodgins, deputy minister of education for the province of Ontario, and Dr. F. Louis Soldan, lately president of the National Association, come to my aid,—to both of whom I return most grateful thanks, -I fear I should have failed most utterly in the duty assigned me by the president of this department.

When Victor Cousin, the eminent French philosopher and educator, more than half a century ago, published his observations on the schools of Prussia, in which he pronounces a touching eulogy on the underpaid but devoted teachers of the peasant schools of that kingdom, he declared that the chief element of success in any system of public education is a scheme of thorough inspection. The purpose of such an inspection may be stated in a very general way to be to determine whether the laws establishing this system are faithfully administered, and whether its teachers are doing efficient service along the lines prescribed by the State. Supervision would seem to be a more appropriate word than inspection to designate the functions of this department of school work. It is a more comprehensive term, and describes more nearly what is done under it, especially in American schools. To obtain the object of supervision, schools must not only be inspected but examined. Says Dr. John D. Philbrick, that distinguished educator so lately gone from our midst : “An inspection is a visitation for the purpose of observation, of oversight, of superintendence. Its aim is to discover, to a greater or less extent, the tone and spirit of the school, the conduct and application of the pupils, the management and methods of the teacher, and the fitness and condition of the premises. Good inspection commends excellences, gently indicates faults, defects, and errors, and suggests improvements as occasion requires. An examination is different from an inspection, both in its aims and methods. An examination is a thorough scrutiny and investigation in regard to certain determined matters for a specific purpose.”

« PreviousContinue »