absence is frequently granted on request, the general condition being loss of pay, tho not loss of position. Cambridge, Mass., has a regulation as follows:

Any teacher who has served in the city for ten years may, on recommendation of the superintendent and vote of the board, have leave of absence for one year for purposes of study or travel, and may receive onethird of his salary, provided the amount in no case shall exceed five hundred dollars.

This rule was adopted in 1896, and in six years fourteen teachers applied for such leave of absence. In Chicago for the past year and a half the superintendent has had the authority to grant leaves of absence for the period of one year to successful teachers, who wish to continue their studies in colleges, universities, and higher institutions of learning.

He imposes the following conditions:

Teachers who make application for leave of absence under the above rule must make a written statement of the lines of study they intend to pursue, and at what institutions of higher learning. When they return at the expiration of their leave of absence, they must present official statements of the time spent and work done at higher institutions of learning during the period of their absence, as evidence that they have complied with the conditions of their leave.

Incentives are offered in the form of advancement, in position and salary, based on schoolroom efficiency and this increased scholarship. Other cities, so far as heard from, seem to offer no tangible incentive, tho all favor the scholar, other things being equal.

The point of view of the teacher in this connection is interesting and instructive. Besides the questions already noted as having been asked the Providence teachers, these also were asked:

Has your position in the schools been advanced since this study? Has your salary been advanced? Do you consider such advance in position or salary due to your increased scholarship?

The answers can be summarized in the reply of one teacher: "Not directly; yet advance could not have been secured without growth." Perhaps a dozen believe their advance s due directly to this element, but many more feel their scholastic growth has received no recognition or reward. Only five men think their advance is due even indirectly to their increased scholarship; fifteen women think their advance is due, not to the scholarship per se, but to the added power which the increased scholarship gave plus the power which came from added years of experience in the schoolroom.

The replies to the question, "What returns should teachers expect from this increased scholarship?" reveal much. It shows the prevalent mood for study, and the feeling that growth should receive material rewards. In the opinion of the men, there should be greater efficiency, self-satisfaction, increased pay. I quote three replies:

"None, unless the increased scholarship shows itself in teaching."

"None, except as their services prove more valuable."

"Other things being equal, principals and superintendents should regard it as a recommendation for promotion."

I quote the following from the women:

"Personal satisfaction in better command of their subject is the most evident return." "Increased salary in proportion to increased proficiency in school-work."

"The assurance of ability to enter upon more advanced positions, if such are offered."

"A broader grasp of their subjects and a greater facility in imparting their knowledge, and hence a bigger market value for their work."

"Increased culture, greater efficiency, broadening influence, more joy in living."

"Increase in salary, providing it is accompanied by an equal increase in teaching and disciplinary ability." "Thru their attitude as learners, greater sympathy with pupils."

"Increased efficiency thru greater familiarity with subjects they teach."

"Broader culture and more liberal ideas thru study of subjects they do not teach."

"The stimulus that comes from contact with greater minds than their own."

To revert to the original question: Should teachers be required to present evidences of increased scholarship? I answer, no. The mood for increased scholarship is inherent in the good teacher. Increased scholarship in the poor teacher is merely increased cvil. Hence there is no need of requirement. What is needed is incentive or motive

furnished by the city in the way of advancement in position and salary, that the mood may be nurtured. There should be a gradation of salaries based on something besides "first year, second year, third year," and there should be special salaries which may be given as a recognition of special scholarship and special ability, on recommendation of principal and superintendent. Degrees or credits from recognized institutions should be proof of the scholarship; the opinion of the principal and superintendent should decide the ability. This is the end toward which we should labor, that out of it may result natural growth in maturer scholarship, its better application in the schoolroom, and hence the elevation of the school system.

DISCUSSION

SUPERINTENDENT J. H. VAN SICKLE, Baltimore, Md.-The plan in use in Baltimore is not put forward as ideal under all conditions. We do not have unlimited funds at our disposal, as in New York, nor do we have $10,000 for normal-school extension, as in Chicago. What we do must be done with small means. We hold that to advance salaries without discrimination as to the quality of service rendered is merely to increase the burdens of the taxpayers without adequate return. In deciding upon a plan, our problem was to make a limited sum serve to set a salary standard that would appeal to all elementary teachers as worth working for, and to fix conditions that could be met by them without undue strain in view of the very moderate increase then available, $96 a year for one hundred teachers (now two hundred and fifty teachers). We prefer to give $96 per year increase to each of two hundred and fifty teachers, rather than to give onehalf that sum to each of five hundred teachers, or one-fourth as much to each of one thousand teachers.

Any plan that discriminates is bound to meet with more or less opposition in its inception; but time makes the adopted plan customary, opposition dies down, and professional activity is doubled among all teachers who have a future before them.

The rules of the board under which the promotions in question were made provide that those nominated for promotion must have taught in the public schools of Baltimore at least five consecutive years; that the nominations must be based upon efficiency and an examination in some one subject selected by the teacher from a list of subjects approved by the superintendent; and that continuance on the promoted list shall depend upon continued efficiency.

In Baltimore each of twenty-four principals has under his supervision from fifty to eighty teachers. Each principal was asked to send in the names of a few (not exceeding ten) of the best teachers in his schools, without regard to the grade taught, arranging the names in the order of merit. There were already on file in the superintendent's office two previous annual estimates of efficiency and a personal statement from each teacher giving facts as to education, training, experience, date of appointment, and special courses of study pursued since appointment. These personal reports were carefully examined, the principals' lists were compared with reports already on file, and changes in rating, where any had been made, were carefully inquired into.

Nearly two hundred names were handed in. An entire month was spent by superintendent and assistants in reviving impressions of the schoolroom work of each of these teachers by visits to the schoolrooms. At the close of the inspection one hundred names were agreed upon, and invitations were issued to the one hundred teachers to meet the final conditions set by the board. Seven invitations were declined. Seven additional invitations were thereupon issued and accepted. From the first, applications were discouraged. It is now fully understood that the initiative in matters of promotion is to be taken by the supervisory officers. The examination took the form of an oral defense of a

dissertation or thesis written by the teacher at her leisure (the summer vacation), on a topic chosen by her from the following list:

1. Froebel's Laws Applied to Primary Work.

2. Educational Value of Plays and Games.

3. Individuality in Class Management.

4. Flexible Grouping.

5. A Discussion of Herbert Spencer's Educational Theories. (Any other great name may be substituted, as Herbart, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Comenius.)

6. My Method of Teaching....

together with the Educational Principles

upon Which My Method is Based. (The blank may be filled with any school subject in which the teacher is specially interested.)

7. Conditions Favorable to the Development of the Child.

8. The Scope and Purpose of Authority. In school, is it limited, as Bosanquet holds for the state, to "Hindering Hinderances to the Best Life"?

9. Essential Differences in Ideas of Old and New Educational Régimes.

10. Conditions in Modern Life an Index of Requirements in the School.

11. Reciprocal Relations of Formal and Culture Studies.

12. Psychological Value of the Arts as Material for Study.

13. Development of Social Sense in School-Life.

14. Humanistic Values and Technical Values in Nature Study.

15. The Basis and Purpose of Correlation.

16. Psychological Value of Hand-Work.

In the preparation of papers, teachers were purposely left free to consult and to quote authorities, giving proper credit in marginal notes, with page references, to all authorities cited. Originality in the absolute sense was not so much expected as grasp of the subject and reasonable constructive power. We did not want any attempt at "fine writing," but we did want evidence of the possession of ideas, and the ability to express those ideas in clear and concise English. The oral examination consisted in a defense of all statements made, and, when desired, an explanation of all references and quotations.

Previous to the oral examination, each paper was read by each of the three members of the examining board, notes being made as a basis for questioning. Each teacher spent from thirty to forty minutes with the examining board. We thus came to know the teacher behind the paper-a matter increasingly difficult for the superintendent in large systems of schools, but of great practical importance. The knowledge thus gained has already served as a guide in promotions to positions calling for personal qualities that might not have been discovered in any other way.

It is not an easy thing to determine the relative efficiency of teachers; yet, when considerations such as those indicated above are carefully observed, the result cannot be far from correct. Enemies of civil-service reform allege that examinations do not examine; and its best friends readily admit that there are many important elements of which the ordinary written examination fails to take account. By our plan of promotion we have an additional test of merit which is free from some of the imperfections of the ordinary examination, and, therefore, more conclusive.

Undoubtedly there are some in the service who think their merit superior to a number of those who were invited to prepare papers. But as these critics have not had an opportunity, as have the supervising officers, to see the schoolroom work of the teachers in question, their opinions gain little support. Our plan has brought forward teachers who, in their modesty, would have been the last to claim any special merit for themselves. It has enabled us to hold up ideals in such a way as to make these ideals immensely influential in improving instruction.

Two hundred and fifty teachers in all have now been promoted in this way. I believe there has been less dissatisfaction with a plan which limits invitations to the number for whom the increased salaries are available, than there would have been with a plan which would admit to competition a larger number, many of whom would necessarily have to be rejected.

There is a great professional activity, not only among these two hundred and fifty teachers, but among twice as many more. The advance in salary has been within the reach of teachers of all grades. A glance at the list of topics will show that a primary teacher could meet the conditions imposed without diverting her attention from the work she was actually doing.

It must be remembered that an excellent paper is not the first consideration. Excellent schoolroom work has been considered the prime requisite in all these nominations. Many teachers whose schoolroom work is ordinary, or even below mediocrity, are able to prepare good papers; their theory outruns their practice. It is better for any school system that such teachers wait for promotion till their practice overtakes their theory.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION

CONSTITUTION

PREAMBLE

The National Council of Education shall have for its object the consideration and discussion of educational questions of general interest and public importance, and the presentation, thru printed reports, of the substance of the discussions and the conclusions formulated. It shall be its object to reach and disseminate correct thinking on educational questions; and, for this purpose, it shall be the aim of the Council, in conducting its discussions, to define and state with accuracy the different views and theories on the subject under consideration, and, secondly, to discover and represent fairly the grounds and reasons for each theory or view, so far as to show, as completely as possible, the genesis of opinion on the subject. It shall be the duty of the Council, in pursuance of this object, to encourage from all its members the most careful statement of differences in opinion, together with the completest statement of grounds for the same. It shall further require the careful preservation and presentation of the individual differences of opinion, whenever grounds have been furnished for the same by members of the Council. It shall invite the freest discussion and embody the new suggestions developed by such discussions. Any member making such suggestion or objection may put in writing his view, and the grounds therefor, and furnish the same to the secretary for the records of the Council. It shall prepare, thru its president, an annual report to the National Educational Association, setting forth the questions considered by the Council during the previous year, and placing before the Association, in succinct form, the work accomplished. It shall embody in this report a survey of those educational topics which seem to call for any action on the part of the Association. The Council shall appoint, out of its own number, committees representing the several departments of education, and thereby facilitate the exchange of opinion among its members on such special topics as demand the attention of the profession or of the public.

ARTICLE I-MEMBERSHIP

1. The National Council of Education shall consist of sixty members, selected from the membership of the National Educational Association. Any member of the Association identified with educational work is eligible to membership in the Council, and, after the first election, such membership shall continue for six years, except as hereinafter provided.

2. In the year 1885 the Board of Directors shall elect eight members-four members for six years, two for four years, and two for two years, and the Council shall elect eight members-five members for six years, two for four years, and one for two years; and annually thereafter the Board of Directors shall elect five members and the Council five members, each member, with the exception hereinafter provided for (sec. 5), to serve six years, or until his successor is elected.

3. The annual election of members of the Council shall be held in connection with the annual meetings of the Association. If the Board of Directors shall fail, for any reason, to fill its quota of members annually, the vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by the Council.