reason why a teacher should receive special preparation is, that school government requires a special kind of knowledge which will not be gained from the study of the several branches of learning. No one, it is presumed, will argue either that good scholarship qualifies a person for govern. ing a school, or that school government does not depend upon principles that may be studied and successfully practiced. It is freely admitted, that all persons, even with the most careful study, cannot govern well; but this does not invalidate the truth of the principle, that study even in this respect is generally profitable.

For these reasons, then, if a profession require special preparation on the part of its members in order to secure their success, teaching cannot be excluded on that account.

5. Has teaching any competent authority for deciding upon the qualifi cations of candidates for membership?

Authorities with competent powers have been provided in the professions of law, medicine and theology, and there are obvious reasons why such should be the case in any profession.

The standing of a profession is judged by the qualifications and conduct of its individual members; hence, as a measure of protection from imposition, no person should be admitted to membership in it, without having submitted to a test of his qualifications. Suppose that any man at pleasure could assume the title of doctor or lawyer, and enter upon the practice of those professions, how long could they remain respectable? Or, how long could they be recognized as professions at all? That business which any person could follow, would not deserve the name of a profession.

Until within the past three years, there was no competent authority, in Pennsylvania, to test the qualifications of teachers in the common schools. The old common school law, it is true, provided for the appointment of competent agents to conduct them, and they generally proved little better than a farce. Any body was permitted to teach. The farmer or mechanic to whom the winter afforded a few months of leisure; the young man who was desirous of making a little money, which he might perhaps spend in amusement, and, perhaps, at college; the broken-down lawyer, doctor or preacher; the halt, the lame, the indolent, and sometimes those partly deaf or nearly blind, found employment in teaching. In this state of things, teaching could not be called a profession-it was not even a regular busi

ness.

But whilst what has been said is true of teaching as it was, it is not true of teaching as it is. Pennsylvania has at length a competent authority for testing the qualifications of her teachers, in the persons of the County Superintendents. Already some thousands of incompetent persons have been driven from the teachers' ranks, much dead matter has been sloughed off, and a young but vigorous, distinct and independent profession is being organized. This is the work of the common school teachers of Pennsylvania, and little remains to perfect it but the co-operation of the teachers in

our higher institutions of learning. No one ought to be entitled to hold a Professional Certificate from a County Superintendent, a Diploma from a Normal School, or a place as teacher in any Seminary, Academy or College, who has not studied teaching professionally for at least the same length of time required to study for admission into the other professions. Let but this be done, and each teacher will speedily have the satisfaction of seeing conjoined with him, in the noble work of mental and moral improvement, a body of men at once courteous, honorable and intelligent. What has been done, however, is quite sufficient to establish the professional character of teaching, so far as it can be done by a provision for testing the qualifications of those who desire to become teachers.

The principal conditions that seem necessary to secure for any avocation the rank of a profession have been stated, and, I think, it has been proven that teaching answers these conditions. If so, an impartial public should award that rank to teaching which it justly merits.

I might pause here and conclude that the claims of teaching to the rank of a profession had been established, were it not for certain objections that are sometimes urged against this conclusion. Among these are :

1. That Teachers do not make the business of Teaching permanent.

It is granted that this is lamentably true, and that no other cause does so much to destroy its professional character. The members of the other professions, however, do not always follow that in which they first engage. Changes, indeed, are quite frequent, and, if these changes do not effect the standing of the professions in which they take place, similar changes, even though they be more numerous, ought not to effect that of teaching.

Besides, it is absolutely unjust to the few who are qualified, and who love their profession and remain faithful to it. It is believed that this number is rapidly increasing; and, if no mistake be made in judging of the spirit that now actuates teachers, the profession of teaching must ere long have as united, as devoted, and as permanently organized a body of members as those of any other profession.

2. It is urged that Teachers cannot support the dignity of a profession. "Teaching ought to be made a profession," said a lawyer in my hearing sometime since at a Teachers' Institute; "but," he added, "teachers are too poorly paid; they cannot support the dignity of a profession." This was said more in sorrow than in anger; and, the fact cannot be concealed or denied that teachers receive less compensation than men engaged in any other business, requiring an equal amount of labor and equal qualifications. It is true that lawyers have received more money for the management of a single case, than teachers of equal talent have been able to accumulate in a laborious lifetime, and that physicians sometimes charge more for a single surgical operation, occupying an hour, than a teacher can earn in a year, on every day of which he may have exhibited as much scientific knowledge and equal skill. But truthful as this statement is, and shameful as the facts are which warrant it, should those teachers who are willing to labor on, actuated either by the love of teaching or influenced by the hope that they

1

must eventually receive a just compensation for their services, be deprived, on that account, of the honor fairly merited by the importance of the office, and the qualifications required to discharge its duties? Are wealthy lawyers and wealthy doctors alone recognized as belonging to the professions of medicine and law? Have not some of the highest ornaments of both died poor? Take away all the property belonging to their members, and would not those professions still have a noble object, a basis founded on science, and whatever else is necessary to constitute them learned and honorable? A costly dress and gaudy equipage may be essential to give character to the haughty millionaire; stars, and garters, and titles of nobility may be necessary to the existence of a privileged aristocracy; but science has always furnished an open field for distinction, and wealth can add no dignity to the true profession.

3. It is said that teaching does not enjoy that measure of popular favor to which a profession should be entitled.

This may be true, but teaching is on that account no less noble in its aims or scientific in its operations; neither does it require less learning or special preparation on the part of its members, nor should it therefore be less honored as a profession. If people were all so ignorant that they would refuse to listen to the minister or reject the advice of a physician, would it render these professions less professional? If not, then, no want of popular appreciation of the benefits arising from education, can make the profession of teaching less honorable, or in the least destroy its professional character. 4. It is alleged that teaching has little professional literature. If this allegation is admitted, does it prove that teaching is not entitled to the rank of a profession? I think not. A profession must exist before there can be a professional literature; the latter, indeed, is but the outgrowth of the former. Destroy the literature of law and medicine, and the profession will remain. Hence a purely professional literature is not essential to the existence of a profession.

But is it true that teaching has little professional literature? A few considerations will enable us to determine.

The literature of a profession consists, essentially, of two parts; first, of books which treat of the sciences upon which its principles are founded; and, second, of the books which treat of the application of those principles to practical purposes. The subject matter of medicine, for example, consists in a knowledge of the human body and its relations to certain substances used as medicines; or, in other words, in a knowledge of such sciences as anatomy, physiology, chemistry and materia medica. This profession, as an art, consists in an application of such knowledge in surgery, the practice of medicine, and in pharmacy.

Now by far the largest proportion of the literature of medicine,—and the same is true in law and theology,-will be found to be composed of treatises on the subject matter of medicine, or what may be called the science of medicine. A small library would contain all the books which have ever been written with reference purely to the practice of medicine, law or theo

logy. Suppose it be admitted, then, that there is a sad want of works which treat of the relations of the subject matter of teaching to the educational capabilities of the human mind-a sad want of works which treat systematically of methods of teaching-it cannot, on that account, be argued that teaching has not good claims to be ranked equal to the other learned professions.

As to its subject matter, teaching has a literature more comprehensive than all others combined. The sciences upon which the other professions are based form a part-and but a part-of its all embracing course of study. It boldly incorporates into its materia medica, all that painter ever placed on canvass; all that sculptor ever chiseled; all that poet or historian ever wrote; all that philosopher ever discovered; all that holy men ever prophesied. The teacher only has freedom of earth and sky. To-day, when he would inspire youthful bosoms with adequate ideas of the majesty and sublimity of the creation, he selects as a subject, the stars of heaven; tomorrow, when he would prove to thirsting minds that the earth, too, has objects of interest, he points them to the curious flower, the strangelyformed animal or the buried fossil.

The teacher's broad profession embraces all facts, all phenomena, all art, all science. Every word in language, every event in history, every object in nature, every law of matter and of mind, may become the subject of his instruction. Even from the mystery that rests below and beyond the bounds of human knowledge, from the faint nebula which defies the penetrating glance of the mighty eye of the telescope, as well as from that world of life, the wonders of which the microscope can never reveal, he may glean deep lessons of the Infinite, which he can impart to breathless listen

ers.

Tell us not, then, that teaching has no literature. All literature is the teachers; and, though, perhaps from the greatness of the task, the preparation of works relating to the special application of the means of instruction nature so lavishly furnishes, has been too long neglected, the teacher's profession remains the same; and considering its comprehensive character and the magnitude of the interests dependent upon it, I am tempted not only to claim for it the rank of a profession, but to entitle it the Great Profession.

Having now considered the conditions and requirements necessary to any avocation, before it can be called a profession; having shown that teaching answers these conditions; and having proven that the several objections urged against the claims of teaching to the rank of a profession, either are not well founded, or lie equally against all professions,-the task assigned me approaches completion.

Teaching not only has claims to the rank of a profession, but if the signs of the times are not deceptive, they indicate that, ere long, if teachers are true to themselves and to it, these claims will be generally recognized. I do not believe that there is any general public disposition to degrade the teachHe has only to free his profession from the horde of intruders that have but disgraced it, and prove himself faithful and efficient, and he will

er.

be properly rewarded and properly respected. Let us, to-day, as Pennsyl vania teachers, adopt the motto: Be true to your calling, and resolve to live according to its spirit; and we will have the proud satisfaction of seeing it grow up into a profession, noble in its aims, great in its proportions, and honorable in the estimation of the public.

Millersville, Aug. 6, 1857.

From the Pennsylvania School Journal.

SCHOOL

DISCIPLINE.

BY S. B. M'CORMICK.

DISCIPLINE is defined to be "Education; 1. Instruction; cultivation and improvement; comprehending instruction in the arts, sciences, correct sentiments, morals and manners. 2. Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice. 3. Rule of government. 4. Inflicting of punishment."

According to this definition it is education and instruction. But though all discipline is education, all education is not discipline. Discipline is the method or manner of education, and has reference to our intellectual, moral and physical improvement.-Man is a trinity, composed of three distinct natures, yet one being, and inseparably one so far as his own agency has any control. In order to the full development of man, these three matures must not only be equally educated, but also equally and fully disciplinedproperly restrained as well as properly taught. The predominance of any one of these natures destroys that equilibrium designed by the Creator as the regulator of human actions. Intellectual power, moral force, and physical strength develop the man, and these must act with equal force to produce a full development.

To discipline, intellectually, is to place and keep the mind under such proper restraints, as will secure an easy and absolute control of all its functions.-Order in thoughts, method in reason, comprehensiveness in investigation, and abstraction in discrimination are essential to a well-ordered mind. Enforcing these rules, impelling these restraints, is mental discipline. Moral discipline has reference to the development of the moral powers, and is a very essential, though much neglected part of school discipline. It is the most important part of youthful training, not only because impressions and habits formed in youth are not easily eradicated, but because the moral sense is the guide to both the physical and the intellectual nature. Every movement of the child should be carefully scrutinized and scientifically interpreted, and a check placed immediately upon the delusive senti