« PreviousContinue »
of a greater institution — the educational system of the state. The students of education in a university are for the most part preparing to become teachers in secondary schools. A well-rounded institutional study of the secondary school is accordingly a highly important part of their professional training
Such are two of the elements which seem to me to demand a place in the advanced professional training of teachers at a university. It may be added that these are proper studies for the university aside from any question of training for a profession. As the proper study of mankind is man, a proper study of universities is the university; and to study the university in university fashion is to study it not only in its particularity but also in its universality -- not in its isolation only, but also in its integral relations. The university view of education, to be a true university view, must be a view of education in its wholeness.
DEPARTMENT OF NORMAL SCHOOLS
FIRST SESSION.- WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1899
The Department of Normal Schools met in the chapel of the State Normal School, Los Angeles, at 3 P. M., with President Theodore B. Noss, of California, Pa., in the chair.
President E. T. Pierce of the Los Angeles State Normal School welcomed the department in a brief address.
The president of the department stated that the discussion at both sessions would be based upon the report of the Committee on Normal Schools, particularly that part of the report which relates to the training school.
The first topic discussed was “ The Comparative Value of Student Teaching in Normal-School Work.” This topic was suggested by the following statement in Thesis II of the report :
In comparison with other lines of work in a normal school, practice teaching is capable of ranking as the most valuable course for the student.
The discussion was opened by Herman T. Lukens, head training teacher of the California (Pa.) State Normal School, and was continued by John W. Hall, head training teacher, State Normal School, Greeley, Colo.
Mrs. L. L. W. Wilson, head of the department of biology in the Philadelphia Normal School, led in the discussion of the second topic, viz., “The Relation of the Training School to Other Departments of the Normal School.” This topic was suggested by the following statements in Thesis XXVIII of the report :
The training school should be the correlating center of the normal school. ... Heads of departments in the normal school should be supervisors in fact of their subjects in the training school. Faculty meet ings in a normal school should be directed, not merely to executive work, nor primarily to that, but to instruction,
“May a Training School be at the Same Time a Model School ?” was the third topic under consideration. The proposition of the committee in Thesis XXV is as follows:
The idea that a normal school should be provided with a training school and a model school besides is hardly a feasible one.
The principal address was made by W. E. Wilson, president of the State Normal School, Ellensburg, Wash.
A brief general discussion, participated in by 2. X. Snyder and others, followed, after which the following Committee on Nominations was announced by the chair : Ossian H, Lang, of New York.
C. M. Light, of New Mexico.
SECOND SESSION.- FRIDAY, JULY 14
The department met at 3 P. M.
The first subject under discussion was “Lesson Plans." The committee's report, Thesis XXIV, affirms :
Until a high grade of independence and skill in planning and conducting recitations has been proved, a written plan of each recitation should be required by the critic teacher.
Miss Marion Brown, principal of the New Orleans Normal School, opened the discussion, and was followed by Ossian H. Lang, editor of the New York School Journal.
The next topic considered was “Observation as a Factor in Training-School Work," suggested by the following propositions in Theses XVI and XVII of the report as follows:
Some observation should precede actual instruction, ... This observation, however, is comparatively useless, unless it is supervised and discussed with the same care as the actual teaching of a student teacher.
The subject was discussed by Miss Gertrude Edmond, principal of the Normal Training School, Lowell, Mass., and C. C. Van Liew, head training teacher, State Normal School, Los Angeles, Cal.
Thesis X of the report suggested the last topic of the discussion, viz., “Qualifications of the Critic Teacher.” The report makes the following affirmation :
Next to a wholesome personality, the special feature of a critic teacher should be the ability to show particularly the merits, as well as the defects, of instruction, basing criticism plainly upon accepted principles of teaching.
The topic was discussed by Miss Harriet M. Scott, of Detroit, Mich., and Hon. N. C. Schaeffer, state superintendent of public instruction, Pennsylvania.
The Committee on Nominations recommended the election of the following officers for next year :
For President - James E. Russell, New York, N. Y.
It was moved and carried that the secretary of the department be instructed to cast the ballot of the department for the persons named. The ballot was cast, and the officers were declared elected. The department then adjourned.
O. H. LANG,
Secretary pro tempore.
PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NORMAL SCHOOLS
To the Normal School Department of the National Educational Association :
The undersigned members of the Normal-School Committee submit the following report :
ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF COMMITTEE At the session of the National Educational Association held in Denver, 1895, the Normal Department passed the following resolution, offered by President Snyder, of Greeley, Colo.:
Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the president of the department to meet during the year and formulate a report, to be presented at the next meeting, upon such educational topics as directly concern the department.
At the Buffalo meeting, 1896, the committee made a brief report upon such matters as appertained directly to the work of normal schools. The report was adopted and the
committee increased to eight, and instructed to make a printed preliminary report at the next meeting. This preliminary report was presented at the Milwaukee meeting. It was vigorously discussed. On motion of President A. R. Taylor, Kansas, the following resolution was adopted :
Resolved, That the report be accepted, and the committee continued, with instructions to continue the investigation on the lines proposed, and also to submit a course of study with minimum of professional requirements for the state normal schools of the United States.
The work of the committee was progressing very slowly, because no funds had been appropriated to meet expenses. President Boone, Ypsilanti, introduced a resolution asking the Board of Directors of the National Educational Association for an appropriation of five hundred dollars ($500) to meet the expenses of the committee in its investigations.
At this meeting the directors voted an appropriation of five hundred dollars ($500), subject to the discretion of the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees. At the Chattanooga meeting of the Department of Superintendence the amount was granted. This was too late for the committee to report at the Washington meeting, except in a preliminary way. The committee met at Washington and arranged to make a final report at Los Angeles. The committee had its final meeting in Columbus, O., in February, 1899. It was in session six days, and agreed upon the following report as its findings.
All of the topics studied have been printed in the proceedings of the National Educational Association from time to time. In the report will be found almost all the questions that have interested the normal-school men of the country. They may have lost the form in which they were originally put, but their substance will, upon examination, be found in the body of this report.
Since the Milwaukee meeting the members of the committee have made a study of the courses of study in operation in the normal schools in the various sections of the United States; as well as a continuance of investigation in other lines. President A. G. Boyden reported at the Washington meeting on the New England state normal schools; Miss Marion Brown, on the southern state normal schools ; President Seerley, on those west of the Mississippi and east of the Rocky Mountains; President Boone, on the north central state normal schools; President Pierce, on the Pacific state normal schools ; Dr. N. C. Schaeffer, on the middle state normal schools; Dr. Frank McMurry and President Snyder made a study during this time of the training school. The reports of these members, presented at Washington last year, were printed in the proceedings of the Washington meeting.
From all of the foregoing reports have been obtained the data from which this report has been formulated.
The work of the committee for the past year was distributed as follows: President Seerley, Iowa, was appointed a subcommittee to investigate and report on geographical and historical variations that exist among the normal schools of the United States ; Dr. N. C. Schaeffer, Pennsylvania, was appointed a subcommittee to report on maintenance and control of normal schools ; Dr. Frank McMurry, New York, was appointed to report on the training department of the normal schools ; Miss Marion Brown, Louisiana, was appointed to report on the kindergarten as connected with the normal school; President Pierce, California, was appointed to report on reciprocal recognition of diplomas; President Snyder, Colorado, made a study of the effect of normal schools upon public education.
Differences of opinion have existed on many questions; but, by concessions upon the part of all the members of the committee, they have been able to agree upon the report as presented.
The committee fully appreciates how difficult it is to set forth, with any degree of definiteness, a report that will meet the approbation of all educational people.
Thanking the educational people of the country and the officers of the National Educa. tional Association for their courtesy and material assistance, the committee respectfully submits the report.
Z. X. SNYDER, Colorado, Chairman.
FUNCTION OF THE NORMAL SCHOOL
THE FUNCTION OF THE NORMAL SCHOOL
IS TO PREPARE TEACHERS
The work of the normal school is unique. It means more than teaching subjects ; it means more than the developing of the character; it means the teaching of subjects that they in turn may be taught; it means the development of character that it in turn may be transfigured into character; it means such a preparation for life that it in turn may prepare others to enter fully, readily, and righteously into their environment. Thus to prepare an individual to lead and direct a little child is a grave responsibility.
THE FUNCTION OF THE NORMAL SCHOOL IN ITS RELATION TO ITS
The faculty is the soul of the institution. Its members should be superior men and women. In general Tappan's law should hold, that “a teacher should be trained in an institution of a higher grade than the one in which he teaches."
1. Character stands first in the hierarchy of qualifications. Nothing can take its place. There are two fundamental elements in it-force and power. Force is an inherent executive element. Some persons have great force in the administration of affairs; when they are thru, they are forgotten. Some persons administer affairs with power; when they are thru, they still live in the minds and hearts of those with whom they came in contact. A strong man in life — a man of strong character - is one who has both force and power. Force is evolved in putting forth his determinations. Power is the soul in his actions; power is mind and heart.
2. Teaching ability stands second-the ability to adapt self and subject to pupil. It is ability to inspire to thought and feeling and action. It is that kind of work which makes for character Teaching may be