Page images

and industrial situation, and the honor of her position among the states, demand that she meet it completely.

“The laws of this state relating to school attendance and child labor are consistent, and taken together they are very complete, the product of very commendable legislative courage. They provide that a child must be in school until he is 14 years old, and then for two years he must be in school if he is not at work. The difficulty is that when the enforcement of the law is attempted it develops that public sentiment, upon which all official process rests, is too often weak, and accordingly officials who are charged with the execution of the laws are too often unintelligent and indifferent."

The school board of Bluffton, Indiana, call All-Year School Sessions public attention to the fact that the public

schools of that town are in session approximately four terms of three school months each. Individual pupils are not permitted to attend school longer than nine months in any one school year. The schools are closed for four weeks during the month of August, and every child must select one of the four school terms for an additional vacation of three months.

The reasons for this policy are stated to be:

1. Many children are unavoidably absent during the regular nine months of school and have been receiving only three, or six, months' school during the year.

2. Many of the older pupils can secure profitable employment during the fall or spring terms and they should take their vacation when they can secure such employment.

3. During the winter term many small children are very irregular in attendance because of the bad weather, contagious diseases, bad colds. The average schoolroom crowded with children, unevenly heated and poorly ventilated at this season of the year, does not provide the conditions necessary for good school work. The short, cloudy and dark days make the proper lighting of the schoolrooms a difficult problem, and the children are shut up in the schools almost the entire sunlight part of the day. The summer term presents quite a contrast. With windows wide open, and an abundance of outdoor play at school and at home the sanitary conditions are certainly much better.

4. If one-fourth of the pupils should take a vacation each term, the schools can accommodate under present conditions one-third more pupils. The efficiency of the school plant is increased one-third by the simple plan of using it one-third longer each year. This means the equivalent of a new seven-room grade school building, which with janitor service, heating, interest on investment, repairs, depreciation of plant, equipment, will be a saving of $4000 to $5000 each year. It also means that whenever it

be necessary

to build a new school building that twelve rooms will be the equivalent of sixteen.

5. The cost of instruction will not be changed. With the same number of pupils per teacher and giving each nine months' school the cost for teachers is the same whether they are taught together for nine months, or only three-fourths of them together for twelve months.

The greatest deficiency of the schools is the inability to secure and keep good teachers. The monthly salary is not so low, but the yearly income is so small that teaching is only a stepping stone to other employment. The only real solution to the question of adequate compensation for teachers is to be found in continuous employment as in other occupations and professions. Without any increased expenditure on the part of the school corporation the board will be able to increase the yearly salaries of our teachers one-third.

The classes in the common schools are three school months apart in their work. For several years pupils who are either too strong or too weak for their classes have been changed at the end of any school month so as to keep each pupil working with the class where he is able to do the most for himself. This has broken up the rigid school machinery whereby all pupils are held together in a “lock step,” marking time thru the course of study regardless of their varying abilities and conditions. This classification now permits pupils to drop out of school at any time for three continuous school months and then return and take up their work where they left it.


APRIL, 1906



Every good American university has among its professors men of two classes : some whom it values for their ability in teaching old truth, and others whom it values for their ability in bringing out new truth. Men of the former type are commonly said to be engaged in instruction; men of the latter type are commonly said to be engaged in research. These names are somewhat misleading, but they are so current that we cannot avoid using them. Our recitation rooms and lecture halls are in charge of men of the former class. Our laboratories, our museums, and our observatories are supposed to be in charge of men of the latter class. It is hard to say just how large the two groups are numerically, or how far the men of the second group are actually relieved from classroom teaching in our different universities. The lines of demarcation are so shadowy that no statistical inquiry on these points is possible. Nor is such an inquiry necessary for the purpose in hand. The question before us is, not whether we have enough research or enough instruction, but whether we shall gain or lose by an attempt to separate the two more fully than we do at present.

On this question I am prepared to take strong ground in "A paper read before the Association of American Universities at San Francisco, California, March 15, 1906.

favor of the negative. We do not want the two things separated, we want them combined.

The men who are engaged in the development of new truth should be impressed with the fact that it is their duty to teach this truth, as well as to discover it. They should understand that research without instruction is as valueless as faith without works. They should feel that they are relieved from classroom duties, not because their work of discovery is something sacred and precious in itself, but because they can teach the kind of truth which they are developing better thru publications and collections and in the form of conversations with advanced students than thru the conventional medium of lecture or recitation. If you tell a man that he is set apart from others in a "research professorship,” you encourage him to ignore these teaching duties. You seem to separate his services from those of his colleagues—to value their work for what they give to others and to value his for what it is in itself. There are few men whose character is strong enough to stand the strain which is placed upon them by such a position. It is specially dangerous to men who, having the possibilities of genius, are also subject to its infirmities.

Meantime, the men who are engaged in teaching old truth to college classes should be impressed with the fact that their teaching will be tenfold better if they can investigate, as well as teach. If their instruction is based upon research, it will be vital; if their instruction is not based upon research, it will be stale. Under pressure of financial necessity we may, at times, use too much of their strength in the actual work of the classroom; but we should guard ourselves against any educational terminology or educational theory which will countenance the belief that this is a proper policy. No matter how old the subjects which he teaches, we do grave injustice both to an instructor and to his classes, if we utilize him as an instructor alone. Whether he accepts this limitation of his activity as something which he cannot help, or chafes and frets under it as an unjust deprivation, the result is in either case disastrous to the man and to the university that employs hin. Between the man who is satisfied because he is second-rate and

the man who is dissatisfied because he is not first-rate there is little to choose. Neither of them represents the kind of teacher we want.

We are not dealing with an ordinary case of division of labor. The great argument for division of labor is that it makes each man more expert in his own field of work by allowing him to concentrate his attention on that field alone, instead of extending it over others. But the college professor who is relieved of the duty of research in order that he may give his whole time to instruction becomes a worse instructor instead of a better one; and he who is relieved of the duty of instruction in order that he may give his whole time to research is, to say the least, liable to the same danger.

But this loss of individual power on the part of the professors is not the only evil to which the creation of a separate class of research professors exposes us. The existence of such a class may become a menace to the general spirit of co-operation and efficiency which is so essential not only to good teaching, but to scientific progress. In selecting such men for special liberty, we may unconsciously restrict that general liberty of thought and teaching which every good university ought to promote. The men thus selected are under strong temptation to care too much for their own ideas and too little for giving stimulus to the ideas of others. They will unconsciously subordinate the laboratories and collections of the university to their own purposes until these laboratories and collections are inadequately used. They will unconsciously stand in the way of younger men who wish to develop researches of their own, because they think that they themselves are appointed to do the research work and that the younger men are hired to act as their helpers. We all remember the conversation which Admiral Dewey is represented by the humorist as having held with Hobson when the latter went out to Manila. “Who are you?“I'm a hero." “ We don't want any such out here; I do all the hero business in Manila.” I do not mean that every professor engaged in research is of the type here satirized. There are many investigators who are singularly helpful to their subordinates and who are quite as much interested in

« PreviousContinue »