Page images

school subjects one with another, are making a strained and improper use of the word. This criticism is not correct. The highest authority that we have, the “Century Dictionary,” gives as a definition of correlation, "the act of bringing into orderly connection or reciprocal relation.” It recites a passage from the great work of Grove, who first made this term familiar in English scientific literature, in illustration of the meaning of correlation. This is precisely the sense in which the word is used by Dr. McMurry and others, and it is precisely the sense in which I expected to find it used in this report. The questions sent out by the committee justified this expectation. Therefore I say, I am disappointed, and grievously disappointed, that we have in these pages only a passing reference to the real problem of correlation or concentration as it is before American teachers at the present moment.

I can find no fault with the use of the word selected by the committee, but I do complain that they have not treated the problem, whatever name they choose to give to it, that we asked them to solve. Instead of that, they have given us a splendid and learned discussion of educational values, an analysis of the history of the school curriculum, and an elaborate defense of the status quo. It is apparent to me, therefore, that this report faces backward and not forward. I say this, despite the fact that it suggests and argues for more than one important innovation in the curriculum.

For one hundred years, ever since the time of Pestalozzi, we have been trying to extract the curriculum from a philosophical discussion of this sort, but we have not succeeded in satisfying ourselves wholly. We have made great advance, and for that advance we in America are indebted more largely to Dr. Harris than to any other single person, living or dead. He has taught us to understand why certain specific branches of knowledge are selected for a place in the curriculum, and now we ask him to tell us how they are to be correlated, or co-ordinated, or concentrated, in practice, to meet the new demands that are made upon the school; and we get no answer in this report.

The curriculum that this report recommends to us and the methods that it outlines are arrived at by an analysis made from the adult point of view. Are we, then, to understand that child study is to be given no hearing? Are we shut up to formal analysis as the sole method in evolving a practical school plan? The newer education answers this question directly in the negative. It is putting the child in the place of honor, and asking him to tell us what his nature demands and in what order it demands it. Dr. White has said that the legitimate result of this newer movement is individualism in teaching. I agree with him absolutely. We hope that the time will come when the individuality of every child will be respected. We want to rescue each child from the thralldom to which the formalism of the schoolroom has subjected him. For the sake of system we are reducing fifty, sixty, or seventy individual children in a schoolroom to a common denominator. It is true that there is no universal educational method, and that the Herbartians are as little likely as the Hegelians to provide us with a rule that shall know no exception. But in the point of view that they take, based upon the doctrine of apperception and upon the doctrine of interest, they are absolutely right, and we did not expect that a committee of this kind would turn this entire movement out of court without a hearing. Personally I am a slavish adherent of no school of thought and wear the badge of none, but I do say that we should not be prevented from giving to this great Herbartian movement prolonged and sympathetic examination. Why is it that we find the question of the correlation or the concentration of studies forced upon us at all? Certainly the normal child sees the world about him as a correlated and a concentrated whole. It is the adults and the philosophers who have made the analysis that has resulted in separating what to the child is connected; so that, after all, the advocates of correlation are simply endeavoring to put the course of study back where they found it and to treat the curriculum from the child's point of view. The adult is able to distinguish a physical fact from a chemical fact, a geographical fact from an historical fact, an arithmetical fact from an algebraical fact; but the child is not. He views them all simply as facts, and originally they are all on the same plane with regard to his intelligence. We must, therefore, seek the real unity that underlies the curriculum, and not proceed by making first an artificial separation of studies and then a doubly artificial synthesis of them.

A preceding speaker has sharply criticised the psychology of Herbart. It is undoubtedly true that we cannot accept Herbart's psychology as a satisfactory explanation of mental life. But it is not necessary that we should do so in order to secure the benefit of the educational theory and the educational practice that bears Herbart's name.

SUPT. S. T. DUTTON, Brookline, Mass.--I shall only say a single word. About all has been said that needs to be said now. It seems to me that the question takes this form the same God that made the child made the world about him.

The purpose of those who mean to work out something better is to find how the child should be taught. Some of my friends do not seem to recognize the value of this report. Dr. Harris said very distinctly that the course of study in point should include the whole round of human knowledge. Now, there are two things that have helped me in this matter, and my view is singularly different from Dr. White's. First, if correlation makes the kindergarten what it is, it seems to me that it should go on. If successful there, it is likely to be in the first year, in the second, and so on. Second, a cross-section of the course of study at any point brings in so many things that confusion follows unless the Herbartian plan is adopted. The only way out of the difficulty is the working out of these principles. If that is not done, we shall have reaction.

I am not afraid that the cause of correlation will be retarded because of this report. Every teacher ought to read this discussion of educational values, and it ought to help us-it will help us. If this report is not complete, it will be completed in the good work of teachers all over this country.

DR. W. T. HARRIS.-I wish to add one remark as to the meaning of correlation. I would call attention to its etymology, which makes it a bringing into relation of what is co-ordinate. In Murray's great English dictionary-see the words correlation, correlate, and correlative-no hint of concentration is given among the many meanings. I knew of the Herbartian idea of concentration of studies, but I was not familiar with the use of the word correlation in the same sense as concentration. Concentration implies subordination of several branches to one central

I have given an example, in discussing the method of teaching geography, of the application of the deeper doctrine of concentration. I have shown that we should start with the child and proceed in two directions; one towards the elements of difference, in order to explain the obstacles which man has to overcome. On the other side, we should go towards the subjects of human industry, invention, and commerce, and learn the method by which man overcomes the "elements of difference.” Geography for the child should begin in the center and move outward towards these extremes, including at every step a human side and a natural side. This is not a philosophical study of correlation, llegelian or otherwise, although it has been called so in this debate, but a scientific study of the educational value of the branches of the course of study. I began it in 1870. Now, in a


scientific study, one does not allow his feelings of attraction or repulsion to cloud his reason. He assumes an unprejudiced attitude towards the object that he studies. Child study, as it is pursued by Dr. Stanley Hall, is pursued with this true scientific spirit. But child study is not the only thing in education, nor can education be founded on child study alone. The child is here to be correlated with the world. The educator must study the world and study the child, and correlate the one to the other; that is to say, he must bring the child into a knowledge of the world and a mastery of its appliances. The report, of course, assumes the value of child study, and in all the numerous places where attention is called to the danger of producing arrested development the results of child study are drawn upon; but, on the other hand, if you have a knowledge of the child, and do not have a knowledge of the significance of the branches of study and the way in which they unlock the world of reality, you cannot correlate the child with the world.




Education is primarily the duty of the home. In the historical development of the race many of the functions which belonged originally to the head of the house have been made over to the church and the state. In every civilized country, with the possible exception of Iceland (where the long winter nights give the father ample time to teach his own children), the state has assured the task of universal education by establishing schools for the people and organizing systems of public instruction.

A system of public instruction cannot be efficient without officers charged with executive duties. The executive head of a school system is known by various names. In the fatherland, where church and state are united, he is known as the cultus minister. In the Queen's dominions he is known as the minister of education. In most of the states his official designation is superintendent of public instruction. In a few he is known as the commissioner of common schools. In Massachusetts he is the secretary of the state board of education.

Every public office has its specified and its implied duties. In the present instance a discussion of those only which are typical will be attempted. Such a discussion will serve to reveal wherein the functions and prerogatives of the state superintendent may with advantage be enlarged, and wherein his powers may be abridged with. out harm to the system. Since each commonwealth has its own peculiar conditions, regulations which work admirably in one state will not answer equally well in all other states. The endless variety in matters of detail forbids an attempt at more than the enumeration of the duties characteristic of the office in a majority of the states.

In all the states it is specified that the superintendent shall, at stated intervals of a year or two, make reports upon the condition of the school system. The points to be covered by each report are explicitly stated by legislative enactments in several states; in others, room is left for the exercise of good judgment. Inasmuch as new questions continually arise and statistics of every kind lose their interest and value after a time, it seems wise to give the state super. intendent considerable discretion in the collection of statistics for his report. The only need for limitation arises in the case of the statistical fiend, who cannot see that the more time and energy teachers must waste upon figures and percentages the less they will have for their legitimate work as guides of the young.

There is no cheaper or more satisfactory method of distributing the state appropriation than by warrants upon the state treasurer drawn by the superintendent of public instruction and made payable to the treasurer of each school district.

The state superintendent is required to expound the school laws and to make decisions for the benefit of directors and others interested in the administration of the school system. In most states his decisions can be reversed by the courts. In New York the state superintendent is the final arbiter in all disputes concerning school matters. "However democratic in her political philosophy New York may be,” says Dr. Sidney Sherwood, "the history of her common schools, as well as of her university, shows that she has imperialist instincts. The Empire State is not a mere fancy name.” The supreme importance of deciding all school questions speedily and without expense causes me to give my unqualified approval to this extraordinary enlargement of his powers, and for this reason I quote more fully from the authority just cited: “Any person feeling himself ag. grieved in consequence of any decision made by school district meetings, school commissioners, supervisors, district trustees, and other officers, in regard to any matter under the school laws, may appeal to the superintendent of public instruction. Thus, the very sanction of local self-government—the district meeting—is invaded by the central authority of the state. The superintendent, in this capacity, establishes rules of practice, issues injunctions, and makes all necessary orders. Councils are heard before him. The questions involved on their appeals touch all branches of the civil law, of the state constitutional law, real estate law, the law of contracts, the law of wills, and the like. Hence, there is conferred upon the superintendent an appellate judicial authority co-ordinate with that of the court of appeals in some respects; for the law declares that his decision shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to question or review in any place or court whatever." Not only is the state superintendent a court of final appeal, but he is vested with ample powers to enforce his decisions. He has, “first, the power to compel the assessment and collection of taxes in a school district to pay proper demands against the district; second, the power to remove from office any school trustee, or member of a board of education of a union free school district, or other school officer, for any willful violation or neglect of duty under the school statutes, or for willfully disobeying any decision, order, or regulation of the superintendent.”

So far as I can learn, the universal testimony is that this extreme centralization in the system of primary instruction has worked well. Certainly it is superior to the Pennsylvania system, under which the same school question is decided in opposite ways by the different judges of the court of common pleas. For instance, before the passage of the act of June 25, 1885, it was allowable in one county for the directors to furnish free text-books, whilst immediately on the other side of the county line, under the jurisdiction of another judge, this was a violation of law involving dire consequences for the directors, although they were acting under precisely the same code of laws as their neighbors. Again and again it has been demonstrated that men learned in the law may not be sufficiently posted in school matters to interpret flexible statutes in accordance with the best interests of the children.

In many states the arrangements for the holding of institutes are in the hands of the state superintendent. In the Empire State there is an institute faculty under the direction of the central office, so that the quality and variety of talent is limited by its judgment and wishes. I am unreservedly in favor of giving the county or city superintendent the power and the means to procure the best talent at home and abroad. Feeling himself responsible for the success of the institute, he will stir up the interest of the general public, secure the best available instructors, and seek to carry into effect their sug. gestions and directions during his subsequent school visits. Without the enthusiasm created among all classes by a system of magnificent county institutes it would have been impossible in Pennsylvania to secure an appropriation of $5,500,000 for common schools and $875,000 in aid of normal schools and the training of teachers. Where the county superintendents or county school commissioners are elected by popular vote, so that the office is made a berth for the fellow who deserves party recognition and for whom there is no other place, resulting occasionally in the selection of men who do not know

« PreviousContinue »