The Case of the Public Schools: I. The Witness of the Teacher

Accompanying this circular was the following letter: —

“ The Atlantic Monthly, following its plan of paying especial attention to educational subjects, will take up for discussion the Status of the Teacher, and consider how the profession may be made a calling of greater dignity and of more suitable reward ; for, clearly, teaching is not held in as high honor as it ought to be. It is doubtful, indeed, if the public school system will reach its proper efficiency until in every community the teacher’s status is as high as the status of any other profession. To lift the teacher into the highest esteem, two things are necessary : —

“(1.) To give efficient teachers security in their positions and freedom to do their best work.

“ (2.) To pay them salaries large enough to make the profession attractive to the very ablest men and women, not as a makeshift, but as a life career.

“In discussing a subject of such importance, it is desirable to have as large a volume of facts at first-hand as possible. We therefore take the liberty to ask you to answer these questions concerning the teachers in the public schools in your community.”

The replies, which have been both full and numerous, have been placed in my hands, together with a summary of their results, and are the basis of the following study. Their value was not expected to consist in accuracy, but rather in showing tendencies correctly. The statistical information that can be extracted from them is of less account than the fact that we have here fresh confessions and first-hand observations and experiences from men and women actually engaged in school work ; those most competent to speak on these matters, but in the existing state of things least often heard from. There is every internal indication that the reports are absolutely frank and honest. They thus constitute a valuable protocol of data for points of view no less reliable than they are new, and which are, I think, certain to command the attention of friends of education throughout the country. The investigation should prove as useful as it is opportune.

In all 1189 teachers and superintendents have answered these questions, and every State and Territory in the Union is represented except New Mexico and Oklahoma, and the replies are, on the whole, well distributed over the different parts of the Union, although they are less numerous from the Southern and the far Western States than from the middle Western and New England States.¹ In all sections, the replies appear to be, with few exceptions, from the best teachers, and most of them are from men.

To begin with the first question, which asks the number of pupils per teacher: few returns specify grades, but, averaging these where they are given, and for each return and the returns for each State, we find that Maine reports fewest (35) and Montana most (58). Averaging States by sections, we find that the Middle and New England States have fewest pupils per teacher (41 each ) and the far Western and Pacific States most (45). Rhode Island has most among the New England States (52). In the Middle States the extremes are Virginia and Delaware (39 each) and Pennsylvania (44). In the Southern States the extremes are Arkansas (51) and Florida (34). In the Western States the extremes are Kansas (50) and South Dakota (40) ; and in the far Western States, Montana (58) and Washington (34). Everywhere, of course, the number of pupils per teacher in city schools is greater than in country schools.

These numbers, despite occasional laws that permit even more, are far too large, it need not be said, for any teacher to do good work with. A crude young teacher is constrained, and embarrassed even, in the presence of so many pairs of eyes, and a large share of her energy goes to keep order. To watch the mischievous pupils during every recitation is a constant distraction from the subject in hand. The flitting of the attention from one pupil to another, even for a woman, the periphery of whose retina is more sensitive for the indirect field of vision than a man’s, is a steady strain. Moreover, what knowledge can the average teacher of such a large number have of individual pupils ? And how little can she do to bring out that individuality wherein lies the power of teaching, and the unfolding of which makes or mars the later career of the pupil! No wonder the complaint of machine methods in our schools is so often heard. Both attention and love were made to have an individual focus, while mass-education has limitations in exact proportion to the size of classes. Every step, therefore, toward reduction in numbers is a great gain.

Passing to the second question, as to the proportion of teachers who have changed their profession during the last ten years, it would appear that 30 per cent of those in New England have left the profession within a decade. In the Middle States this average is 40 per cent, in the Southern States it is 50 per cent, in all the Western States it is 65 per cent, and in the far Western and Pacific States it is 60 per cent. While many women leave school to marry, the fact that Massachusetts, where the female teachers outnumber the male a little more than ten to one, shows the lowest average of change, and that Alabama, where 62 per cent are males, reports 42 per cent as having changed, indicates that where male teachers predominate they are responsible for most of the changes.

It is well known that many young men teach as a makeshift for a few years, with no thought of making teaching a life-work. They do so to pay college debts or get money to study further, or to acquire the means for entering one of the other professions. Other statistics have shown that nearly one third of the teachers in many sections of the country change their vocation every year. The fact that so small a fraction of the teachers in the public schools have had any normal or professional training shows, also, how few regard it as a lifework. Of the $95,000,000 paid for salaries of teachers for 15,000,000 children of this country, a large proportion is thus spent upon untrained and unskilled teachers who have little interest in making their work professional. No business could ever succeed or was ever conducted on such principles, and when we reflect that the “ ’prentice hand ” is here tried upon human flesh, blood, and souls the waste in all these respects is appalling. Those who claim that teaching can be learned only by experience are in part right, but even the school of experience is wretchedly inadequate in this country. Moreover, on the whole, it is the best teachers who leave. Here we are far behind other countries. It is only when a teacher has mastered the details of government and method that good work can be done.

When we come to the answers to the question, What proportion of teachers are over thirty-five years of age ? the average estimate of the Middle States, 27 per cent, is the highest, and the average of the Western States, 17 per cent, is the lowest; while the far Western States average 18 per cent, and New England and the South 21 per cent. It would be an interesting question to ask how many of this large per cent of teachers more than thirty-five years of age have remained in the vocation because they succeeded as teachers, and how many are there because they could do no better in other callings. The fact that financial depression increases the average age of teachers as well as the number of male teachers, while good times decrease both, is significant. The social position of teachers is higher in the Western than in the Middle States, so their social position cannot account for these extremes. We have been told that the young make the best teachers for children ; but if so, why not reinstate the monitorial system of pupil teachers ? Again, we are sometimes told that older teachers are unprogressive ; but this is not true of the best, who are also often needed as a conservative element against rash innovations. Nothing is more demanded in our teaching force at present (which, as has recently been pointed out, is nine times as large as our standing army) than leadership of maturity and ability. Those who have shaped the thinking and the reading of our young teachers have been, on the whole, incompetent for this highest and most responsible function in our national life. Until very recent years we had few teachers who had personally inspected foreign systems, could read other languages than English, and were acquainted with all grades of education from kindergarten to university work. In these respects, happily, the prospects are now brightening.

Very striking are the answers to the questions touching teachers’ tenure of their positions and security from improper influences. In New England, percentages reporting improper influence are as follows by States : Maine 33 per cent, New Hampshire 9 per cent, Vermont 8 per cent, Massachusetts 17 per cent, Rhode Island none, and Connecticut 40 per cent. This evil is potent, however, for appointments rather than for removals. These bad influences are prominent in the following order: church, politics, personal favor, and whims of citizens and committees. The master of a grammar school writes strongly against the policy of placing schools in the hands of division committees. Their chairman, he says, is virtually the committee, and almost always lives in the district. The rules forbid the employment of non-resident teachers at anything but the minimum salary. He favors a wider range of choice, and thinks appointments should be made by a general committee advised by supervisor and principal. The system of annual elections is often commented on adversely-

In the Middle States, 9 per cent in New Jersey, 33 per cent in New York, 40 per cent in Delaware, and 50 per cent in Pennsylvania report improper influences. Some sad revelations appear in these returns. One teacher tells of an applicant who was “ asked, not as to his qualifications, but of the number of voters in his family.” Another writes that the friends of a schoolbook publishing house would “drive out any teacher who would not favor their books.” The civil service regulations in New York have bettered the conditions; and a teacher who has had experience in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York says that, on the whole, New York teachers are far above the average in intelligence and professional spirit.

In some of the Southern States very evil influences are reported. In small towns in Alabama teachers are said to be both removed and appointed by favor; positions in some places are rarely held more than two terms, and some teachers take three different schools during the year. Lessons are short. “ In some counties the teachers are said to pay each member of the school board from $2.50 to $5 to keep their positions,” and 6 per cent report improper influence, as do 30 per cent in Georgia, 70 per cent in Kentucky, 25 per cent in Maryland, 40 per cent in Mississippi, 50 per cent in South Carolina and Tennessee, 45 per cent in Texas, 20 per cent in Virginia, and 60 per cent in West Virginia. In Kentucky, where teachers are commonly elected annually, “ when boards change politically, sweeping changes of teachers often follow.” In Mississippi teachers are said rarely to remain in positions more than one year. In Texas one teacher reports: “ If your school board are Democratic, the teachers are Democratic; if Baptists, they must be Baptists.” In WestVirginia it is said that requirements are neither rigid nor uniform. “ Politics is the bane of the school system ; then comes personal favoritism. Colored teachers are special sufferers from politics.”

For the far Western States the report of improper influence is as follows : California 60 per cent, Colorado 60 per cent, North Dakota 100 per cent (only four reports), Oregon 40 per cent, Utah 60 per cent, Washington 60 per cent. In California the state law gives the teacher life tenure of office, but this law is said to be “always evaded by politicians.” Good state laws are overcome by corrupt school boards. Teachers are said to be “pliant, timid, and servile,” and political “ pulls ” are potent. One report says that teachers’ boarding-places affect their security; another calls them “cranks ” and “ cowards.” Requirements are said to be “ wholly unpedagogical, absurd, and criminally careless.” In Colorado it is the same old story of the political “ pull.” Large cities seem freer from political influence than small towns. Local teachers are preferred to outsiders, which is a bad sign. In Idaho the condition looks bad, and personal favoritism is said to keep teachers in office. In Oregon, where tenure is uncertain and teachers are often elected annually, the main difficulty seems to be in security of tenure. In Utah one report says that positions in some places are solely dependent on political influence. In Washington a city superintendent says : “ We have practically no protection from political demagogues ; this unfortunate condition is appalling in our Western country.” He says further that tenure of position is affected by “ personal friends and their influence, and by the lack of them.” “ We must trade with the merchants, bank with the bankers, take treatment of the doctors, consult the lawyers, connive with the politicians, and even go to school elections and work for the successful candidate.”

For the Western States, the report of improper influences by percentages is as follows: Illinois 44 per cent, Indiana 33 per cent, Iowa 40 per cent, Kansas 80 per cent, Michigan 50 per cent, Minnesota 33 per cent, Mississippi 40 per cent, Missouri 50 per cent. Nebraska 65 per cent, Nevada 100 per cent, Ohio 40 per cent, Wisconsin 40 per cent. In Illinois many complain of church influence as a growing evil, and of local preference, always a sign of politics. Tenure is said to be affected by the evil doings of book publishers and agents. Chicago, however, is “a striking instance of a large city that has succeeded in putting its public schools on a fairly sound basis. The main difficulty is getting rid of poor teachers, although the rank and file seem more cultivated than the supervisors.” In Iowa standards are low, home teachers are preferred, and few teachers remain more than a year in a place. In Michigan tenure of office is becoming more secure and legislation better, and smaller towns seem more free from political influence than large cities. It is reported from one of the large central Western cities that a member of the school board could not read or write. In Nebraska church relations are said to affect tenure more than politics. In Minnesota the religious “ pull “ is reported more potent than the political, and preference for local teachers appears. In Ohio it is said that, owing to constant change in the teaching force, the teacher is “ not recognized as a factor in social or political life. He is deprived of the privilege of free speech on all subjects, but especially on the one subject that concerns him most, namely, reforms in teaching. The people who should be the leaders in educational thought do not call their souls their own. They catch their breath in quick starts when they see a power over them wielding the club of dismissal.”From Wisconsin it is reported, as one reason why teachers are not highly esteemed, that they “ are often too much interested in commercial transactions of publishing houses.” Another report says that the greatest drawback to teaching in the West is the impossibility of becoming an integral part of the community in which one lives. “Unless the teacher is a flatterer and keeps quiet on all political questions, he loses his position.” “In some communities teachers are hired by the day or week.”

From such answers it is impossible to resist the conclusion that civil service reform is greatly needed for teachers. As long as merit does not win there is little encouragement for teachers to make any kind of special preparation, or for communities to support normal and training schools. A teacher, however well fitted for the work, is hampered if there is any anxiety concerning his tenure of position, and any system in which merit does not lead to both permanence and promotion is bad, and certain to grow worse. Tenure by personal favor is even more corrupting than tenure by political or religious influences. Teachers ought to be, both by ability and by position, moral forces in the community, and their opinion ought to be best and final concerning textbooks and school supplies; and yet, touching the latter, not only teachers, but superintendents evade their responsibilities. For myself, I wish to say that, after many years of acquaintance with school work in this country, I consider the present modes of introducing textbooks and other supplies as among the most degrading influences in the work of American public schools. Under existing conditions, vast as is the difference between good and poor books, the former would have exceeding small chance of success if not pushed by unworthy and now very expensive methods which are paid for by enhanced prices for books.

The answers relating to salaries show a great preponderance of opinion that these are insufficient. Sometimes exception is made in the case of poor teachers or of certain grades, but in most cases the opinion and even the language is emphatic that an increase in salaries would help the service. A Maine report says : “ The great trouble is that our best teachers leave for better salaries almost as soon as they have learned their work.” A Vermont teacher fears that any increase would bring a reaction against the schools on the ground of over-taxation, and so cripple them. Another adds that “ higher salaries must go hand in hand with higher professional requirements; otherwise an increase of salaries would attract a large number of persons of inferior qualifications.”

In Massachusetts only 9 per cent consider higher salaries inadvisable. One woman touchingly thinks a real lover of the work will be uninfluenced by such considerations. A Boston principal says: “ Most masters take a pride in their profession, and I know a few instances of their refusing higher salaries in different businesses.” An academy teacher says : “ Higher salaries will make it possible to get men where women now hold, and to secure better men as superintendents and principals of the high school. Women are better than men, except in these two places.”One man says : “ Salaries ought not to be uniform. Every teacher ought to be paid what he is worth. This is possible only when the pay-roll is not made public. This is done in a few cities ; Hartford, Connecticut, for example.”

In all parts of the country the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of more pay. This opinion is most nearly unanimous in the Southern States, where salaries are lowest, but it is also strong where salaries are highest. A Pennsylvania teacher says : “ There is small pay and there is little gratitude for public school teachers. In an adjoining town one of the occupants of the poorhouse is a man who had devoted a long life to teaching in the public schools of that county. Now old and infirm, he finds himself, through no fault of his, an object of charity.” Poor pay is both a cause and a result of lack of appreciation. In many localities salaries have been reduced. In most places and in most grades they are reported as stationary, while Wisconsin and New Jersey are the only States in which a general increase is reported. On the whole, I am impressed with the opinion of a Massachusetts teacher, who says: “ Better school houses, better equipments, better superintendents, and more general freedom and responsibility have done more than an increase of salary to improve the schools.”

Mr. Hewes ² has shown that the average salary of the American teacher, counting fifty-two weeks to the year, is $5.67 per week for such male teachers as remain in the ranks, and $4.67 for female teachers. “ As a partial index of the disposition of our population to our public School system ” this is not reassuring. The highest average salary, according to the Report of the Commissioner of Education, is $1181 per year in Massachusetts, and the lowest $213 per year in North Carolina. “ The average pay of teachers in our public schools furnishes them with the sum of $5 a week for all their expenses.” In 1885 salaries were higher than they are now, but in 1889 the average salaries of American teachers were lower, so that, on the whole, we are just now improving. The $95,000,000 spent in this country for teachers in the public schools every year must be divided among 368,000 teachers, — more than twice as many as in any other country of the world.

Although these figures take no account of the fact that many rural teachers are engaged in other vocations a large part of the year, they are appalling enough. And the reason for the displacement of male by female teachers, until in many parts of the country the former seem doomed to extinction, is apparent. At present, the American school system as a whole owes its high quality in no small measure to the noble character, enthusiasm, and devotion of women who make teaching not only a means of livelihood, but in addition thereto a mission service of love for their work and for children. To increase this love is to increase the best part of their services, and to diminish it is to degrade it to mere drudgery and routine. As the culture of women gradually rises, it becomes more and more evident how unjust have been the discriminations against them in this field, where in higher and higher grades of school work their services are becoming no less valuable than men’s.

The question concerning rigid and uniform requirements and normal certificates evokes very diverse answers. In Maine they are reported as rigid in only a few cases. In New Hampshire one report says : “ We need a state system of examining and licensing teachers. A large proportion in all district schools are young girls, sixteen to twenty years of age, utterly untrained. Some of them have natural tact sufficient to carry them through, but the majority fail, and accept the first offer of marriage.” A superintendent says that Boston and the towns about it take his best teachers, as the salaries he can pay will not hold them. In Vermont a report says : “ We have practically no supervision. The town superintendents are not paid enough to enable them to devote their time and thought to the work.” In Massachusetts 45 per cent report requirements as rigid and uniform, and normal school or college training as required. Normal school or college graduates are often preferred in other cases, but rarely insisted upon. A few years of successful experience are sometimes regarded as equivalent to a certificate. One principal favors giving teachers special subjects, and disregarding grades. One superintendent says :

“ Nearly all our new teachers are directly from the normal schools. If they are efficient at the end of one or two years, they leave for positions paying higher salaries ; if not efficient, they are not retained.” One teacher says : “ Efficiency of schools is destroyed by the fear or inability of authorities to remove weak, popular teachers.” A city superintendent says: “ We get our teachers from any place in the country. This gives us a wide choice.” And he adds: “ It is senseless to let committeemen elect teachers. The superintendent should appoint them.” He deplores that so much power is in the hands of local boards “whose members know nothing of educational theory, history, or practice.” In Rhode Island about half the correspondents report normal school or college training as required. In one city a yearly examination is held. “ Candidates are required to obtain 70 per cent, to have their names placed on the substitute list. After assisting three or four times, these substitutes are given regular positions.” A Connecticut principal says: “The situation is peculiar in Connecticut. The district committee engages teachers, and the town committee examines them. This examination does not amount to much. The district committees, however, generally expect teachers with normal school training. ’ Another says : “ Too many young people without proper scholarship enter our normal schools. None but graduates of high schools should be admitted. Teachers ought to be retired and pensioned after a certain number of years of service.” Another says: “We have annual election of teachers: this is wrong, after a teacher has succeeded one or two years.” In New England, as a whole, about 42 per cent report normal school or college training as required. Vermont is said to have a state law requiring teachers to have such training. But it is as effective as the rules and regulations of the Boston public schools, which are said to require fifty-six pupils to a teacher.

Leaving New England and passing to the Middle States, we find New Jersey reporting requirements as generally uniform, and certificates as invariable. But its one normal school supplies only a small part of the teachers. In New York complaint is made that the normal school turns out too many theoretical teachers, and that it takes some years to make them effective. The system of annual elections is to be abandoned in the State, and the primary departments are weakest. In Delaware there is a rigid state law, and the indications from uniform state examinations are hopeful. In Pennsylvania requirements seem generally uniform, but not rigid, while lack of popular sentiment soon robs teachers of ambition or courage. Alabama and Georgia report no rigid requirements or examinations, and no good state law. Louisiana is no better. In South Carolina the teachers’ standard of scholarship is low, and few hold first-rate certificates. Tennessee has annual examinations, but lacks uniformity, and a county certificate is all that is required. Both the Virginias lack rigidity and uniformity.

In the far West a state law (in California) gives a life tenure, and requires equal pay for men and women, but the condition of life tenure is said to be very commonly evaded. In Colorado only larger towns are improving under state statutes. In Oregon requirements are loose, teachers are often elected annually, and normal certificates are not required. Utah lacks uniformity; so does Washington, where the principal of a city high school says: “ The greatest curse of the public school of any State is the laws pertaining to the normal schools. Most of these are conducted by little politicians, and they in one or two short years train boys and girls fresh from farm and high school into teachers licensed to teach forever. The raw, untrained, normal school graduate has more recognition before the law than would a W. D. Whitney. The country school and teacher are here, as they are everywhere, indescribable. The teacher is not paid sufficient to dress well. He is not required to know much, nor does be often pass beyond his requirements. The average district board member is sure to have some niece, about eighteen or nineteen years of age, ‘ who would make a right smart teacher,’ or who would be able to ‘ learn ’em all that their paps and mams know’d. “ However, here and there, in town, city, and country, are found individuals who could not fail in their work. They are pouring their life freely and fully into their profession.

In the mid-Western States it appears that normal school graduates are not generally successful. In Illinois good men for principals are very scarce, and it is often said that superintendencies and school boards should not be political offices. In Indiana it seems that while the superintendents are often narrow, ignorant, and corrupt men, even the good ones labor under great difficulties in trying to raise the standard of an uninterested and unenthusiastic body of teachers. The rank and file seem to care little for their professional status. They complain bitterly of personal injustice, but they hardly breathe the proper spirit. Requirements are not rigid or uniform, and county certificates are enough. In Iowa, where county superintendents are the most important school officers, they depend on politics for their position. Standards are neither uniform nor rigid. In Kansas requirements are rarely uniform outside of cities, and ignorant boards stand in the way of good work. The Kansas system, on the whole, seems poor. In Michigan want of rigid and uniform requirements is the main difficulty, although state legislation is improving. Missouri lacks state requirements, and there is more criticism of normal school graduates. In Nebraska requirements are flexible, and the superintendency is a political office. In Minnesota, as in other States where the normal school abounds, there is much theoretical work, but requirements are uniform and rigid.

The topics of this question present peculiar difficulties. Uniformity of requirements in widely different localities, and especially between city and country schools, is almost unattainable, and certainly is not found in the best countries in Europe. The ability of classes in different localities varies, and the supply of teachers is still more inconstant. The same is true of rigidity. Even German universities raise and lower professional standards according to the supply and demand. It must be admitted, too, that normal schools have often but crude material to deal with, and have lapsed into formal and theoretical ways in many places. These ways are now one of the worst features of education in this country. No system of certification can equal professional training. But, despite this, these are the ideals toward which legislation should strive ; and in this country, at least, nearly all the steps toward centralization have been marks of progress ; although in France this had been so extreme that the reverse is now true. The happy mean will unite the benefits of a large comparative view and the stimulus of local pride. Here again, as at so many points, the incompetency of local boards is the chief hindrance. Even comparison of the schools of a city like Springfield, Massachusetts, which elects its school board on a ticket at large, with those of other cities of the same class in New England tells the story. The former method secures the services of men known throughout the city; the latter, of men known in their own wards.

The inquiry about promotions brings to view perhaps the greatest diversity of opinion and practice. Adjacent schools in the same city often announce opposite principles. The most frequent promotion is from sub-mastership to mastership ; less often do promotions occur from grammar to high school grades. The general opinion is that all grades of grammar teachers should have the same pay. Most teachers prefer to work in the grade to which they are accustomed, and many say that nature fits each teacher to some particular grade where she succeeds, but she would fail if advanced. Many a good primary teacher is spoiled if transferred to upper grades. The same democratic spirit that lets a superior teacher go to a large town for a small advance, rather than break the dead level of the pay scale, favors absolute equality as between grades. Often where the method of certification puts teachers whose examinations rank lowest in the low grades, they are content to remain there unless a higher certificate improves materially their tenure or pay. How different this principle from that of the German Professor Rein, who would have teachers begin with the lower primary, and go up through all grades with the same class, for the sake of the better knowledge of individuality thus secured ! But very few favor the plan of encouraging special teachers to teach the same subjects in all grades. As this is a matter to which I have given some thought, I will express the opinion that the best plan is for class teachers for lower grades to go up two or even four years with the same class ; and for higher grades, that the class teacher’s functions should gradually yield to those of the special teacher.

The last question of all, asking for general remarks, has evoked a vast and miscellaneous but very interesting body of suggestions, facts, and criticisms. A Maine man wants a rule forbidding teachers to do outside work for pay. A Boston man says that not one in a hundred of the male teachers in that city is a Boston boy. In Brookline (Massachusetts), Detroit, and elsewhere, education societies, mothers’ clubs, and the like are organized with the distinct aim of bringing parents and teachers together, and excellent results are reported. In Brookline there is but one session a day in all schools. This gives the afternoon for rest, recreation, and successful teachers’ meetings. A Connecticut principal, who had held his place for thirty years, and failed of reelection by the school committee last June, was chosen at a special election by a large majority of the citizens. A Minnesota superintendent urges that child study is a bad influence, as it has become a fad. Many complain of the low social status of the teacher, and in some places it is said to be impossible for teachers to find board in pleasant families. Another insists that eighth-grade pupils might just as well be two years younger. A West Virginia teacher reports that getting in debt to school officers is a good way of insuring a position on the teachers’ staff, so that the debtor may be in a position to pay. And two teachers hint at dreadful evils they might detail, growing out of personal favor and patronage.

As a whole, these returns certainly give a new point of view. Some of the questions are directly intended to bring out defects rather than merits, but the names of these 1189 teachers and superintendents, many of whom are of the very highest standing, offer conclusive evidence, even if the spirit of the reports did not sufficiently evince the fact, that there is almost no attempt at sensationalism, gossip, or expressions of personal disaffection. The evils are very real, grave, and widespread ; whether a trifle more or less so than these rough estimates make out is of small account. They stand out in gloomy contrast with the glorification of the perfections of our system commonly heard in teachers’ meetings, and by many thought necessary to insure a continuation of school appropriations. The two general impressions left on my own mind from a careful reading of the reports, here so inadequately condensed, may be summarized as follows : —

(1.) Nowhere has there ever been, to my knowledge, so clear and forceful a presentation of the evils of subjecting schools to political officers who are nearly lowest in the scale of political preferment. It is worst of all when not only city and state superintendents, but even normal school principals must look to politics for a continuance in office. As long as this lasts appointment cannot be wisely made, tenure is not by merit, and the value to the community of every dollar of school money is greatly depreciated. The moral influence of such a system is wholly bad not only upon the community, but on every part of school work and on every person connected with it. It hurts the pupils most of all. The difference between a good and a fairly good teacher, to say nothing of a bad one, is incalculable, but, like all things of the soul, inappreciable to the general public. There are schools in my city, and other cities in my State, where I should prefer two years of schooling for a child of mine to four years in another school where the public makes little or no discrimination. The reforms needed, in my judgment, are, that the power of appointment and also of removal be given into competent and responsible hands ; that school boards be elected on tickets at large; that with advancement up the grades should go increase of pay, permanence, and dignity, but that good teachers in all grades should be paid more than poor teachers in any grade ; that there be a great but gradual increase of special teaching as pupils pass up the grades ; that the selection of textbooks be placed in expert and uncorruptible hands ; and finally, that the functions of formal examinations be greatly reduced.

(2.) The question is very often suggested by these returns, whether the many graduates of normal schools are of such value to the public school system as teachers as the advocates of these schools claim. It is time this question were discussed, and nowhere is it more urgent than in Massachusetts, where four new normal schools are liable to give to existing traditions and practices a momentum they little deserve. Most of our American normal schools, not however without a good number of exceptions, have become institutions where form is exalted above substance, and often to the lasting detriment of the latter. If a teacher has and loves knowledge, and has a strong and quick feeling for childhood, a few simple and easily taught rules, devices, and a few dozen lessons each on the history of education and the human soul, are enough for the rank and file. It is so fatally easy to let method glide into the place of matter, to make intricate what God made plain, to make hard and formal what nature reveals at once to tact and to the native insight of childhood by judicious hints, that it is perhaps not strange that normal school work tends, as by an iron and universal law, to degenerate. Here is the source of most of the internal evils ; low politics is responsible for most of those that are external. No part of our entire educational system so needs regeneration as the normal schools. The first step in the reform of these evils would be a commission of the right kind of experts, familiar with systems in other lands, to investigate and report. This should certainly be done in Massachusetts before the state board appoints principals and allows courses to be shaped for the four new normal schools. It would be wasting a great opportunity not to inaugurate a new dispensation with these new institutions. I suggest that the governor appoint such a commission without delay, before it is too late. This step would be strongly opposed by most of the existing normal schools, but I believe it would be heartily approved by most other friends of education in the State. If such a commission were rightly selected and its report were adopted, it would mark an epoch in the history of public education in the State.

On the whole, many and crying as are these evils, and glaringly as they refute the Dr. Pangloss optimism and spreadeagleism so common in this country where teachers forgather, for one I am not discouraged, but would rather bid teachers hope. If a corresponding inquiry into the best points of our schools and teachers were made, and the results were massed as these have been, the picture would be very bright. Somewhere in this great country, one feature here, another there, almost every reform in education has been successfully begun. Slowly from these vital points the leaven will pervade the lump. If I were to sum up all our needs into one great need, it would be that of sane and well-trained leaders. As a whole, American teachers are sheep without a shepherd, sadly lacking, but readily — often too readily — accepting intellectual guidance. They are often sorely confused between conflicting authorities ; a little too eager for novelties, a little too prone to say, Lo here, lo there ; responding heartily to every genuine enthusiasm and interest in their work, but as yet without any settled method, philosophy, or consensus of any kind ; awaiting half unconsciously some clear dispensation of pedagogic art and science. That its star is already above the horizon, and is visible to all who love and know childhood aright, I believe with all my soul.

G. Stanley Hall.