Page images
PDF
EPUB

Discussion of Paper Read by Dr. S. S. Herrick.

DR. THOS. D. WOOD: I was one of the committee appointed at the meeting of the State Medical Society two years ago in San Francisco to take under consideration this matter of the teaching of physiology and hygiene in public schools. Not very much was done, I think, by that committee. It was handicapped by the complexity of affairs and committees and red tape which wall about our system of public education. An appeal was made to the City Board of Education in San Francisco, and a thorough effort made to have a reform of some kind instituted, and as Dr. Herrick has suggested, and I think that that effort has been felt in the reorganization of the Normal School at San José. The subject, in the meantime, has been growing in interest. I am practically engaged in the teaching of subjects of this kind. It seems to me, in the first place, that there is a good deal to be done towards reform in the methods of teaching these subjects of physiology and hygiene in the public schools. They, to my mind, have been taught too much as a part of the regular curriculum. They have come into competition with other subjects and studies in the course of study. Physiology has been looked upon as a science study in schools, and I believe it is necessary at the beginning to separate the two branches of physiology and hygiene. Human physiology, it seems to me, and it is the result of the experience of a good many educators, should not be taught to the younger pupils in the schools as such; human anatomy and physiology as a science study is proper, perhaps, in the grammar and high school course. But the subject of hygiene, those who are here to-day will at least admit, I am sure, should be taught from the time the child enters the kindergarten until he is graduated from whatever institution of learning, at least below the professional or technical school, he may enter. Hygiene, it seems to me, should be taught, as Dr. Herrick has suggested, as the science which deals with self-preservation, agreeable to the previous preparation and condition of the children who are being taught. A mistake has been made in trying to teach pathology to children in the first grades of school, in temperance instruction as well as in the teaching of physiology. Injury has been done by the discussing of things which have simply surprised and shocked the nervous system of the child who has never been prepared by any previous training, in the effort to force instruction of this kind. Preparation is needed before the child can understand such difficult subjects as the principles of human anatomy and physiology; there is a preparation needed before entering upon the study of animal physiology, zoology, biology, pathology, physics, and chemistry. But the child must not be neglected in the education which he should have in the science of hygiene or health preservation. The first thought that I want to emphasize is that it needs to be differentiated more clearly as a subject, so that it may not come into competition with, or be crowded by, or compressed with other studies in the school curriculum, because it has to do vitally with the child, no matter what he is going to do or how long he is going to stay in school, and the shorter time he stays the more necessity there is that this subject should be sufficiently inculcated.

There are certain things which it seems to me are necessary to the proper teaching, proper consideration, and proper treatment of this subject in the schools to-day. In the first place, a realization of the neces

sity which will come with the better intelligence of people at large. This must be done by education of public opinion, an education which will grow out of this meeting, if this subject be touched upon every year, one year after another; through the discussion of these matters in the newspapers, as well as through the teaching of the younger generation, which will enable them to appreciate the necessity for it.

In the second place, I find from a study of the schools in this State, that practically the most difficult problem to-day to solve in the matter of the development of physiology and hygiene, is lack of preparation on the part of teachers. Dr. Herrick has told us the preparation given in one or two of the normal schools of the State. As a matter of fact the training given in hygiene, in health preservation, is very deficient in most of the State normal schools and universities and public schools throughout the country, and entirely inadequate. It is taught by teachers who are crowded with other work. If they teach it at all, they teach it because they are required to. They have no heart in the subject whatsoever. They teach it as an extra. They feel it an added burden, and they teach it as superficially as they can and retain their places. I have had them admit this to me time and time again. It is possible to arouse an interest in them in this work with reference to this subject, but this has not been done; primarily, because no proper training is given in the training school for teachers, neither in the high schools, in the grammar schools, in the normal schools, nor in universities; and in order that this shall be done, in order that teachers shall have the proper training, there must be better methods for the teaching of this subject. I say this subject of hygiene, which implies enough of anatomy and physiology, as well as the study of disease, to render it intelligible; this teaching, at least in the normal schools, should be done by specially trained teachers, by medically trained teachers, and not simply by physicians. I feel free to speak of this, because in a very humble way I am a physician and teacher of hygiene. It does not follow that because a man or woman is a graduated physician that he will be a good teacher of hygiene. It is coming to be an independent subject, and requires careful study in addition to the professional study of medicine. It requires a special study in itself. There are better methods of training needed; in the first place, better teachers; in the second place, a method of teaching the subject which is different from the characteristic method of teaching medicine, or different from the other studies in the schools. It is the teaching of the problem of self-preservation. It is the teaching of mechanics. It is the teaching of the study of a machine which has to be run during a certain time in the best possible way, and there is no figure, no simile which appeals to me so frequently as that of the engineer. The knowledge of the teacher of hygiene and physiology, so far as he deals with this subject in the schools, is comparable to that of the knowledge of the engineer, who must know how to run the engine most economically, perfectly, and successfully to the extent of the work which it shall do. The human body is considered by our school teachers too much as a structure with very peculiar and intricate functions, instead of a machine which must be handled according to its complexity and delicacy in order to get it to do the work which it must do.

After having presumed, in the way I have, as a young man, I am rather hoping that my identity will remain unknown, because I assure

you that I am simply in the beginning of the study of this field of education, and while deeply interested, do not mean to take the position, in any way, of feeling that my way is better than that of anybody else, but it seems to me that there are certain dangers, certain difficulties, and certain very important reforms, which should be instituted.

A LADY: In the rules and regulations of the Board of Education of San Francisco, there is one that says that the windows shall be lowered at the top, and never raised at the bottom. I scarcely found a room but what I was happy to escape from. The condition was so that I was glad to get out.

DR. W. LEMOYNE WILLS: I can hardly agree with Dr. Wood in his remarks about better methods of teaching hygiene in the public schools. In a very humble way I am a teacher of medical students, and have some knowledge of the methods pursued in the public high schools, and they have no facilities whatever. The teacher, while he has other things to do, has no material, and about once a year he goes and borrows a skeleton or a book of plates, and possibly dissects a cat or a rabbit, and calls that teaching physiology. Now, in the public school it is considered indelicate to teach anatomy or physiology as medical. students study it, or as anybody else studies such a subject intelligibly; and the curse of the present day in the public schools is these cursed school books published by the State. They have at least crushed out the book monopoly and the book debauchery of school boards, but they have perpetrated upon the public school system a set of books that are neither one thing nor the other, and they have about six instead of one. These are published by the State, at Sacramento-good, bad, and indifferent. Take the book on physiology. I recollect Dr. Washington Ayer said two years ago, in discussing this matter before the State Medical Society committee, that when asked to correct and revise it, he offered to write a new book rather than correct the one that he was asked to review. We, as medical men, and this convention can do a great deal to bring the people to look upon this thing as they should, and demand that the State shall either publish better books or throw the subject open to competition of the writers of the best books in the country and the best publishers. California has done a great deal to stop this schoolring monopoly and debauchery, as I have said, but they have fastened on the State schools a worse curse, and that is worthless school books. DR. SAMUEL O. L. POTTER: My experience as a teacher and examiner of gentlemen who, in medical colleges, have been school teachers themselves, may not be out of place here. I would abolish the whole subject from the public schools. I do not see what good it is doing. Its practical result is, to give the children and older pupils a smattering of what, among other subjects, is worse than ignorance. We all remember the old saying, "Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." It is peculiarly adapted to the public schools, I think, in the State of California. For years I have examined school teachers who have come to the medical college, and I tell you that not one in a hundred of them can spell, read, or write, or speak the English language correctly. The penmanship of these gentlemen who have been teachers themselves is such that when as an examiner, like Dr. Wood, there, I had every year two or three hundred of their final examination papers, it was a labor of the most onerous character to even try to decipher what was put before When the teachers are so, what can you expect of the pupils. The

us.

whole tendency of popular education in our public schools is to ignore the foundation; to ignore the three R's, and to expect that by some miraculous effort, or intuition, pupils will get all that before they get to the public school; and they get a little astronomy, and a little anatomy, and a little hygiene, and a little mathematics, and a little chemistry, and a little of this, that, and the other, and they go out into the world thinking they know everything, and they don't know anything. I venture to say you couldn't find a dozen graduates of normal schools in the State of California to-day who could tell you accurately where the heart of a dog is.

HELEN MOORE: I hope even this little smattering will not be left out of the public schools. What we want is a great deal more, and as the gentleman has suggested here, and as Dr. Potter has mentioned, we need specialists in this study. In my experience as a teacher, it was a subject that interested me very much, and I wanted this subject studied very thoroughly, and I found, although I have studied the subject a great deal myself, I was wholly incompetent to teach it. Instead of dismissing it, I got a specialist to give instruction, and I found that in one day devoted to instruction in that subject by a specialist, my class would learn more than in one or two months' study in any other way. Why? Because the teacher was enabled to answer every question that the child would ask, and the result was very satisfactory in every way. Now, we need more and more instruction, and we need specialists, and I hope that when a committee is appointed by this convention to wait upon the Board of Education, they will remember what constitutes a Board of Education. They were appointed two years ago, and yet have so little to report. Then another point comes in-the home. You must remember the child gets a certain amount of instruction in school. Then, again, it must go home, and it goes to an ignorant mother, and if the child is to enjoy the privileges of education, I think the mother should cooperate with the school. Now, if we had among our inspectors what are called lady visitors, or women visitors, such as they have in Glasgow, Scotland, you would find that many of the unhygienic conditions that exist in the home could be corrected, and in that way the home would cooperate with the school. And another thing: Considering the cosmopolitan character of our city, it is absolutely necessary that we must depend upon reaching the home largely through the schools, and I think if it is the sense of this convention that physiology and hygiene should be taught by specialists, and a committee, appointed for that purpose, be appointed to wait upon the Board of Education, and then if they follow up their work, I think that we shall have the pleasure of hearing, at the Fourth Annual Sanitary Convention, a very favorable report on the subject of physiology and hygiene in the public schools.

A LADY: I am afraid I did not make myself heard, but I think this rule of the Board of Education of the city enlarges our death list every year, and I am very much interested in it. It says that the windows shall only be opened at the top and never at the bottom, and the teachers are implicitly obeying the instruction, for I visited for three weeks to find out. I would like the opinion of the convention on that rule.

DR. J. R. LAINE: I believe there is something of a misapprehension with reference to a committee that is said to have been appointed a year ago by this convention, concerning the teaching of hygiene in the

public schools. The committee was appointed by the State Medical Society. I have no recollection of seeing the names of a committee appointed by this body, but I know that the matter was discussed and know that such a committee was appointed by the State Medical Society two or three days later in this city. I wish to correct that impression. Now, with reference to ventilating school-houses by windows. I will venture this much: It became part of my duty, about a year ago, to prepare a pamphlet directed to school teachers. In that circular I recommended what is generally recommended by not only the profession, but by architects and sanitarians who are engaged in these matters, that the ventilation should be from the top of the window. I believe the reasons are obvious and plain. The air should be permitted to come in from the top rather than come directly on the backs and necks and faces of children. It is one of those things that ought to appear reasonable without more explanation. The janitor should be disciplined by the Superintendent when teachers prove negligent in that direction. The janitor of the building should be capable of giving teachers instructions on this subject, if necessary.

Now, I, for one, although I am thoroughly in sympathy with the intent and purposes of the paper, and recognize the value of the contribution presented to us this afternoon, yet I do not recognize the present great value of teaching hygiene and physiology in the public schools as it is being done; and yet I have been amazed when going into a grammar school in Sacramento and listening to the recitations. The recitations and answers to the questions have been such as to convince me that the children could answer them better than the physicians. They could give the number of teeth and component parts of the human body with such correctness that I was astonished, and they had been taught by their teachers from text-books. They call that physiology. In addition, they had the usual diatribe concerning the evil of tobacco and the enormities which follow the use of spirituous liquors; all of which, in my opinion, except the bare mention, should have been eliminated from the text-book. I doubt if the profession will take issue with me, when I say that to impress the subject of intemperance upon immature minds, except by precept and example, is altogether wrong. Not that we want to support the liquor dealer, because as a rule the physician is the enemy of the saloonman as much as is the clergyman, if not more so. He sees the evil results of the saloon habit everywhere. The people who spend their money in the rum-room do not usually spend it upon the physician, so it touches him in his pocket, as well as in his sentiment and in his reason. Neither temperance nor chastity should be taught from a text-book. But there must be some theory of instruction in hygiene, and what shall it be? To me there is only one practical plan, and that is by the instruction of the teacher.

I remember reading at one time something concerning the teaching of the English language. Dr. Potter referred to it. The question was asked how to acquire the use of the native tongue in the best way. A school teacher was asked, and he said, "Books, books." But that does not always follow. One may acquire a great deal of knowledge, but not acquire the idiom of a language from books. What then? "Raise a child in a family where nothing but pure language is spoken; let him grow up and hear it and use it in that way, and then he may acquire the habit, and use it from habit." So it is in teaching hygiene. If

« PreviousContinue »