investigation to blaze new educational trails; for the university is better equipped to do this work, and the task legitimately belongs to it.

The normal school ought to encourage its graduates to go to the university, after a period of grade-teaching in the common schools, arranging its program of studies, where possible, so that it will fit the university courses. The university ought then to take these experienced and trained teachers, and to prepare them for supervision and leadership in common-school education. But if, as was first suggested, the normal school is to urge its graduates to regard their formal education for teaching as incomplete until they have found their way thru the university, this institution, in turn, must encourage and advance elementary education, and show its liberality toward the normal school by offering full and fair advanced credit to a student for work done in the normal school; especially so, if the student has followed his normal course by two or three years of successful experience in teaching. That is to say that, there being a straight road from the kindergarten thru the graduate and professional schools of the university, the normal school ought to be regarded as a part of this road, or, at least, to be regarded as a road lying nearly parallel to the main line, so that little, if any, time would be lost by a student's switching off the main road temporarily in his preparation to teach in the elementary schools.

It has not been until very recently in Minnesota that normal graduates of two years' work above the high school could secure even one year's advanced credit in the university of that state. I understand that, while universities and colleges in some other western states offer nominally two years of advanced credit in certain courses, it is with some difficulty in actual practice that graduates of the normal school secure such recognition; while in the East the normal graduate is often put upon the same footing with high-school graduates, and required to pass his entrance examination for the freshman

year.

If the normal school gathers in from villages and rural districts many bright young people of sterling worth and starts them upon an educational career, but fails to point the way with sufficient directness and enthusiasm to a higher education; or if, with proper effort on the part of the normal school to send such students to the university, a fair and just inducement is not held out by the university, many of these young people, the bone and sinew of society, will never be saved for higher education and completer service. Moreover, such a fair and just inducement, offering the opportunity for future growth, would bring into the grades of the elementary school, thru the normal school, that factor whose absence we all deplore, viz., the man teacher. But how can a man at present be urged to go temporarily into elementary schools, if his preparation therefor yields no advantage in advanced credit when he takes up his university work later?

It is safe to say, I believe, that two years of work above the high school, carried on under the influences of a good normal school, together with two

years of successful teaching, the usual time required for the indorsement of a normal diploma as a life-certificate, is a sufficient guarantee of the quality of the student, so that two more years at the university will justify the granting of the bachelor's degree. The maturity of such a student, his grasp of the seriousness of life and the development of a real purpose, his ability to think, his mastery of the fundamental branches of the common school, as well as his study of literature, psychology, the history of education, etc., with two years of university training, would turn out the normal-school graduate far ahead of the average of his class.

Universities and colleges make the mistake, which is often made by prospective normal students, of supposing that when arithmetic or United States history appears in the course of study at a normal school, a review of the old seventh- or eighth-grade work is indicated, not understanding that there is meant, rather, a new view and a constructive view of the subject, and one of as much cultural, disciplinary, and practical worth as is given by the ordinary linguistic and mathematical subjects of the first two college years. As Commissioner Harris has pointed out, these common branches in a normal school are re-examined in their relations to the higher branches from which they derive their principles; that, for example, arithmetic is studied in the light of algebra and geometry, principles are discovered, rules are demonstrated, and the subject takes on new and far-reaching phases. Again, the eighthgrade study of arithmetic, history, or grammar was given principally to memory, while it is only in the later pursuit of these subjects at the normal-school age that they receive the reflection they require, by which their inner relations appear and their significance is really felt. Let no one, therefore, despise the common branches, or suppose that freshman algebra will equal geography in difficulty, in the training to be secured, in the content of the subject, or in its nearness to life; and that a constructive study of English grammar or United States history is any less enlightening or culture-giving than freshman Latin.

On the part of the university, again, a greater co-operation would result if there could be developed a belief on the part of the average college instructor that the technically trained teacher, other things being equal, will far outstrip his untrained neighbor; for there is almost a universal tendency on the part of college teachers to believe that teachers are born, or, if made at all, are made by being filled to overflowing with enthusiasm for their subjects. Experience shows that it is not sufficient to be simply filled with one's subject. In this connection it is well to remember that, while the first normal school in America opened its doors but sixty-six years ago, and the first president of the first normal school west of the Mississippi is still living, so vital was the service for which the new institution was organized that in less than sixty years the number of public normal schools increased to 126, exclusive of city training schools and private schools for teachers. All this came about thru the interest of the common people in the movement and their appreciation of the value

of professional training, and in spite of the slings and arrows of ridicule and criticism which came from persons who ought to have had clearer vision. More recently the call of the common people thru the common school has come up to the university saying: "Ye call yourselves the salt of the earth. Wherewith do ye salt our lives?" And the demand for trained teachers has become so great that nearly every university of prominence has heard it and has founded its chair of education or its teachers college. Even so the weakest place in American education is found in the lack of trained teachers, and the time is upon us when the doctors of philosophy, the masters of arts, and the professors of learning should come into close sympathy with the needs of the people in this direction.

"The university, supported by society for the service it can render thru scholarship, has heretofore directed its efforts primarily in support of the three older learned professions." There is, however, no field where the service of scholarship is more needed than in elementary education, nor is there any where scholarship will find more difficult problems to engage its attention, nor problems whose solution will more fully minister to the welfare of society. For example, there are lessons being taught day by day in the elementary schools which have no value, cultural, practical, or disciplinary; there are other subjects included in the program of studies which on the whole are valuable, but contain many useless topics, or those of too great difficulty; while, again, valuable and well-adapted material is very badly presented. From all these sources comes a waste to society which the university can best help to save. The determining of a program of studies for the elementary school of a twentieth-century democracy would have far greater value for the people than most other university research.

Again, the university ought to help the elementary school to see the purpose for which it is supported, for the average grade teacher cannot give an adequate statement of the things which he seeks for his boys and girls; he does not know what kind of knowledge is of most worth, nor whether knowledge, development, character, or something else is the primary purpose. Even if he has a fairly definite grasp of what he aims at, he will scarcely know the best means for securing the end sought. He and all the rest of us await the mature. scholarship of the university to discover and state those definite and helpful principles upon which the practice of the elementary school is based.

Our American education is not very fully systematized, and the lack of uniformity and system may be a thing not to be regretted. Nevertheless, the getting together of universities and normal schools in the training of elementary teachers would doubtless be one of the great benefits that could come to American education at the present time.

I. THE CO-OPERATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND NORMAL SCHOOLS IN THE TRAINING OF SECONDARY TEACHERS

E. N. HENDERSON, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY,

COLLEGE, BROOKLYN, N. Y.

ADELPHI

The normal school sprang up in America in order to train elementary teachers. It was a product of that demand for universal popular education by which, according to Horace Mann, the democracy was to be saved; a demand which meant far more and far better common schools than any of which our forefathers conceived. In the creation of our system of elementary free schools, the normal school has done magnificent service, and one is perfectly safe in saying that it will continue indefinitely to be the foundation upon which those institutions rest. Beginning with the object of giving a somewhat more advanced and far more thoro training in subject-matter than the common schools were providing, it has rapidly been growing into a purely professional school. The time is past in which the normal school can be looked upon as a substitute for high school or college-as a finishing school for a liberal education. There must always remain in its program a considerable amount of liberal study, but that is because there can be no adequate preparation for the profession of teaching without such culture. On the other hand, the normal school has come to devote itself almost, if not quite, exclusively to the furtherance of a platform and a policy that in our country were originated by itself—namely, that teaching is a profession for which there should be specific professional preparation.

In the beginning the quality and training of secondary teachers in our country were, as a rule, far superior to those of teachers in the common schools. The college graduate has always played an important part in such work, and before many years the high schools will doubtless be provided with faculties every member of which possesses at least a bachelor's degree. The part that the normal schools have played in the training of secondary teachers has been inconsiderable. Save in the case of a few more advanced normal schools, they have not contemplated such work for their graduates. In the first place, the secondary-school teacher needed a command of subject-matter far in advance of that required in elementary work. Because of the extent of this need, training in method had little chance to grow into a demand. The college, which knew much of subject-matter, was in consequence, altho it knew nothing of method, deemed the appropriate fitting place for the highschool teacher. Moreover, the high school has always been to a great extent a preparatory school for the college. As such, the college has assumed the right to determine its program, to fix its standards, and, of course, to train its teachers.

But the conception that the teacher may and should be professionally trained has been extended to apply not merely to elementary teachers, but to secondary ones as well. Universities have established departments of

education, so that training equivalent to that furnished by normal schools may be given to those who expect to teach. These departments have in several cases grown into teachers' colleges. As compared with the normal schools, the university departments of education have suffered because they have usually been unable to furnish their students adequate opportunity to observe model teaching, or to practice their art. In the evolution of the normal school into a purely professional institution, this observation and practice work has come to be the nucleus about which all the program is arranged. It would not be extravagant to say that, if in any field the maxim that "learning should be by doing" applies, it is in that of the teacher. Hence, I think, one might very properly declare that the future of university departments of education depends very largely on the development by them of model and practice schools. In short, they should become teachers' colleges.

Here we encounter certain difficulties. The rooted antagonism of the older departments in our colleges to the department of education, the conviction that practice-teaching means "normal-school methods"-a questionbegging epithet that covers the hostility of a decided ignorance-the feeling that method in teaching is "humbug" anyhow, the lack of money and enterprise to push such developments, have all prevented the natural evolution of teachers' colleges side by side with colleges of law, medicine, engineering, etc. The normal schools had a clear field for growth in the demand for better-trained elementary teachers. The teachers' college has to fight its way against the university tradition that to know your subject thoroly is the indispensable and only condition for teaching it successfully—unless, indeed, we add that other quality, the inborn instinct to teach.

In this emergency, what solution would seem more natural than that the normal schools should set up practice and model schools for secondary teachers? They have no conservatism to overcome, they have the plant already in some cases, and in any event could easily add to their practice and model elementary schools a high school of the same character. The normal school would then become the professional school for teachers, and the evolution of such an institution would be complete.

To this plan the following objections may be urged: In the first place, the high-school teacher should be possessed of his bachelor's degree. At least such extended knowledge of subject-matter as is involved in this is coming to be indispensable for him. But, as matters are now turning in our leading colleges, a large part, if not all, of the senior year can be given up to professional study. Hence there should be a college attached to the university to which the prospective teacher may repair for this work, just as the prospective lawyer finds his affiliated institution near at hand. This gradual transition from the liberal to the vocational, in which we lead to the second without losing sight of the first or ever giving it up, is, to my mind, an eminently desirable arrangement. We should endeavor to make all culture react on the business of life, and so ultimately on the vocation. But, above all, we