THE RELATION OF FIRST-CLASS NORMAL SCHOOLS TO DEPARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES CHARLES H. JOHNSTON Reprinted for private circulation from School Review Monograph, No. II, February 1912 v X M THE RELATION OF FIRST-CLASS NORMAL SCHOOLS TO DEPARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES I iw/ERsnrv of Illinois ubj? £.3 2 4 CHARLES H. JOHNSTON Reprinted for private circulation from School Review Monograph, No. II, February 1912 THE RELATION OF FIRST-CLASS NORMAL SCHOOLS TO DEPARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS OF EDU¬ CATION IN UNIVERSITIES 1 CHARLES H. JOHNSTON Dean of the School of Education, the University of Kansas Speaking from the purely administrative point of view the ques¬ tion of the relation of the functions of normal schools and the functions of colleges, state universities, and endowed universities, in so far as professional preparation of public-school teachers is concerned, will for a long time be differently solved by the different states. Expert educational opinion will play, it is to be hoped, a large part in this differentiation of function. If such considerations could become the chief directive force in developments for the next half century, some uniform plan for the co-ordination of existing agencies for preparing teachers, and the elimination of some, might confidently be looked for. When one considers, however, the obstacles to such a logical and ideal solution of this problem, he may with assurance prophesy an era of educational experimentation and exploitation. The purely administrative obstacles to any permanent co-operative relationship, as I see them in one state even, are numerous and genuine. I shall attempt to illustrate then by statistical tables later on. All discussions of our question, whether administrative or purely educational, must begin with an assumption which is itself contested in college circles. This assumption is that professional preparation of teachers of all ranks is essentially analogous to the professional preparation of lawyers, physicians, or engineers. Until we can demonstrate decisively this assumption to our colleagues in uni¬ versity faculties, and secure their constructive co-operation and 1 This paper represents the author’s attempt to state the problem as it appears when interpreted mainly from considerations suggested by the developments in Kansas. A brief outline of Dean James’s proposed discussion, received after this paper had been prepared, indicates that the treatments will not seriously overlap. NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 37 interest, we shall have to work along with the deadening exaspera¬ tion of being tolerated, distrusted, and even checked by actual opposition. Granting this assumption, which of course we shall demonstrate, and I believe are demonstrating as fast as we can, we of the colleges and universities have next to demonstrate to our clientele, the leaders among public-school men, that they cannot do without us. This is also in many places a contested assumption. There is a vaguely felt conviction that college graduates somehow in the long run do better than normal-school graduates in high-school posi¬ tions, do not do so well in the elementary school, and are the only class from which to draw those who are to become, with additional academic training , the college teachers of all ranks. What is almost universally lacking is any articulate conviction of what essentially pedagogical equipment of undergraduate and graduate grade is essential for either the high-school or the college teacher. A third assumption is that, where different types of institutions organize to prepare teachers, there must be some co-operative state plan put in operation whereby needless duplication of function may be avoided, and where the natural developments of these same institutions may continue as rapidly as possible. These institu¬ tions are: (i) county institutes, (2) normal-training high schools (or other institutions by different names of about the grade of high schools), (3) first-class normal schools, (4) colleges of “recognized standing/’ and (5) universities. At present lack of co-ordination is evident, and lack of co-operation and harmony conspicuously so. County institutes will either pass away entirely, or eventually come under the control of one or more of the other agencies, or be better directed by state superintendents, and function as extension summer schools for rural teachers. High schools, under some name, or city training schools, for some time in some state, encouraged by state or municipal aid, will strain to furnish to their students, contemplating immediate entrance upon primary-grade teaching, some temporary pedagogical training. Further dogmatic prophesying may be inexcusable. The future development of normal schools, supported by the state, and expecting considerable federal support also, is critical and prob- 38 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION lematic. I find the conviction voiced by at least three normal school presidents that these institutions must vigorously expand or else be crushed by the upper millstone of the university schools of education and the nether one of the multiplying agencies of lower grade already mentioned. The increasing number of normal schools awarding the Bachelor’s degree and receiving recognition for their graduates in the graduate schools of leading universities serves adequately to indicate the ultimate ambitions of these schools to become “ recognized colleges.” It is a still more delicate task to diagnose the policies of those who articulate and determine the pedagogical functions of colleges and universities. Degree-giving institutions are sufficiently plenti¬ ful in every state already. But degrees of traditional academic connotation per se are no longer adequate pedagogical passports for entrance into respectable teaching ranks. Colleges and uni¬ versities, in many instances, have reluctantly “humored” the popular “superstition” that prospective teachers can profitably focus attention upon systematic courses of instruction, sequentially related, which bear directly upon their professional training. The force of this academic tradition doubtless partly accounts for many of the partially well-grounded criticisms of pedagogical courses. These have been held mercilessly to certain inherited notions of what constitutes “academic merit,” and criticized in the same way for not producing more tangible professional results. The whole thing has too often been a sham concession, from those of the legislating college majority, to a supposedly mistaken social demand. The colleges and the universities heretofore have not been forced, either by their own educational conscience or by their estimation of the actual effect of their attitude upon their own enrolments and support, to work out this problem constructively. Nor do I believe there is yet any evidence of panic. I do, however, believe that there are some indications of a more positive construc¬ tive interest on the part of our scholarly colleagues in the broader educational questions of school economy, administration, historical evolutions, psychological foundations, and particularly the spe¬ cialized pedagogies of special branches of studyWhen such scholarly forces go farther than tolerate purely educational study NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 39 by taking a hand themselves in studying and offering pedagogical courses there will be no longer a question of where one shall go for high-grade pedagogical enlightenment, nor a question of who will go. All will go who can gain entrance, all who aspire to any grade of teaching whatsoever, college or otherwise. Such a preface settles nothing. It is, however, basal to every consideration I can respect regarding an adequate conception of the future developments of university work in education. It affords a basis for the differentiation of the pedagogical functions of normal schools and universities. The purely educational question of differentiation of subject-matter, scope, method, and equitable “division of labor” of existing agencies founded and equipped for the training of teachers requires a different method of attack, namely, an examination of the ruling conceptions which govern the educational activities and ambitions of normal-school men and of university men. Omitting consideration of those normal schools, a large number, described by President Pritchett as institutions “ competing with the high school and even the elementary school, as well as with the small college,” we may represent the best class only. I shall state their point of view as fairly as I can. Briefly it is this: The normal-school movement for the last seventy-three years has developed with the fundamental conception itself of training for teaching as a profession. It is as clearly a part of the public- school system as is the public grade school. The high school is a development from the elementary school, and so professional preparation of secondary teachers becomes logically an added responsibility and function of the developing normal school. Furthermore, the normal school is distinguished by having as an exclusive purpose the training of teachers. Consequently, bent upon its own business, its program of studies and curriculums make no claim for those literary and scientific fields of leisurely exploitation idealized by other types of educational institutions. Every course is, within liberal limits consonant with broad modern conceptions of education, a distinctly professional study. Every¬ thing points vocationally. Those desiring any education whatso¬ ever, other than teaching in public schools, must go elsewhere; for 40 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION its courses look toward the mastery of a well-organized body of pedagogical theory, embracing historical, social, economic, admin¬ istrative, psychologic, and specifically technical questions. Its training school for practice must extend perforce to the secondary school. “The normal-college curriculum” must embrace all types of instruction which we find represented in the public schools, and few, if any, others. Further, the standard of values must be distinc¬ tive, and in the broad sense vocational. Arithmetic may be more important for the teacher than the calculus, reading than philology, geography than geology, nature-study than embryology. If so, no academic logic of tradition may gainsay. Content, free mastery, and skill in pedagogical application must test the principle govern¬ ing the choice of studies in the normal-school curriculum. Organi¬ zation of content for presentation rather than the dominant college ideal of organization for further discovery, for research, is to be the aim. Again, in the whole field of teacher-training the normal school has, by virtue of priority, a right to enter. It has gone through the grilling, and come out of it more than alive. Its best thought and effort have been given to the preparation of the regular grade teacher. This has illustrated what it can do, and justifies its enlargement and equipment for more extensive service. It must work out a plan for the specific preparation of rural-school teachers, and assume the leadership of the county normal schools and such institutions. It must for the same evident reasons prepare those who are to teach and supervise the newer subjects, music, manual training, domestic science, and agriculture. It must do systematic extension work and correspondence instruction. For its ambitious advanced students and graduates advanced study must be offered looking toward superintendencies, principalships, general supervi¬ sion, critic work, and high-school teaching. Likewise institutional visitation or official school inspection must cover the high-school territory. The ruling conceptions of the college or university are not so easily stated. Further, they are unfortunately conflicting at certain critical points. One by one professional schools—law, medicine, and engineering—fostered within the college organiza- NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 4i tions of programs of study, have cut themselves loose and thrive practically independent, built upon a certain amount of college work and organized with strictly prescribed curriculums. Mean¬ while the college of liberal arts, with practically no reference to the alleged professional necessities for its large percentage of prospective teachers, has of late foresworn its allegiance to the elective system (a sort of recognition that vocation might affect choice of studies), and set about formulating grouping systems and advisory systems. All such regulations of students’ work are supposedly governed by educational principles quite other than professional ones. They are supposed to insure general culture, or education untainted and undiluted by professional details. Only the legal minimum in education courses is condoned. More than this is often distinctly and officially frowned upon. As a consequence those college graduates are not as well prepared to enter upon their postgraduate work in education as are those who elect other subjects. Departments of education, however, in any way one considers their evolution, have greatly prospered. Without the admittedly professional atmosphere of the normal school they are advancing inevitably beyond the status of weak departments or sub-departments toward larger organization units. Their intimate, even in many respects integral, relationship with purely academic work, with its draw¬ backs, has still somehow been their distinguishing feature. The evident tendency now to organize the work for the professional equipment of those college students looking toward teaching as a career into “schools” marks a severely critical stage of development. It implies, among other obvious enlargements as to equipment, a thoroughly equipped model high school, a larger faculty, and distinctly professional regulation of its own affairs. This separate organization for a select professional group of the student body has not been done in entirely good faith. It has not been thoroughgoing. It has often been a renaming of courses, a sort of tentative and timid organization, mainly within the college of arts. The work in the departments of education itself, and some so-called teachers’ courses, with possibly some technological courses (drawing, manual training, home economics, etc.) make up the curriculum. In no case, I believe, for example, has a definite part 42 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION of undergraduate college work in history been planned with refer¬ ence to the intending teachers of history, organized in such a way that they may study the whole field covered in an elementary way by the high-school curriculum. In other words, the college goes on its way in its grouping systems and other regulations and lets the prospective teacher make his own way through whatever departmental labyrinths he may chance to find, or be guided by some head of a college department of study who often estimates professional preparation in terms of hours of academic specializa¬ tion only. The student who is to teach certain chosen subjects is much in the position he would be in were he in a medical school trying to find sequentially related courses bearing upon high-school hygiene and physiology. Our problem seems to be this: Can a department or school of education map out its distinctive field under the above conditions ? I do not believe it can. It must be assumed that in most cases schools of education must work largely, if not entirely, with the same students as the college of liberal arts and the graduate school, that most of its students must have or get their A.B. degree, and that some considerable portion of their undergraduate work must be directed by those representing the interests of the School of Education. This in the end means some reorganization of the work in the academic departments, which are related to high-school study. It means that the School of Education must be largely an organization within the college and some of the more independent professional schools; not a separate organization with its own distinctive student body, nor, possibly, faculty body. It must mean this at least until most education work can be of graduate grade, or until the college will relinquish the directive authority over those of its own Seniors who intend to teach. I personally should prefer at the present time the organization into a “school” in this pro¬ visional sense, to retain the function of certification, to give no Education degree, and to justify the larger type of organization by emphasis upon graduate work, and by the extension of profes¬ sional service to teachers by such extra-instructional and extra-mural work as direction of practice high school, the extension courses, the appointment of teachers, the organization of Probejahr teaching, a NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 43 system of scientific high-school visitation and counsel, the develop¬ ment of schoolmen’s conferences at the university, and the extension of facilities for summer-school work, both graduate and under¬ graduate. Another inviting field is that of training the teachers of the professional and psychological work in high schools, county normals, and city training schools. As I see the problem, we professors of education have not suc¬ ceeded better than we have chiefly because we have had to work alone professionally . What is most needed in most universities is the active and definite co-operation of the leaders among the scholars of the faculties, particularly of those who combine their scholarly interests with their intelligent concern for the high schools. The purely educational field is of itself big enough to be bewildering, big enough for bona-fide academic courses, for purely research graduate seminars, and for varied technical courses. Beyond this, professors of education are handicaped by trying to give the spe¬ cialized sort of technique of instruction in given fields of foreign languages, mathematics, history, science, etc. We shall never be able to do this adequately. Yet it must be done. It must be done within the organization of the School of Education and under the sanction of the authorities who conceive the functions and admin¬ ister the policies of universities. President Pritchett thinks the teachers’ course the crux of our problem. In a sense, it is. Teachers’ courses, so called, must be conceived. They must become the most severely technical and avowedly professional of all our pedagogical work, given in good faith by those who know. The organization of all academic work leading to them will be done through prerequisite elementary college courses, covering with as much economy of students’ time and credit hours as is possible the material which constitutes the work of the high school. Other prerequisites, such as the history and psychology of education, will still further emphasize the value of such authoritative technical courses and put a premium upon their professional value. The former apathetic co-operation of our scholarly colleagues and specialists, who offer these courses often under protest or who generally make a misnomer of some academic course, has dampened the professional atmosphere both for ourselves and our students. 44 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION It has been due in large part to their actual ignorance of such purely educational considerations and conceptions as the modern available material in the history of education, educational psychol¬ ogy, educational administration, and educational statistical investi¬ gations furnish. This ignorance and natural suspicion is passing, and when it has passed the main obstacle to adequate university preparation of secondary teachers is removed. A genuine pro¬ fessional organization practically within the present resources of our universities is possible. Then hard, but harmonious, uninterrupted work for teachers will be as it ought long ago to have been, one of the specific aims of universities. If the above account is correct, the normal-school insinuations that the universities are not equipped for training teachers will no longer hold. Consequently some plan for the co-ordination of the pedagogical functions of these two institutions becomes evidently necessary. It is consequently clear from such purely theoretical considerations as those above outlined, that the differentiation, with reference to these teacher-training institutions supported by the state, should correspond to the actual differentiation of elementary and high- school grades of instruction, particularly as both fields are unlimited in the genuine and pressing problems they offer for extended scien¬ tific investigation. Another consideration not yet much empha¬ sized is that modern high-school instruction is academically of about the grade of normal-school instruction and that the high school is becoming itself much like a junior college. The following statistical account of a careful investigation of the present situation in Kansas, 1911, analogous in essential features, I judge, to those of other states, points likewise toward the above as the only conclusion possible. Such practical existing adminis¬ trative necessities, aside from the theoretical ones, justify, I hope, the position taken in regard to the relation of normal schools to schools of education in universities. The data reported represent the facts in regard to the training for teaching of 1,345 high-school principals and teachers, including also superintendents of these schools in Kansas. The third-class schools indicate schools not offering a full high-school course. NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 45 SUBDIVISION OF THE 1,345 TEACHERS ACCORDING TO INSTITUTION ATTENDED* First Class Second Class Third Class Total University of Kansas. 221 33 3 257 Kansas State Agricultural College. 46 9 2 57 Other colleges'!. University of Kansas and Kansas State 380 77 19 476 Normal. So 6 2 58 University of Kansas and other normal .. 4 3 O 7 Kansas State Normal and other college .. 58 17 3 78 Other colleges and other normal schools. . 74 14 5 93 Kansas State Normal. 132 52 23 207 Other normal. 33 13 3 49 High school. 17 6 3 26 Special. 32 5 0 37 Total. 1,047 235 63 U345 * The tables and charts have been prepared by Professor H. W. Josselyn, of the School of Education, f The totals for other collges can be subdivided as follows: First Class Second Class Third Class Kansas colleges. 220 64 11 Out-of-state Colleges- 160 13 8 Totals (compare above) CaJ 00 O 77 19 Total teachers reporting 1,345 — Total first class. 1,047 Total second class. 235 Total third class. 63 Total U 345 Degrees — University of Kansas 211 A.B. \ 24 A.M. ) 11 B.S. ) First class 1 M.S. I 6 Fine Arts / 21 A.B. 3 A.M. 1 A.B. j- Second class Third class Total.278 University of Kansas Kansas State Normal 12 A.B. 5 A.B. 2 A.B. First class Second class Third class Total. 19 Kansas State Normal* • The Kansas State Normal School has only recently awarded degrees. 46 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION Total Number Teachers a on University or College e-3 University or College & Normal c=) Normal si High School nn Special SCALE n = 80 CHART A This chart shows the number of teachers who as students were enrolled: (i) In some university or college; (2) in some university or college and some normal school; (3) in some normal school; (4) in some high school only; (5) in some special school. 1 . 790 2 . 236 -1,026 have been enrolled in some college or university. 3 . 256 4 . 26 5 . 37 Total 1,345 4* OJ NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 47 Teachers by Schools i First Class e Second Class c — Third m University or College University or College CD Normal cm High School Special SCALE m m 80 CHART B Class & Normal This chart shows the training of teachers on same plan as Chart A, but gives the details for each type of accredited school rather than the total for all three classes. x 2 5 . Totals ..! First Class Second Class Third Class Total 647 119 24 790 186 40 10 236 165 65 26 256 17 6 3 26 32 5 0 37 1,047 23 S 63 i, 34 S 4 8 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION mema-ammr . i FIRST CLASS ■—> Second o Third ■ K U □ KSN SCALE ■ s 32 CHART C This chart shows the comparison between the number of teachers who received their training at the University of Kansas and at the Kansas Normal School. Teachers who have been students at both a normal school and a college are not included in this chart. First Class Second Class Third Class Totals University of Kansas. 221 33 3 257 Kansas Normal. 132 52 23 207 NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 49 Teachers with Degrees from K U & KSN Total d First Class Second Third _ KU □ KSN SCALE-*32 CHART D This chart makes an interesting comparison between the Kansas Normal School and the University of Kansas in regard to the number of teachers who hold degrees from each school. First Class Second Class Third Class Totals University of Kansas. 253 * 24 f 1 278 Kansas Normal School. 12 5 2 19 * Includes 24 A.M.; 11 B.S.; 1 M.S.; 6 Fine Arts. f Includes 3 A.M. 5 ° SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION n rnnnnm i fcd.:: — ar " i 1 H1W~I ID 3 » KU mm KANSAS COLLEGES a KSAC cd OTHER a KSN E SCALE ■» s 80 SEE NOTE CHART E This chart shows a comparison in regard to the number of teachers who received their training in: (i) the University of Kansas; (2) other Kansas colleges; (3) Kansas Agricultural College; (4) colleges outside of state; (5) Kansas Normal School. First Class Second Class Third Class Totals 1. University of Kansas. 221 33 3 257 2. Kansas Colleges. 220 64 11 295 3. Kansas State Agricultural College. 46 9 2 57 4. Other colleges. 160 13 8 181 5. Normal School. 132 52 23 207 Note.—T eachers who have been enrolled in both a university or college and a normal school have not been counted here. NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 51 If we keep in mind the above statistical analysis of school relations in a given state and apply a plan 1 outlined for Massa¬ chusetts to the Kansas situation, the following conclusions appear evident: State and not local school communities must impose standards for all public schools, but especially state-aided high schools (one hundred and sixty Kansas normal-training high schools). Candidates must have, in addition to a thorough high-school course, (1) a thorough knowledge of at least two academic subjects, such as is possible only in a four-year college course; (2) with (1) as a prerequisite, scientific modern pedagogical knowledge; and (3) should have some experience in practice teaching under supervision of experts. If Kansas resorts to the single standard for granting certificates (as voted by the Association of Kansas Colleges and indorsed recently by State Board of Education), there are three possibilities open to this state for profitably certificating high-school teachers. PLAN I AND OBJECTIONS Plan I is to set apart one of the normal schools for high-school teacher preparation wholly, which school shall adhere strictly to college-entrance require¬ ments , and give no certificate on other terms, and add required practice teaching in model high school. Objections 1. All state colleges would object, and also the University, as all these above institutions are now recognized legally as agencies whose largest function is the preparation of high-school teachers, not only in Kansas but everywhere in the United States. 2. Some of the best prospective high-school teachers would not attend. It would probably result in becoming an institution for women only. 3. The equipment and the faculty qualifications necessary to equal the college or university academic equipment would be expensive and costly, and would duplicate college and university plants which are already available and developing in this direction. 4. As statistics given above show clearly, this plan would deprive the most numerous and most needy teacher class, the primary-grade teachers (4,000 in number), of the natural, traditional, and at present specifically equipped institu¬ tion, the normal school, whose foundation for existence has been that it prepare elementary teachers. It involves the illogical duplication of the College of Liberal Arts of the University by the Normal School, and hence diverting its function from elementary-school problems to high-school problems—to the detriment of both. 1 See David Snedden, “The Certification of High-School Teachers,” Education, January, 19 n. 52 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION PLAN II AND OBJECTIONS Plan II is to set apart one normal school to train high-school teachers, hut require graduation from a college for admission, and confine the course to graduate professional study and practice teaching. This plan we should probably have to resort to if there were no graduate schools already, and if the state colleges were disinclined to co-operate in developing facilities for secondary professional training. However, both these latter alternatives exist with unusually favorable tendencies in Kansas already. Objections 1. It would duplicate and discourage existing facilities for graduate work in the University and elsewhere. 2. We could not induce the prospective college-graduate high-school teachers to choose this postgraduate course instead of what the University Graduate School offers. This class of University Seniors in College and School of Education is the state’s largest single outgoing group of young high-school teachers. 3. It would be unjust to all the agencies now existing and legally recognized and consciously organized for this work. 4. It would be very expensive, and undergraduate work, particularly in education courses, would suffer from lack of relation to graduate professional work. 5. It would satisfy no existing state institution, but merely add another. PLAN III Plan III assumes that the preparation of high-school teachers involves the completion of academic work of college quality, professional work in education courses, and practice teaching which cannot he given well without the college course foundation. Points favorable to this general scheme in Kansas are: 1. This is the direction of development which in the overwhelming majority of communities the main body of our high-school profession is now taking (cf. statistics above). 2. This is the precedent set by nearly all the states where legislation has defined the way. 3. This scheme best encourages the high-school teacher to carry on in a natural sequence his further professional work into graduate study, through summer schools, additional year’s leave of absence often, and through corre¬ spondence and extension work. 4. This is the natural way in which, in time, the teaching profession may expect, as in the professions of law and medicine, to build its technique and specialization on a broad fundamental training, furnished partly by scholarly academic colleagues, as suggested above, and to make its professional degree or diploma signify an equipment which is a dignified distinction. NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 53 5. This is just to the state colleges as well as to the university, whose specific study in education has always been the problems of secondary education. 6. This is entirely in line with the resolutions of the National Education Association (. Report of Committee of Seventeen, 1907) on Professional Training of Secondary Teachers. 7. It is consistent with the views expressed by supposed experts in the recent Fifth Annual Report of the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, 1910, pp. 75, 76, 77. 8. In the writer’s opinion any sort of preparation short of this has always been recognized as provisionally acceptable only. In view of better, not as good, preparation of high-school teachers, and in view of the new disposition of all colleges to recognize more fully that this is their greatest professional duty and opportunity, it seems that any checking or side-tracking of this development would be a calamity. 1 9. The ideal within a decade or two for Kansas is to be able to adopt, with certain modifications, California’s requirements—a year of graduate study in work offered by a School of Education, including supervised practice, in addition to a four-year college course, which shall include some of the purely academic courses in education. 10. The better high-school men in the field, to a man, demand something of the sort suggested in Plan III. One extended report in Education 2 includes replies from leading high-school principals in every state in the Union, repre¬ senting schools employing 4,200 high-school teachers. The author’s conclu¬ sion is that we must look to some such plan as our Plan III, and, as soon as possible, to some such standard as that set by California. One sentence, p. 332, is: “The present type of normal school will not do.” 11. Another specific argument or evidence that Plan III is best is the recent action of the State School Superintendents’ Association of Michigan. The report, adopted unanimously by the above association and later, November, 1910, also unanimously by the Michigan State Teachers’ Association, repre¬ senting members of the university, the agricultural college, all the normal schools, and all the grade as well as high and private schools, recommended legislative action providing full equipment at the state university ($300,000 building for practice teaching included) for carrying forward the work of train¬ ing secondary teachers. The following account of the nature of professional work for teachers, from an examination of the 1910-n catalogues of the Agricultural College, the State Normal School, and the State x Of the 66 graduating from a denominational college of the state, 61 secured the state certificate, each doing at least 15 hours in courses in Education. 3 January, 1911; article by R. J. Condon on “What the Schools Need.” 54 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION University, are based upon comparisons made without drawing any parallel for the courses in pure philosophy and pure psychology or in other academic departments. Leaving out all references to these related fields and considering the pure education courses , we find: 1. The Agricultural College offers (by their divisions of spring, fall, and winter terms) in all eighteen hours of education, and has one professor who (according to the catalogue) does all this work and all the work in the department of philosophy besides. It has no legal function of awarding teachers’ certificates. 2. The State Normal School offers nineteen courses in educa¬ tion (not including the courses in philosophy and psychology). There are offered in all forty hours of instruction in these subjects (given in some of the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth terms as they divide their work for the year). Nine of their nineteen courses offered are described in the catalogue as designed for elementary and kindergarten teachers. This means that eighteen of the forty hours are for this phase of professional work. Only one course, possibly two (possibly four hours of the forty), is designed for prospective high-school teachers. The rest of the work is general and of such a nature that it could fit in with almost any pedagogical purpose. The preface to the four courses (eight hours) of practice teaching reads (p. 77 of 1910-11 catalogue): “The Training School offers teaching and observation in all the grades from the kinder¬ garten through the grammar school,” clearly indicating that up to the present year preparation for grade work has been objective. 3. In the preface to the University School of Education Bulletin occurs this statement of purpose: “The courses are planned to meet the professional needs of the following classes: College and normal-school instructors in education, superintendents and prin¬ cipals of schools, heads of departments in normal and high schools, supervisors of special subjects, and teachers in high schools.” Not including here any of the teachers’ courses in special branches, such as history or Latin, nor courses in philosophy and psychology, as these were omitted in the statement of the other schools’ equip¬ ment, the University offers sixty-eight hours (twenty-seven courses) in pure education, none of them designed for any teacher-training NORMAL SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 55 purposes below those for high-school positions. Legitimate inferences from both our theoretical considerations and our survey of actual conditions seem to be: 1. The tendency in the better, larger, and more important schools, which can secure and retain the best teachers available, is to demand college-trained and professionally equipped teachers. 2. In the second and third classes of schools, relatively much fewer in numbers, the percentage of graduates from all colleges is in the former about twice, and in the latter about equal to, that of normal schools. The University is not a large factor here, as her graduates are taken higher up, and this class of teacher (mostly from small colleges or normal schools) often does grade work also. 3. The statistics for the total number of high-school teachers in the state and the distribution of graduates, and the utter lack of any sort of adequate preparation for their work on the part of some of them, still show the demand for college training wherever possible. 4. The deadening conditions of teacher standards for the lower schools can mean but one thing—that some type of institution must bend itself to a long and careful study of the whole problem. At present the following policy seems to be a feasible one for adoption in Kansas, entirely aside from, yet consistent with, our theoretical position already reached: Let summer county institutes and normal-training high schools devote their efforts to the 8,000 very poorly prepared elementary- and rural-school teachers. That is, as a temporary measure, let our high schools be also (though of course inadequately, due to the age of the student) rural-teacher training schools. Let our normal schools work out the problems (a century’s good solid work) of the grades, administrative , supervisory , and pedagogical. Here is a class already representing nearly 4,000 teachers. And in Kansas it should be remembered that there is but one real city training school to train even a part of its elementary-teacher force (Kansas City, Kan.). The University with help from the colleges would then work intensively upon the secondary problem, repre¬ senting a field with about 300 superintendents, as many principals, and 1,100 high-school teachers. The other function of the University 56 SOCIETY OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION School of Education would be the increasingly urgent one of carrying on, in connection and co-operation with the Graduate School, research work and full and extended investigations into modern educational problems, using the schools of the state and our own training school as genuine educational laboratories for those of the mature students who can aid in working constructively toward advancing the cause and profession of education. There is no architecturally well-defined state school system. The statistics above seem to suggest some such economic division of labor as I have noted. The following quotation from the Fifth Annual Report of the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching , pp. 76, 77, represents what should be expert opinion on the subject: On the other hand, there can be no denying the fact that hitherto the normal schools in most states have failed to live up to their responsibilities in the matter of adequate academic standards and respect for the field of the high school. In many cases the courses in normal schools are mere reviews of courses already taken in elementary schools or in college. A few remarks on the method of teaching do not elevate these courses to the level where they can be fairly accepted by the colleges for credit when later the graduate of the normal school makes application for admission to the university. Furthermore, the widely varying work undertaken by the normal school in different states shows how uncertain is the estimate of its function. Through¬ out the Middle West one finds normal schools offering the equivalent of the full college curriculum and conferring the Bachelor of Arts degree. The normal schools of other states are engaged in the work which properly belongs to the elementary school or the high school. In this latter case the normal school becomes an active competitor with the elementary schools and high schools, a result most disastrous to the educational interests of the people. These schools are direct competitors of elementary and secondary schools, and their effect is to discourage the development of good high schools. Rarely have the normal schools devoted themselves effectively to their most urgent work—the training of teachers for the elementary schools. [Italics mine.] *