« AnteriorContinuar »
convention and moral practice for the two sexes more nearly the same.
• More extensive and closer contact between the higher educational institutions and the outside world is intimately bound up with two matters which have given trouble to college authorities—freedom of speech and academic freedom. The former concerns the freedom with which college buildings and property may be used by student organizations and others for presenting ideas and facts which are the subject of discussion outside college walls. No general rule which will eliminate the necessity for discretion has been devised. In general, addresses of a scholarly nature or those of general interest are permitted and encouraged. Advocacy of destruction of the Government by violence or unlawful means or attack upon the accepted code of morals are forbidden. What constitutes an accepted code of morals is, of course, a matter of opinion. Critics of educational institutions contend that when revision of conventional moral standards is in progress, institutions permit the greatest freedom to those who defend the conservative viewpoint, while those who are working for change are forbidden to present their ideas to students. One of the important matters of this kind which has aroused discussion and disagreement is the matter of birth control. Similar differtrences of opinion arise in connection with political campaigns. No institution would forbid a general discussion of political issues; many will forbid the use of college or university buildings for presentation of the claims of a political candidate even though such discussions and claims are presented freely in the newspapers and across the street from the campus. No doubt an institution has a legal right and a moral obligation to control the outside influences which are brought to bear upon its students; its standards of control should be publicly known and impartially applied.
The matter, however, of participation of the college staff in outside discussions, either in the classroom or in public, presents somewhat greater difficulties. A committee of the Association of American Colleges in 1922 formulated general principles in regard to this matter which after a year's discussion were adopted in 1923. These principles deal with four points. First, they recognize that freedom of research should be maintained unless restriction is necessary in the interest of teaching. Second, the college should not place restriction upon freedom in presentation of the teacher's own subject in the classroom, in outside addresses, or in publications except such as are agreed upon in advance or such as are necessary for immature students. Third, they recognized the right and the duty of the institution to restrict discussion of outside matters in the classroom which is supposed to be devoted to instruction of a special kind. Fourth, that the teacher's right of public discussion of questions outside his own field is the same as that of anyone else, except that the teacher must always make it clear that he and not the institution is responsible for the views expressed.
Mention has already been made of the fact that the first two years of college properly belong to the secondary field and of the fact that during these two years occurs the greatest mortality among students. The burden upon the institutions because of large attendance, as well as theoretical reasons, makes them friendly toward the idea of developing separate two-year junior colleges. It is the purpose of such institutions to render educational service along three lines. First, presentation of a liberal arts course of two years which will lead to entrance to the junior year in a college or university; second, conduct of two years of professional or preprofessional courses; and, third, offering two-year completion courses for those who do not desire to secure a degree or to lead professional lives. Friends of the junior college idea see in its future develpment provision for a number of such institutions so conveniently distributed as to provide locally training of the kinds indicated. They believe that this will relieve the college of many of the problems which arise from immature boys and girls being severed from home connections and also will result in the college being able to concentrate its energies upon higher education rather than upon instruction of a secondary nature. The development of the junior college during the two-year period has been remarkable. In California in 1921 a bill was passed which makes possible the setting up under State aid of an extensive system of junior colleges. Those which undertake to prepare for the last two years of college work must be affiliated with the State university. They are inspected by the university, and the qualifications of the faculty must comply with university standards. The courses of all institutions must be approved by the State board of education and conform to minimum standards set up by the State board. This results in a system which coordinates the junior college with the public schools and with the university more closely than in any other State. In 1922 in the United States there were 200 junior colleges, of which 4 were affiliated with high schools, and 125 were reorganized small colleges. Dr. George F. Zook, president of the Municipal University of Akron, while chief of the division of higher education in the United States Bureau of Education, contributed through his surveys a great deal to the development of this movement. His studies of college distribution upon the basis of economic resources, population, transportation, and type of educational service required resulted in recommendations looking toward reduction of competition between four-year denominational colleges by changing several of them to the rank of junior colleges and making them feeders for one or two strong institutions affiliated with the denomination concerned. 27301°—27 3
By W. S-. Deffenbattoh
v So extensive and so complex has the modern city school system become that it is impossible in a brief chapter to treat more than a few of the recent educational movements. In addition to day schools the activities of the city school system include night schools, continuation schools, special schools, health supervision, vocational instruction, A'ocational guidance, clinics, etc.1 Reviews of some of these activities appear in other chapters of tlie Biennial Survey of Education, and discussion of them in this chapter is unnecessary.
"Nothing more than usual is reported in the field of general administration. Having small school boards elected at large has become the prevailing practice. Some difference of opinion still exists regarding the method of choosing boards of education, though authorities in school administration are generally agreed that the elective plan is upon the whole to be preferred to any method of appointment by city or other officials.
The question of the relation of the city council to the board of education is perennial. Numerous instances might be given to show that there has been friction between them; but this is nothing new. Several attempts have been made to divorce school from municipal affairs. For instance, a bill sponsored by the New Haven Teachers' League, to make the board of education independent of the city officials, was defeated at a recent session of the Connecticut Legislature. The claim made by the teachers' league was that the finance board interfered unduly in the management of the schools. This, however, is an old story and may be duplicated in some of the other cities where the school boards are dependent upon the city officials for appropriations.
ADAPTING THE SCHOOL TO INDTVTDrAL DIFFERENCES
v Within the past few years possibly more attention has been given to adapting the school to individual differences than to any other phase of school administration. The fact that children differ in ability to jirogress through the grades has long been recognized,