« AnteriorContinuar »
From such a review and comparison of conditions there can scarcely fail to emerge numerous points at which the present procedure can be improved and strengthened. The opportunity also of making a precisely parallel study of two fairly similar State units should make the results especially helpful.
Vermont report.—The report of the Carnegie Foundation1 on the State survey of Vermont, published in 1014, includes an account of the normal institutions of that State and a criticism of these institutions
The studies of normal schools above referred to are made, it will be noted, by agencies which are external to the schools themselves. The authorities which have charge of the normal schools have been very slow in making the kind of study of their institutions which would define with clearness the place of these schools in the educational system.
Studies of State normal schools by local State officials.—Material for studies and in some cases detailed examinations of normal-school problems are given in a few State reports. Two of these reports will be described, namely, the one by State Supt. Morrison, of New Hampshire, for 1911-12, pages 135-158, and the one by Commissioner Snedden, of Massachusetts, for 1912-13, pages 17-36 and 188-194.
Each of these reports is an ideal survey; that is, it is an objective, precise study made by a thoroughly qualified educational expert, who is responsible for the best development of the whole educational situation under investigation. Hence he is sympathetically interested in the condition of the whole, but has no personal preference for any part.
Excellent report by State Supt. Morrison, of New Hampshire.— Supt. Morrison treats the following topics precisely; that is, in terms of exact, reliable statistics reduced to a percentage basis where desirable: The proportion of trained teachers in the State, the supply of trained teachers, the constituency of each of the existing normal schools (with maps), sections of the State at present unprovided for, the condition of the normal schools. This report is supplementary to similar studies made in other biennial reports, especially the one for 1907-8 and the last report for 1913-14.
Mr. Morrison writes that "the State has a comprehensive normal policy which contemplates the training of the entire teaching force of the elementary schools."
Excellent report by Commissioner Snedden, of Massachusetts.—In the Massachusetts report for 1912-13 Mr. Snedden devotes a chapter of 19 pages to discussion of the work of the normal schools of the State. He gives excellent historical and statistical tables, which show in usable, precise form almost all the information that any student of the situation might desire concerning enrollment, graduation, and com
>A Study of Education in Vermont. Prepared and published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Pp. 111-124.
parative per capita costs. He gives accounts of conferences of representatives of the 10 State normal schools and the State commissioner to consider "proposals for increasing the efficiency of the normal schools in training elementary school teachers." Six of these proposals are discussed. Extensive use will be made of Mr. Snedden's data in this bulletin.
Good statistical tables by Supt. Evans, of Missouri.—Among the State reports which contain thorough and useful statistical data, organized in common terms for comparative purposes, is that of Missouri for 1913, prepared by State Supt. Evans. On page 488 Supt. Evans gives for each of the five normal schools of the State the number of students of high-school rank and the number of college rank, further subdivided into first, second, third, and fourth year students in each of these ranks. For anyone who has tried to find out from ordinary reports just what the normal schools of such a State as Missouri are doing in the way of giving high-school and college training, this one page is very illuminating. It will be reproduced in a later chapter on numbers of students in the normal schools.
Other State reports.—Other useful State reports received were those of California, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Some of these contain elaborate reports from the presidents of the various normal schools in the State, but little general interpretative and comparative treatment by a central State officer. Very often the report prepared by each normal-school president is so constructed as to give an impression of the bigness and importance of the school, instead of giving precise, reliable, objective data that can be readily used for comparative purposes. It would be well if all States would publish such usable and illuminating comparative reports as those of State Supts. Morrison and Evans and Commissioner Snedden.
Comparison of students of normal schools and colleges.—Reference may be made to special studies which have been useful in the present investigation. There is a study carried out by Mr. Shallies,1 of the State Normal School of Plattsburg, N. Y., to determine the quality of students who enter the New York normal schools. Mr. Shallies secured from those high schools of New York which sent graduates to the normal school in the year 1908 a full record of all graduates. He then arranged these graduates in groups, so as to be able to compare the group which went to the normal school with the group which went to college, the group which went into business, etc. The results of this comparison make it clear that students who enter the normal school are, on the average, of a lower grade than those who go to college.
lThe Distribution of High-School Graduates After Leaving School. G. W. Shallies. School Review, Vol. XXI (1913), pp. 81-91.
Certain other studies which have been made in particular matters are utilized in subsequent chapters of this monograph.
Meaning of the term "standardization."—These studies indicate that there are productive methods which can be employed in the study of normal schools. It is not the aim of this report to suggest that normal schools in different regions be made uniform. A normal school such as that in Milwaukee, Wis., drawing its students chiefly from that city and distributing its graduates for the most part into the city schools, is of necessity a very different school from the Kirksville (Mo.) Normal School, which draws its students from towns and villages and sends its graduates to rural and town schools. It may even be desirable to have wholly different types of entrance requirements and wholly different courses in two such institutions. If so, it is important that these needs be clearly defined and the standards of both schools be set up after deliberate scientific consideration.
The eastern normal school originated as a secondary school.— Again, there can be no doubt that the development of normal schools has been very different in different parts of the United States. In New England, New York, and Pennsylvania the normal school grew up as an institution of the rank of an academy. Indeed, in New York and Pennsylvania the normal classes were parts of the academies down to a late period. The result is that the eastern normal school seldom, if ever, strives to become a college. The courses are carried on to the entire satisfaction of faculty and State officers at the level of junior-college or high-school courses, and credit is, for the most part, not asked of the universities for this normal work.
Relation of western normal schools to universities.—In the Middle States a wholly different tradition arose. As indicated above, it was from the first regarded as a function of the University of Wisconsin to train teachers. The same is true wherever there are State universities. The university departments of education usually did not flourish, because the review courses which seemed to be needed did not seem to be of university grade, and there was not at that time scientific material for courses in the science of education. When normal schools grew up as separate institutions they were not academies as in the East, nor have they been recognized by the State universities as coordinate institutions. An example of the university's attitude is seen in the fact that the University of Michigan for a long time refused full credit to graduates of the State normal schools. The normal schools in many of the Western States, including Michigan, on the other hand, have not been satisfied to rank lower than the universities. They have the right to grant degrees and have been eager to exercise and enlarge this right. In the newer States the normal school has had the tradition of the college.
The uncertainty of purpose and organization has increased with growth of normal schools.—The western normal school has, on the other hand, in many cases made no effort to hecome a college. The kind of students which it could command and the urgency of the need which it had to supply have dictated a type of organization wholly different from that of the State university. The example of the New England normal school undoubtedly operated to make some of the western schools satisfied with high-school standards. Furthermore, the normal school has in some cases consciously accepted in sparsely settled or frontier communities standards of admission which were recognized as different from those of either the urban high schools or the State university. Thus confusion has grown and standards have been set aside in this development. It is now time to raise all of the questions at once and to seek an answer. Is the normal school to be of higher rank than the secondary school! Is it to be taken out of competition with the secondary school? Is it to be taken out of competition with the State university? In short, what is the place and what the legitimate work of the normal school?
This monograph merely outlines the problem of standardization of State normal schools.—One further comment is necessary in regard to the present report. The studies made have led to definite conclusions regarding the form of organization desirable in normal schools. It is evident that not all the possible facts have been canvassed. It is probable that some officers of normal institutions will not agree with the conclusions. It is emphatically to be urged that those who are not satisfied with the present work undertake the necessary amplifications of this study. The study aims merely to demonstrate the necessity of a broader investigation.
Finally, the limitations of this report may be further defined by the statement that this bulletin is restricted to a study of State normal schools. Some restriction of the scope of the study was necessary in order to simplify the problems and to secure a field in which comparisons could be ventured. This restriction eliminates a consideration of the work of closely related institutions, such as city training schools, county normal schools, and teachers' training courses in high schools. These institutions have been described, however, in other special bulletins issued by the Bureau of Education. County normal schools and teachers' courses in high schools are discussed in a bulletin by A. C. Monahan and R. H. Wright, entitled "Training Courses for Rural Teachers" (No. 2, 1913), and city training schools for teachers are described by Frank A. Manny in Bulletin No. 47, 1914.1 •
1 See also Bui. No. 4S, 1014, " Efficiency and preparation of rural-school teachers," and Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1914, Vol. I, pp. 1-116 ; 1915, Vol. I, p. 82.
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF COLLEGES AND
Relation of normal schools to colleges a vital problem in the North Central States.—One of the most vigorously discussed problems is that of the relation of the normal school to the college or university. As indicated in the preceding chapter, this problem comes to the surface for historical reasons especially in the States of the North Central territory. Here there are a number of normal schools which aim to take on full college or university standing. It is appropriate, therefore, in this territory to make a comparison between the normal schools and the other institutions which receive high-school graduates and continue their education.
The normal- school has its special problems.—Lest the motives of the following study should be misunderstood, it should perhaps be explicitly "stated that it is not assumed in this report that a normal school should pattern its organization aiter that of the college. It is merely pointed out that in certain respects normal schools and colleges differ fundamentally.
Report is based on returns from majority of schools.—This comparative study of certain normal schools and colleges is based on returns made to the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Table 1 shows the distribution by States of the normal schools included in this study:
Table 1.—State normal schools in various States considered, and number reporting to the North Central Association.