Imágenes de páginas

board, but the members of it are not educational experts. The board has been very active in reorganizing the normal-school situation in the State, and some statements of its procedures are contained in the following quotations from its official reports. Its general plan of administration is described in the following paragraphs:

In accordance with the direction of the law, we organized on March 20, 1913, and although there was no provision to pay our salaries, we found it necessary to spend all our time in the schools until July 1, when we took full charge. We met with the retiring boards and worked on the catalogues and courses of study submitted to us by the faculties, passed on the budgets and nominations made by the presidents, and had the necessary work which we jvere directed to do in shape on July 1, 1913, when the old boards went out of existence. Since that time we have been in continuous session.

The board of administration, as soon as it organized, called in the heads of the institutions for a conference and announced to them that it would hold each of them strictly responsible for the internal management of his institution and would not attempt any unnecessary internal management. As it visited the schools, it completed its work by reelecting all members of the faculties recommended by the presidents and filled vacancies upon their recommendation. The board lias consistently followed this plan from the beginning.

The board has met with the presidents each month and thoroughly canvassed the question as to the kinds of teachers to be employed in the schools and all other problems involving their welfare, and we wish to express to Chancellor Strong, Presidents Waters, Butcher, Brandenburg, and Lewis our gratitude for the way they have put aside their individual interests and advised with the board for the good of the system as a whole. * * *


The board found that each of the institutions was maintaining elaborate business offices and purchasing departments, and for economy and efficiency in buying consolidated them all at Manhattan until room could be secured in the statehouse. It is thus able to do the work for all the schools at what it formerly cost to do the work at one school. The saving is thousands of dollars. Instead of purchasing at retail and in small lots, we have joined with the boards of control and correction, buying in large lots direct from the manufacturer. We thus save the difference between the manufacturer's price and the retailer's price—a large item of saving for the State.


We have put in a uniform system of registration and record keeping and evaluation of credits, and can now transfer clerks and students' grades from one school to another, so that they will be able to take up the system without trouble. We have also installed in all the schools an up-to-date system, by which it will be possible to refer promptly, and without expense of time, to the grades of every person who attends the institutions. We have been put to a great deal of trouble, and expense in searching through odds and ends of old records in some of the institutions, frequently having to go back to the old class books of instructors to find the grades of students who desired to complete their work in that or other institutions. A careful system of keeping these all-important records in these institutions would have saved thousands of dollars. * * *



The institutions of higher learning in the United States are pretty thoroughly standardized. In order that the institutions under our control shall maintain their standing in these associations and make their degrees of any value, it is necessary not only that they shall do good work themselves, but also that they shall know and certify the work of preparatory schools whose students they take without examination. They must either examine the school that is preparing the student or examine the pupil when he appears for admission. The first plan has become the accepted one, and when we began our duties the university, the agricultural college, and the normals each maintained a separate system Of visitation in the high schools. The result of this system was that the representatives of all these institutions would frequently visit one high school during, the year, and none of them reached every high school. We established a committee on school relations to do the work of visitation systematically.

Michigan and Minnesota.—The three examples described above, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Kansas, depict situations in which specialized, salaried State officers took an active part in the control of State normal schools. The operation of another type of central control is seen in the cases of Michigan and Minnesota, where a nonsalaried, special, central State board has charge of the normal schools of each State, and this board in each case is influenced more or less by recommendations from the presidents of the State normal schools. Sometimes the board appears to follow the recommendations of the presidents of the several schools, and in other cases to act more independently. An example of the actions of the Michigan board is given below on page 117 (concerning special teachers) and of the Minnesota board on pages 102—104 (concerning training high-school teachers). More complete historical descriptions of typical developments in cases where the presidents of the State normal schools have cooperated with such a central board of control would be illuminating in determining the value of this type of administrative arrangement. To some observers it would seem to be the best type, since it may involve a committee of educational experts (normalschool presidents) presenting joint recommendations to a responsible board which represents the people of the State and the interests of all sections of the State. It is probably desirable to have the State superintendent of public instruction an active member of the board which controls the normal schools in order to bring to the assistance of this board such expert services as he and his office can render.

Chapter V.

An important factor in determining success of normal school.— One of the most important factors in determining the possible and actual success of a normal school is the practice-teaching facilities. This fact is generally recognized and admitted by most normal-school authorities, and has been referred to in Chapter III, where one of the lour conditions which was emphasized in determining the location of a normal school in a town was the possibility of expanding the practice-teaching facilities so as to take care of any number of students that may come to a normal school.

Zone of normal school should be limited by practice facilities.— Where an existing normal school is unfortunately located so that the limit of adequate practice-teaching facilities is reached, the State authorities should take cognizance of this fact, place a limit on the attendance at the normal school and a proportionate limit on the funds devoted to its maintenance; so restrict its zone or district that the latter will be adequately served; and proceed to establish a new normal school, so located that it may always provide adequate practice facilities for the area it is to serve.

New Hampshire normal schools so planned.—That the development of the normal-school policy of a State may actually follow these lines is shown in the report of State Supt. Morrison, of New Hampshire, from which quotations have already been made. In the quotation concerning the Plymouth Normal School (see above, p. 23) Mr. Morrison stated that the practice-teaching facilities restrict the growth of this school to 150 students and are hardly adequate for this number. According to the same report, the public schools of Plymouth enroll about 300 to 350 children who are 14 years of age and under. On the other hand, Mr. Morrison estimates that the Keene Normal School could take care of an annual enrollment of 480. The public schools of Keene enroll from 1,100 to 1,200 children 14 years of age and under. From these figures it would appear that Mr. Morrison estimates that the schools which are available for practice purposes of a normal school that maintains only a two-year course for high-school graduates should contain from two and one-half to three times as many pupils as there are students in the normal school. The amount of

15607"—16 4

practice which Mr. Morrison contemplates is contained in his statement that "each student before graduation must 'make good' by teaching one-half of each school day for 18 weeks in the practice schools, being responsible for the conduct of classrooms for that time." (P. 153.)

Standard needed for amount of practice teaching per graduate.— The last paragraph suggests that, in order to carry out the policies described above, it is necessary to determine some measure or standard by which the practice-teaching facilities of a town can be measured. Obviously the first step in determining this standard is to ascertain how much practice teaching should be required of each normal-school graduate, and the conditions under which it should be done.

Practice-teaching conditions should approximate real conditions.— To take up the question of conditions first, it is generally admitted that the closer these approximate the real situations as they exist in ordinary public schools the better. This means from 40 to 60 children in a room divided into not more than two sections. A further condition is the possibility of placing a practice teacher in charge of this situation for a somewhat continuous period—for example, every morning for from 4 to 18 weeks. This does not mean that all the practice teaching in a given normal school need be done under these conditions, since a student may profit a great deal from teaching much smaller groups of children for a half hour a day for several weeks. But to get the hest results, the more continuous practice under typical school conditions should also be provided. It is provided in a great many situations; hence it can be provided, and all normal schools should be so located as to make possible such provision. As long as it is easily possible to secure the best conditions, there is no justification for being satisfied with inferior provisions.

Artificial training school plus subsidy of local public schools.— The two types of conditions described above, namely, small groups of children under somewhat artificial conditions for initial practice teaching plus regular full rooms for longer continuous teaching under real public-school conditions, are secured by constructing a large training or practice school under the direct charge of the normal school, and making arrangements with the local city authorities for practice teaching in the regular public schools. Such an arrangement is usually effected by State subsidy of some form to the local public schools. This subsidy may take a variety of forms; for example, it may involve the normal school's paying an increase of salary to certain of the teachers who act as critic teachers, or paying all of the salaries, of such critic teachers, or increasing the salaries of all teachers, etc. In addition to the subsidy, the normal school sometimes furnishes gratis expert supervision for part or all of the activities of the public schools that are used for practice teaching. In a few cases the public schools are placed entirely under the direction of a normal-school officer.

Examples. Mayville, N. Dak., using town schools {1912).—The following are typical examples of arrangements for practice teaching in public-school systems. The 1912 report (p. 6-1) for the State Normal School at Mayville, N. Dak., states that:

The public schools of Mayville have continued to he used as the practice department For eight months of each school year the normal school has paid each of the grade teachers and the principal of the public schools from $20 to $25 per month, in addition to their regular salaries, and the local hoard of education $62.50 a month toward meeting the expenses of heating and Janitor service in the public-school building. The total cost per year to the normal school has been about $1,700. In return for this outlay the normal school has been permitted to let the members of its senior class, under the direction of the normal-school supervisor of practice, observe and teach in the grades at certain hours of the day throughout the eight months of the year when both schools are in session. The supervisor of practice has received the assistance of the public-school principal and grade teachers in the management and instruction of the senior class.

New Hampshire contracts give State charge of local practice schools.—In New Hampshire—

contracts with the local communities give the normal schools the use of the entire elementary system in the town of Plymouth and in the city of Keene for model and practice purposes.

At De Kalb, III., a town of 8,000 population—

all practice teaching is done in the city schools. Two schools are used for this purpose. One of them is in the normal training school building; the other is in one of the city buildings. Each is an eight-grade school.

The director of the training department is also superintendent of schools of the city.

Providence, R. I.; normal training school plus many "training stations" in public schools.—Finally, one of the most completely developed practice teaching situations, as far as facilities are concerned, is that of the State Normal School of Providence, R. I. The regular enrollment of the normal school for 1913-14 was 4G0 students, all high-school graduates. The number in the graduating class for 1913-14 was 134. To provide practice teaching facilities for this number the normal school has a training school of its own, 9 other "training stations" in the public schools of Providence, and 15 "training stations" in neighboring towns. The official description of this elaborate system is given in the following quotation from the catalogue for May, 1914 (p.30)


The school of observation, on the first floor bf the normal building, comprises a kindergarten and eight grades, with one rpom for each grade and

« AnteriorContinuar »