Editorial Department.

THIS number closes the first half of the current volume, and the marked favor with which the successive numbers have been received, is an encouraging assurance that the volume, so far, has met the expectations of our readers. We feel confident that a glance over the 236 pages, now issued, will show that our subscribers have already received more than the worth of their money. Nevertheless, we shall continue to press forward to the attainment of higher success, only regretting that our limited space forbids the introduction of some important improvements which we have long had in mind. The truth is the cost of our enlarged issue is too great for our low subscription price. We need a thousand additional subscribers to justify the increased expense we are now incurring. Will not each July subscriber secure at least one new name to accompany his own? Send in the subscriptions, good friends.

WE are glad to notice that several of the most eminent and successful educators of the country are now engaged as contributors to western educational journals. President Edwards, of the Ill. Normal University, is writing for the Indiana Teacher, the Indiana School Journal, and the Illinois Schoolmaster, and we have an unfulfilled promise of an article for the MONTHLY. President Gregory, of the Ill. Industrial University, is writing for the Illinois Teacher, and the Indiana Teacher; Prof. D. N. Camp, of Connecticut, for the Missouri Journal of Education; President Alden, of the New York State Normal School, for the Indiana Teacher; Prof. Wm. F. Phelps, of the Minn. State Normal School, for the Minnesota Teacher, and the Indiana School Journal; and W. D. Henkle and W. H. Venable, of Ohio, for the Indiana Teacher. The OHIO EDUCATIONAL MONTHLY is specially favored, its requisitions for contributions being honored by such writers as Dr. John S. Hart, of New Jersey, Prof. Henry N. Day, of Connecticut, Dr. M. L. Holbrook, of New York, Prof. Wm. F. Phelps, of Minnesota, and Hon. E. D. Mansfield, Pres. I. W. Andrews, T. W. Harvey, W. H. Venable, W. D. Henkle, John Hancock, S. A. Norton, T. E. Suliot, W. H. Young, and several other leading educators of Ohio. The writing of a good article for an educational journal is one of the best services which a teacher can render the cause of education.

THERE are two opposite practices in our schools respecting the memorizing of arithmetical rules. The one discards rules altogether, except such as the pupils may be led to form for themselves, and these are not memorized. The other requires the author's rule to be thoroughly committed to memory as an introduction to the process. In our judgment, these two practices are both qualifiedly right and both wrong. Let us explain. The first thing is to con

duct the pupil through the process without reference to the rule. When he is familiar with each step of the process, the pupil should be required to generalize it, that is, to state the successive steps in words. This is the pupil's rule. The third and final step is for the pupil to compare his own rule with his author's or teacher's, and then to commit the better of the two thoroughly and accurately to memory. The second step should not be omitted. A little practice will enable the pupil to deduce a rule from a process and to state the same very intelligently. The exercise is a capital drill. It, moreover, prepares the pupil to understand the author's rule and to appreciate its clearness and conciseness. The first practice, above alluded to, is right in teaching first the process and then its generalization; it is wrong in omitting the memorizing of the best possible statement of this generalization. The second practice is right in requiring the rule to be memorized, but it is wrong in making this introductory to the process, and also in omitting the generalization of the process by the pupil. The true maxims are, Processes BEFORE rules; Rules THROUGH processes.

THE experiment of reducing the length of school sessions to four hours daily has been tried in Germany, and the results are said to be very satisfactory. The pupils show an eagerness and a vigor in the single daily session, which were never known when they attended school two sessions each day. It is stated that the schools which are in session but four hours, are making greater progress than those which are in session six hours. The same experiment has been tried in some of the towns of this State, and with similar results. Several towns which are deficient in school accommodations, have sought relief by dividing the primary schools into two sections, and permitting one section to attend school in the forenoon, and the other in the afternoon. They report that each section has made quite as good, if not better, progress than was secured by attending two sessions. The fact is, that four hours of study and confinement are as much as should be required of children under ten years of age.

THERE is one recommendation in Dr. Hart's excellent paper on the teaching of English grammar, which we can not indorse. We refer to the early age at which he would have pupils begin the study. We would put grammar considerably later in the school course, and for the reason that it is not a child's study. Its mastery requires a strength and maturity of the reflective and reasoning powers which children do not possess. It is true that some of the simpler elements of grammar may be taught orally to young pupils, but any attempt to pursue the subject systematically soon takes them beyond their depth. Instead of putting a grammar book into the hands of pupils who have completed primary geography, compound numbers, and the third reader, as suggested by Dr. Hart, we would place the beginning of the study at least two years later. Oral instruction may begin earlier, but we would much prefer practical drills in the use of language to instruction in technical grammar. We speak somewhat positively on this point, since we believe that much of the

existing dissatisfaction with the results of grammatical instruction, is due to the fact that such instruction is attempted too early. Our best grammar school teachers complain that even their first classes are not competent to master the ordinary grammatical text-books. It is true that the admirable oral initiation, sketched by our contributor, would do much to lessen this difficulty, but the fact remains that the young pupil's capability is not equal to the logical requirements of the study. Moreover, the early introduction of technical grammar is sure to crowd out composition, which is of more practical importance. A pupil should be able to write an intelligent, well expressed, neatly written letter, before he attempts to fathom the mysteries of grammatical technics, and this can only be attained by devoting much time to composition. Our conviction is strong that the common text-books on geography and arithmetic should be well completed, before the study of grammar as a science is seriously undertaken.

WE sometimes receive very discouraging accounts of the condition of our country schools. Improved methods of teaching are still unknown in many localities. The pupils read four times a day, "a verse each and round the class"; young tyros climb down and up the ABC ladder with many a tumble, as of old; questions are asked from the book and the answers are said off parrot fashion; the books used are both ancient and modern, and represent a wonderful variety; slates and pencils are used by the older pupils and only for ciphering; maps and charts are unknown; and, to sum up the whole, the school is still let to the lowest bidder. In other localities the teachers are trying to introduce better methods, but their "new-fangled notions" are the terror of school directors and patrons, and the slightest increase in teachers' wages brings down anathemas upon the county institute. From many other townships we hear of better things. Good teachers are at a premium, and improved methods of instruction are welcomed. After all, the world is moving, the light is spreading, and progress is triumphing over her foes.

แ

-IT is frequently asserted that there is a decline in the manners of the young-that there is more dress than formerly, but less civility; more airs" but less courtesy. A New York paper traces this decadence to the influence of the public schools, and charges that there is no feature of their management more deficient than that which manifests itself in the ill manners of the pupils. This charge does not surprise us, for what defect or wrong in society is not traced by certain writers to the schools? Then, too, how rapidly every thing is deteriorating! What a decline there is in health, thought, manners, morals, virtue, and industry! Nothing is what it used to be! Whether there is a decadence in manners we can not say-our observation is not sufficiently wide but it is evident that there is no lack of ill manners, and there are several prolific sources of this evil to be found outside of our schools. Our teachers certainly have a sufficiently heavy contract in correcting rudeness and illbreeding, without engaging in their manufacture, and it is possible that many are culpable for a neglect of this important duty. Our public schools should

assiduously cultivate habits of civil and courteous behavior, and this must be done both by precept and example, in season and out of season. Such training is as important as instruction in arithmetic or English grammar. Moreover, the manners of a school should never be graded down to the average pupil, but up to the teacher's standard and example. Good manners should never be one of the teacher's personal wants.

THE EDUCATIONAL QUESTION.

The question which Mr. Mansfield discusses in this number, is truly the "living controversy" in education. Our school and college courses of study are greatly over-crowded, and, as a result, they can only be mastered superficially. What is the practical remedy? Evidently, an exclusion of a part of the studies, or a lengthening of the course. The former plan is the more popular. But what branches shall be excluded? Here's the rub! The extreme anti-classical party would exclude Latin and Greek. Mr. Mansfield would exclude the modern sciences from the high schools and colleges, and provide for their study in amply endowed universities. He would make the regular college course what it was fifty years ago, and let the university meet the entire demand for scientific as well as professional training.

Is this plan feasible? Are we likely to have universities enough to supply the people with all the scientific instruction needed? More fundamentally, is the old college course the best possible standard of a general education? We can answer neither of these questions affirmatively. On the contrary, we believe that the physical sciences constitute an indispensable element of a general education—as indispensable for discipline as for information. The prime function of education is to teach man how to ascertain truth. This is the great intellectual need. But truth is chiefly ascertained by observation and reasoning, and these mental processes, as Mill admits, are carried to their highest perfection in the physical sciences. The habit of scientific thought is an essential factor of a good education. For these and other reasons, the modern sciences can not be excluded from the standard educational course. This much is settled. It is too late to talk about going back to the college course of fifty years ago. The new standard education embraces the physical sciences as one of its essential elements. They are to go hand in hand with the classics and mathematics.

But where, then, is the remedy for the over-crowding of our courses of study? The tendency of our American colleges points to the true answer. The classical course is to be lengthened and narrowed by letting Greek follow Latin. The admission of the physical sciences into the course does not leave room for the simultaneous study of two languages. The improvements now made in the teaching of languages certainly make it possible to master Latin in four years and Greek subsequently in three. The scientific element of the course must be limited to the elements of pure science, and these must be taught not superficially but thoroughly, and with leading reference to the

proper discipline of the mental powers. The numerous applications of science to art and business must be excluded from the regular course. Surveying, engineering, bookkeeping, mining, agriculture, practical mechanics, military tactics, etc., must certainly be left for the professional and polytechnic schools and the university. The attempt to crowd every useful application of science into our school courses is folly, and the hue and cry raised because it is not done, is senseless clamor. The university must relieve the high school and the college from this burden which they are unable to carry. So far we agree with our able contributor. But the settlement of the great educational controversy is found only in part in the university, though competent to teach every thing, up or down, right end foremost or wrong end foremost. There must also be a better selection and a wiser adjustment of the studies taught in the high school and the college, and to this we are coming. We are certainly past the exclusion of either the classics or the mathematics or the physical sciences from the standard education. The question is now largely one of adjustment and method.

It is not often that we feel obliged to dissent from the views expressed by our contributors, but occasionally the interests of education seem to call for a statement of our own position. This we try to do, neither dogmatically nor in the spirit of controversy, but solely with a view of promoting true progress and improvement in education. The above views are submitted for this purpose and in this spirit. We, of course, heartily indorse what is said respecting the inability of our slimly equipped colleges to teach everything, and we admit that their attempt, in some cases, to play the part of universities is ridiculous enough. Let us have the university proper to supplement and relieve our present educational institutions.

THE COEDUCATION OF THE SEXES.

The coëducation of the sexes has become one of the live questions, and the arguments pro and con are numerous and various. One of the arguments against coëducation is based on the difference between the male and the female mind. It is affirmed that the minds of men and women differ, and it is inferred, that this difference necessarily demands a difference of education. Is this inference a necessary consequence of the fact affirmed? Let us see. The physical organization of the two sexes is diverse. Does it follow that they require a diversity of food? Boys and girls sit at the same table, eat the same kinds of food, and breathe the same air, and their bodies are equally well nourished and strengthened. The mere fact of mental diversity no more necessitates a diversity of education, than physical diversity necessitates a diversity of food and air. What must be shown is, that the mental difference of the two sexes is such as to necessitate a difference of education, and this necessity must be proved; it can not be inferred. It is not axiomatic. The fact that there is sex in the mind does not necessitate sex in courses of study and instruction. Equally defective is the argument against coëducation based on diversity of