EDUCATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND INSTITUTES.

THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL CONVENTION.

[From the National Teacher, Columbus, Ohio, edited by Hon. E. E. White.]

We have briefly noticed the annual meeting of this body, held at St. Louis in August last. We now add a brief account of the proceedings:

GENERAL ASSOCIATION.

The association was cordially welcomed to St. Louis by Governor B. Gratz Brown, who, after highly complimenting the "Great City of the West" and the State of Missouri, for their liberal provision for public education, proceeded to controvert the current opinion that education promotes virtue and morality, and is the safeguard of republics. He assumed that education, "as now engineered,” is "confined merely to the acquisition of knowledge," and, from this false assumption, he argued that education only changes the forms of crime-that it fosters "acute knaveries." The remedy suggested was the teaching of "the actual compensations of nature; in taking the criminal code into your schools and collating the action with the retribution; in demonstrating virtue as its own best reward, not by axiom, but by illustration; and in showing forth by suitable methods that wrong is ever miscalculation, and therefore foreign to the first law of education." This passage in the governor's address provoked not a little unfavorable criticism, and, in subsequent sessions, it was sharply reviewed by Commissioner Eaton, Professor Phelps, Superintendent Harris, and others. The governor also urged Herbert Spencer's views respecting the study of the physical and social sciences, and touched upon several other professional topics. President Pickard happily responded, and then introduced those chosen to preside over the several sections, each of whom made a brief address.

In the evening, Hon. J. P. Wickersham, of Pennsylvania, delivered an able address on "A national compulsory system of education impracticable and un-American." He gave a very full analysis of the bill introduced into the last Congress by Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, and condemned the measure as ill-advised and mischievous. He urged that the scheme to establish a national system of education is in opposition to the theory and uniform practice of the National Government; to the views of the founders of the Republic, and of its leading statesmen, and to a sound political philosophy. He approved of the policy of the National Government's aiding public education in the South by conditional appropriations of lar or money.

The subject was subsequently discussed by Messrs. Beckington, of Missouri, Platt, of Kansas, Rolfe, of Illinois, Henderson, of Arkansas, and others. Commissioner Eaton was called out, but declined to express an opinion on the merits of Mr. Hoar's bill. He made an encouraging statement respecting the progress and condition of the freeschool systems of the South, and favored their financial assistance by Congress.

The following resolution, offered by Mr. Wickersham, was unanimously adopted: "Resolved, That this association will look with favor upon any plan of giving peenniary aid to the struggling educational systems of the South, that the General Government may deem judicious."

The next question considered was, “How far may a State provide for the education of her children at public cost?" The discussion was opened by Hon. Newton Bateman, of Illinois, who, in an able and eloquent paper, urged that the State should make the most liberal provision for public education, including higher education. He concluded thus:

"The question for American statesmen is not how little, but how much can the State properly do for the education of her children; that the one thing most precious in the sight of God, and of good men, is the welfare and growth of the immortal mind, and that, to do this, legislatures should go to the verge of their constitutional powers, courts to the limits of liberality of construction, and executives to the extreme of official prerogatives. I believe that an American State can and should supplant the dis trict school with the high school, and the high school with the university, all at the public cost-exhibiting to the world the noblest privilege of the country-a model fræschool system; totus teres atque rotundus."

Superintendent William Harris, of St. Louis, followed with an able and scholarly paper. He reviewed the recent events in Europe, finding education to be their expla nation. The immense efforts made all over Europe to found a system of industrial education are made for the preservation and defense of the monarchical system. But the people will not long submit to be educated simply as directors of machines and instru mentalities of industry. Their education will stop at nothing short of that spiritual culture which prepares for self-government in the realm of social, moral, and intellectual existence. IIe next considered the nature of the State, and its limits and pre

rogatives, and the nature of education, and its relation to the individual, to society at large, and to the State, with this conclusion:

tion.

"The government of a republic must educate all its people, and it must educate them so far that they are able to educate themselves in a continued process of culture, extending through life. This implies the existence of higher institutions of public educaAnd these, not so much with the expectation that all will attend them, as that the lower schools, which are more initiatory in their character, and deal with new elements, depend for their efficiency upon the organization of higher institutions for their direction and control. Without the education in higher institutions of the teachers of lower schools, and, furthermore, without the possibility hovering before pupils of ascent into the higher schools, there can be no practical effect given to primary schools."

Mr. Harris closed his paper with a brief reference to the question of the morality of public education. His concluding sentences were as follows:

"The discipline of our public schools, wherein punctuality and regularity are enforced, and the pupils are continually taught to suppress mere self-will and inclination, is the best school of morality. Self-control is the basis of all moral virtues, and industrious habits are the highest qualities we can form in our children. A free, self-conscious, self-controlled manhood is to be produced only through universal public education at public cost; and, as this is the object of our Government, it is proper for our Government to provide this means, and at the cost of the people."

Dr. John W. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, presented the report of the committee, appointed last year, on an American university. It stated very concisely the conditions and general features of such an institution. It suggested that the original endowment should not be less than ten millions of dollars, and its management should secure the co-operation of the citizen, the State, and the General Government. The history of the idea of such a central institution, and the authority of Congress to establish and endow it, were briefly presented. The report concluded with the recommendation that another committee be appointed to conduct the enterprise to a successful issue; which was adopted.

The president appointed Dr. J. W. Hoyt, Wisconsin; Dr. Thomas Hill, Massachusetts; E. L. Godkin, esq., New York; Hon. J. F. Wickersham, Pennsylvania; Dr. Barnas Sears, Virginia; Colonel D. F. Boyd, Louisiana; Dr. Daniel Read, Missouri; Professor William F. Phelps, Minnesota; Hon. A. Gibbs, Oregon; Hon. Newton Bateman, Illinois; and as ex-officio members, E. E. White, president National Educational Association; Hon. John Eaton, National Commissioner of Education; Dr. Joseph Henry, president National Academy of Science; Dr. J. Lawrence Smith, president American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Samuel Elliott, president American Social Science Association.

Thomas Davidson, of St. Louis, read a paper on "Pedagogical bibliography." He divided the history of educational literature into three great periods-the childhood, youth, and manhood of education-and sketched these periods as presented in different times and countries. The lecture showed much research, and will be valuable for reference, since it presents a very full catalogue of pedagogical works, ancient and modern.

Alfred Kirk, of Chicago, presented the “Moral uses of the recitation,” in a well-written paper. He took strong ground in favor of positive moral training in the public schools. The foundations of character must there be laid, and morals must be the center of every educational scheme. The recitation is the teacher's opportunity to teach the pupil that greatest of all lessons, how to live.

The

S. G. Williams, of Cleveland, read an excellent paper, the last evening, on "The use of text-books." He said that, in the earlier periods of instruction, the teacher was much the more prominent figure, and, for a long period in the child's history, perhaps the only text-book that could be used with advantage was the reading-book. second period is that in which text-books legitimately occupy the largest place. But even here the text-books are too often made the alpha and omega of the whole lesson. In the third period of pupilage, which properly includes the upper classes of the high school and the first two classes of collegiate instruction, the pupil's use of text-books must be considerably modified, and he should now be encouraged and required to test and supplement their contents by means of other information.

The paper elicited a lively discussion, which was participated in by Superintendent Calkins, of New York city; Professor Woodward, of Washington University, Missouri; Superintendent Harris and Mr. Merwin, of St. Louis; Commissioner Henkle, of Ohio; Professor Phelps, of Minnesota, and others. Professor Woodward urged that lectures and oral instruction could not be relied upon, even in professional schools, and Mr. Harris claimed that the great thing in education is to teach the pupil how to use textbooks.

The foregoing addresses, papers, and discussions constituted the principal exercises of the general association. To these were added brief addresses on the condition of

education in the several States represented, with closing addresses by Rev. John Montieth, State school superintendent of Missouri, and President Pickard.

ELEMENTARY SECTION.

The first exercise in this section was a brief lecture on the "First steps in teaching reading," by E. E. White, of Ohio; which was discussed by C. C. Rounds, of Maine, John Hancock, of Cincinnati, N. C. Calkins, of New York city, and others. The discussion was characterized by a remarkable concurrence of views.

This was followed by an address on "Methods of teaching languages," by D. H. Cruttenden, of New York, which was briefly discussed.

At the next session, Henry C. Harden, of Boston, read a valuable paper on "Methods of teaching drawing," with blackboard illustrations. He stated that all children can learn to draw with no more difference of results than is seen in other branches, and that the elements of the art can be successfully taught in primary and grammar schools, without the sacrifice of any present excellence in other studies. The drawing-lessons for primary classes must be of the simplest nature, and the advancement must be by the slowest stages. Forms must be analyzed, and criticism must stimulate observation. Classes of faults must be shown by illustration, and there must be energy in drill and instruction, and definiteness of aim.

A paper on the "Philosophy of methods," by John W. Armstrong, of New York, was read, and a discussion of the two papers occupied the rest of the session.

On Thursday morning, Mrs. Mary Howe Smith, of New York, read a paper on "Methods of teaching geography," which elicited high commendation. She believed that the two methods of teaching, which may be called the text-book and the nontext-book methods, are "not only the outgrowth of the same principles and inspired by the same motive, but they are capable of being combined into oue harmonious whole. and that the highest usefulness of our public schools can be secured only when they shall be thus combined in the practice of instructors generally." The first instruction should be oral and objective. When the pupil has learned to read so readily and intelligently that he can begin the study of the text-book, each book lesson should be preceded by an oral exercise, designed to awaken and direct thought, to enable the pupil to comprehend the lesson, and to interest him in it. By degrees these oral exercises, preceding the study of text, should be discontinued, until finally the pupil may be sent unaided to the task of mastering his lesson.

This was followed by a very pointed, suggestive, and interesting discussion of the question, "What constitutes a good primary teacher?" It was opened by W. T. Harris, of St. Louis, and continued by N. A. Calkins, of New York, Miss Delia A. Lathrop, E. E. White, and John Hancock, of Ohio, B. Malion, of Georgia, J. H. Rolfe, of Illinois, and W. A. Bell, of Indiana.

NORMAL SECTION.

The first exercise was an able paper on "Model schools in connection with normal schools," by Richard Edwards, of Illinois. He held that, as teaching is a practical art, normal training should include a practical apprenticeship, and for this purpose a school of practice is needed. He believed that a model school might be made to furnish (1) models of good teaching and government; (2) apprentice work; and (3) opportunity for experiment-that it may be made both a model school and a school of practice and experiment. He sketched a plan of organizing and conducting such a school. Miss Anna C. Brackett, principal of the St. Louis Normal School, read a well-written paper on the same subject. She understood a model school to be one taught by conpetent teachers, not pupils. It exists for the normal school, and has no separate exist ence. The paper was, however, chiefly devoted to methods of normal training. She said that it is the province of a normal school to teach the how and not the what, and that the why of the how should be ascertained. The normal school must give general culture, the same as other institutions of higher education, but this is not the leading aim. Discipline and method must be conjoined.

This discussion was continued by Wm. F. Phelps, of Minnesota, who also read a brief paper by J. H. Hoose, of New York, who was absent. Mr. Phelps favored the separation of experimental, model, and normal schools, basing his argument on his own expe rience. He was followed by Dr. J. II. Sangster, superintendent of the normal school at Toronto, Ontario, who strongly advocated the union of normal schools and schools of practice. In answer to questions, he explained the peculiar features of his school, which he said was full, with two thousand (?) applicants waiting for admission.

At the next session, a very sensible paper, by Superintendent J. D. Philbrick, of Boston, on "The normal school problem," was read by W. D. Henkle, of Maine, Mr. Philbrick being absent. The paper opened with a sketch of the four State normal schools of Massachusetts, now supported by an annual appropriation of $50,000. Their success is established, but they need to be supplemented by more elementary normal schools for the preparation of teachers for the ungraded rural schools. Let the term

be three months, and let the instruction be efficient. Three months' normal instruction is better than none. Normal training must supply what is lost by the temporary ocenpation of teachers. The outline of a plan for organizing and conducting such a grade of normal schools was briefly sketched.

The paper was discussed by C. C. Rounds, of Maine, Wm. F. Phelps, of Minnesota, J. M. McKenzie, of Nebraska, Geo. B. Beard, of Missouri, J. P. Wickersham, of Pennsyl vania, E. E. White, of Ohio, and Richard Edwards, of Illinois. It was agreed that the great need of our school systems is a complete system of normal instruction, adapted to and practically reaching all classes of teachers, and the best plan of organizing such a system was the principal question considered. It was generally conceded that there should be three classes of agencies, viz: (1) one or more State normal schools of a high grade; (2) normal schools of a lower and more elementary grade; and (3) the teachers' institute. There was some difference of opinion respecting the second or intermediate class of schools. Several speakers suggested that there might be county normal schools, the system begun in Illinois. One speaker favored normal institutes, with sessions of four to twelve weeks, the same to be held in prescribed districts annually, and at such points as may furnish the best facilities. Such institutes would answer the purpose until there is such a demand for normal institutes as will organize and sustain county normal schools.

On motion of Mr. Phelps, a committee was appointed to make a report, at the next meeting, on a plan of normal schools to meet the wants of the community.

The last session, which was brief, was devoted to a paper by J. W. Armstrong, of New York, on "Principles and methods in a normal course." It was briefly discussed by Professor Phelps, of Minnesota, M. A. Newell, of Maryland, J. C. Gilchrist, of West Virginia, Miss Brackett, of St. Louis, and Wm. A. Jones, of Indiana.

SUPERINTENDENTS' SECTION.

The principal topic considered in this section was "Compulsory school attendance." The discussion was opened by John Hancock, of Ohio, who ably presented the right of the State to provide for and demand the education of all its youth. The right of the State transcends the will of the parent. If we are not prepared for a general compulsory law, he believed in first taking the outposts, and never yielding the struggle until we have the general system.

Mr. Tooke, of Illinois, believed that a law compelling parents and guardians to send their children to school was both right and expedient. The State should require youth between six and eighteen years of age to attend school at least three mouths in each year. He offered a resolution to this effect.

A. J. Rickoff, of Ohio, believed that the State must educate the whole people or perish, but he was reluctant to resort to a compulsory system. Before adopting so extreme a measure, every other practicable means should be exhausted. The means offered by religious organizations and the platform should first be used; tracts on the subject should be distributed; all classes of educated and professional men should be appealed to. Mr. Foster, of Missouri, admitted the right of the State to compel school attendance, but doubted the expediency of the measure. He offered a substitute for Mr. Tooke's

resolution.

Wm. F. Phelps, of Minnesota, asserted that universal education is a necessity, and no nation has as yet succeeded in educating all its people, except by compelling school attendance. He believed that the measure was both right and expedient. It was the doctrine of common sense. How much longer shall we experiment and wait? Statisties show that illiteracy is on the increase, in the face of the most earnest efforts. Compulsion must be made a part of our educational policy, but it will be but a temporary expedient. When once the whole people are educated, no compulsory law will be needed.

State Superintendent Montieth, of Missouri, believed that all sides of this question should be considered. It may be legally right, and yet there may be concomitants which make it unwise. He thought centralization and compulsion were inseparable. Mr. White, of Ohio, said there are two questions to be dispassionately considered before we resort to the compulsory system, viz: 1. To what extent has the voluntary system failed, and wherein has it failed? 2. Will a compulsory system be a success, both where the voluntary system has failed and where it has succeeded? Statistics furnish no certain answer to the first question. The kind of statistics used to show that the American voluntary system has failed, also prove that the compulsory system of Prussia has failed. The difference between the enrollment and the enumeration proves nothing respecting the number of children growing up unschooled. The voluntary system has not failed. The statistics show that as high a per cent. of the population attended school last year in Ohio as in Prussia. Education is as universal in Holland without the compulsory system, as in Bavaria with it. The school attendance is as great in those cantons of Switzerland that have no compulsory law, as it is in those cantons which have. He did not believe that a compulsory system would be a success

in this country. Where it was most needed, there would be no public sentiment to enforce it. He was in favor of supplementing the voluntary system, but not of abandoning it.

The resolutions were referred to a committee consisting of Messrs. White, Phelps, and Hancock, who, at the next session, reported the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

"Resolved, That universal education is a public necessity, and that the State has the full right to provide for and secure it.

"Resolved, That to secure universal education in this country, our present system of voluntary school attendance should be supplemented by truant laws, reformatory schools, and such other compulsory measures as may be necessary to reach that class of youth now growing up in ignorance."

Superintendent W. R. Creery, of Baltimore, read a paper on a "Uniform basis of school statistics;" but we have seen no report of the paper or of its discussion, and hence are unable to give an abstract.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

The exercises were opened by a paper on "Classical study and the means of securing it in the West," by H. K. Edson, of Iowa. He asserted that, after a thorough examination of the merits of classical studies for years, through the press and in all classes of society, the verdict rendered is substantially in their favor. No other means of discipline so effective and thorough have yet been discovered. The question to be considered is, What means shall we use to secure more attention to them, and bring about their general introduction? Dividing educational institutions into three classes, primary, secondary, and higher, we find in the West a deficiency of institutions of the second class. The States make ample provision for the first class, and, in exceptional cases, for the third class. The lack of good preparatory schools is a serious hinderance to the prosperity of our colleges. The immediate and pressing want of the time is the establishment of schools that shall initiate the youth in the rural districts in a course of classical study. Mr. Edson also urged the establishment of independent training schools to prepare classical teachers, thus implying that the colleges fail to meet this demand. He opposed the support of higher institutions by public taxation.

The subject was discussed by Dr. Daniel Reed, of Missouri, S. G. Williams, of Ohio, Dr. Gulliver, of Illinois, and others. It was urged that the colleges cannot depend upon the public high schools to prepare students. The want must be met by thorough private classical schools. A resolution, offered by Dr. Gulliver, approving of “the effort now in progress to unite more perfectly the courses of study in public high schools and colleges, by introducing special classical courses on the part of the schools, and by modifying, without lowering, the requirements of admission on the part of the colleges," was laid over until the next meeting.

Hon. John Eaton, National Commissioner of Education, read an able and exhaustive paper on "Superior instruction in its relation to universal education." The paper pointed out several defects in the higher institutions of learning in their relation to students, and then presented the duties of these institutious and all liberally educated men to the universal education of the people. The conclusion was thus stated: “If any section or class is neglected, excluded from letters, or shut up in ignorance, may we not justly hold superior instruction accountable? Either it has not done its work, or has done it badly."

At the second session, Professor T. H. Safford, of the Chicago University, read a scholarly paper on "Modern mathematics in the college course." The following are his main positions: 1. Our college course of mathematics must contain in future more synthetic geometry, and less algebra and higher analysis; more practical and less abstract matter. 2. Time must be gained by beginning geometry in an elementary way before the preparatory college course. 3. Geometry and arithmetic-both subjects taken in their broadest sense-must go hand in hand throughout the course: must continually support each other, each retaining its individuality. What we now call analytical geometry must be introduced in various stages with geometry proper. 4. The text-books must diminish in size, and be largely supplemented by oral teaching, Both teacher and pupil must learn better how to work at the subjects, not at the books merely. 5. The interests of educational science, of mathematical science, of physical science, and of practical utility, alike demand these changes. The paper engaged the closest attention, and was warmly applauded at its close.

The subject was discussed by President Tappan, of Ohio, Professor Woodward, of Missouri, Dr. Gulliver, of Illinois, and others. President Tappan said that he was greatly pleased with the paper. He was satisfied that the amount of mathematics now included in the college course was too great, and he doubted whether the mathematical studies of the sophomore year should not be made elective.

Professor Henry M. Tyler, of Knox College, Illinois, read an elaborate paper on the "Pronunciation of the Latin and Greek languages," in which he urged the adoption of