On the Firing Line in Education Part 10

REPLIES FROM CITY SUPERINTENDENTS

To question (1). Thirty replies were received, of which twenty-eight were negative, and two affirmative. The two were from a state in which is to be found a single normal school, and that, one of the best.

To question (2). Twenty-eight replies were received, of which twenty-six were negative, and two affirmative.

To be sure, correspondence upon this point was not sufficiently extended to be conclusive, but yet my correspondents were, in the main, leaders in their respective lines, and therefore represent the best educational thought and practise of the times. The summary speaks clearly and to the point, and to the same point, note, that the logic of events has already brought us. The work of the normal school should continue to be, as it has been from the beginning, devoted to preparation of teachers for the grades, while prospective teachers in the high schools should seek their preparation in the teachers colleges, under whatever specific names known, where the professional phases of the work will be as much emphasized, but be different, and be differently handled as befitting the different character of the work to be done, and where they can receive the broader academic outlook and equipment absolutely essential to an adequate handling of the larger and more difficult situation.

NOTE.--Since the appearance of the January number of _Education_, my attention has been called to the fact that in naming inst.i.tutions giving early attention to the preparation of secondary teachers I omitted some that should have found a place in such an enumeration. It is true that several others might well have been mentioned. On page 286, line 5 (page 224, line 3 of this work), I might well have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University, also Clark, Stanford, California, and Teachers College, Columbia, and again, "and others." And on page 289, line 18 (page 228, line 18 of this work), I certainly should have added the School of Pedagogy of New York University and Clark University, possibly others, for the work is progressing rapidly. But it was the movement I had in mind rather than the specific contributions of various inst.i.tutions. The omissions were not born of any desire to withhold from any inst.i.tution the credit that it deserves.

Since this matter is again open, let me add an interesting fact in regard to the New York University School of Pedagogy, just mentioned. If I mistake not, we have here the first real "teachers college," that is, the first instance in which we see a "Department of Education," having merely equal standing with other departments in a university, become, thru definite action of that university's governing body, "a professional school of equal rank with the other professional schools of the University." This change was made on March 3, 1890. Judging by results, it has been amply justified. The inst.i.tution is doing a large and splendid work.--THE AUTHOR.

X

CREDIT FOR QUALITY IN SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION

_From the "Educational Review," March, 1909, and the "Western Journal of Education" (now the "American Schoolmaster"), May, 1909_

In the _Educational Review_ for May, 1908, Mr. W. B. Secor had an article under the caption, "Credit for Quality in the Secondary School."

Mr. Secor says, in his opening paragraph, "The present system of giving credit towards graduation in use in the secondary school, takes account mainly of the amount of work done.... The student who barely pa.s.ses his work gets just the same amount of credit towards graduation as the one who pa.s.ses high in the nineties. It is to be expected, then, that the student ... will reason something like this: I will be graduated if I pa.s.s my work in the seventies just the same as if I pa.s.s it in the nineties. What is the use of wasting time and effort in securing a high average?" He then suggests a system of marking which "would not only fix a minimum of quality, but would also recognize different degrees of quality by giving more credit toward graduation for high quality than for low," which system, he thinks, would also tend to "a strengthening of the intellectual life of the secondary school." Mr. Secor does not claim to be the originator of the idea, giving to President Hyde of Bowdoin that doubtful honor. He also refers to two articles in the _Educational Review_, one in the issue of April, 1905, written by Professor Thomas, of Columbia University, speaking of the system as just introduced into that inst.i.tution, and the other in the issue of December, 1906, by Professor Kennedy, describing the system as then in use in the University of North Dakota. After these references have been cited, the system is discust from various points of view and its extension into the secondary field favored, tho, in his closing paragraph, Mr. Secor says, "Now the plan here proposed does not claim perfection. It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test."

Mr. Secor's article is but one of many evidences that the experiment now being tried in a few of our higher inst.i.tutions of learning, of attempting to estimate and adequately reward quality as well as quant.i.ty of work done by students, is attracting considerable attention. It is not at all strange that these experiments are attracting attention, for the idea is taking and its justice seemingly so apparent. Because of this interest I desire to examine some parts of Mr. Secor's article and in the process of that examination briefly discuss the so-called "Credit-for-quality" idea. I shall be materially aided in such discussion by my experience with the practical workings of the system in the University of North Dakota, and shall take the opportunity of letting the educational world know how the system is working and how it is being regarded in the inst.i.tution in which it has been receiving its most extensive and thoro trial. For while the system did not originate here, it was here first put into operation, and for years an earnest, honest, heroic effort has been put forth in its behalf. I might say, parenthetically, that the details of the system Mr. Secor suggests are almost identically the ones that have been in use in this inst.i.tution.

They were found to be faulty, however, and have been materially changed.

I have read and re-read Mr. Secor's article with both interest and apprehension; with interest, because the "Credit-for-quality" idea has been engaging my thoughtful attention on both its practical and its theoretical sides for a considerable time; with apprehension, since the article seems to recommend the system for use in our secondary schools.

I am sorry the recommendation has been made for the conclusions I have reached from my double study are very different from those being held by Mr. Secor. I seriously question the wisdom of extending the system at all, even when dealing with students of college rank, much more seriously, then, when applied to those of the secondary school who are four years younger, much less mature, and therefore less able to profit by the meritorious features and at the same time withstand the weakening influences attendant upon the system. Indeed, I think its adoption in the secondary schools would be nothing short of a calamity. Another reason why I feel impelled to speak is that reference is made in Mr.

Secor's article to the working of the system in the inst.i.tution with which I am connected as "highly satisfactory." In justice to the system itself and certainly in view of its suggested extension, that impression should not be allowed to go forth without modification or correction. I shall attempt, therefore, in this discussion, to do three things, tho I shall not try to separate the three spatially: (1) to discuss this marking system on its merits; (2) to report to the educational world our findings after an experience with it of five years, and (3) to urge against its extension into the secondary field.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have been connected with the University of North Dakota for three years--the last three of the five during which the system has been in use. I have had all the time from one hundred to one hundred twenty-five students. The grading has had to be done three times a year, since our school year, up to the present time, has been separated into three terms. Let me also make plain the fact that in all I say I speak upon my own responsibility, not for the inst.i.tution nor for its faculty, tho it is true that nearly, if not quite, half the faculty hold practically the same views regarding the system.

It is true, as Mr. Secor says, that "the present system of giving credit towards graduation used in our secondary schools takes account mainly of the amount of work done." It pa.s.ses upon quality, as he says, only "when it fixes a pa.s.sing mark." It may also be true, as he takes for granted, that it would be desirable to give credit towards graduation for quality as well as for quant.i.ty, but of this I am very much in doubt, especially in dealing with secondary students. It does not sufficiently take into consideration the value of content, and that, it seems to me, is a factor that should not be disregarded. I think I value as highly as most men the discipline, or mental power, gained by close application; likewise, the habit of thoroness gained thru doing work well; but yet, in addition to those acquisitions, I confess that I also place high value upon knowledge as a possession. In other words, I want the student, both high school and college, to know something.

I will gladly admit, however, that it is very desirable to secure from the student quality as well as quant.i.ty. That, I am inclined to think, is the main thing that Mr. Secor is really after. He thinks the best way, or, at any rate, a very good way, to get it is thru the device of giving extra credit toward graduation for the higher grades of work. My experience with the system does not lead me to that conclusion. Interest in the subject matter itself is always essential to the doing of a high quality of work. And such interest in the subject matter of school studies is scarcely secured by anything so artificial as rewards smacking of the market. So far as it can not be secured directly, and resort must be made to artificial incentives to secure it, I think that incentives can be found much more in keeping with the general spirit and purpose of education than the constant appeal to the commercial value of the grades being obtained. The ordinary monthly report card sent to the home, on which the quality of work being done in the various subjects is indicated by "excellent," "good," "poor," etc., and even by the too common "per cent," is artificial stimulus enough. Every teacher knows what an incentive the report card can be made. To be sure, teachers differ greatly in their ability to use this card skilfully, but so used it can exert great power. Not long ago I discust this "Credit-for-quality" matter with a cla.s.s of about thirty university students, mostly freshmen, and, somewhat to my surprise, I discovered that with the majority of them the chief reason for desiring the "A"

and "B" (our marks for extra credit toward graduation) was not that they bore the extra credit, but that the descriptive terms "excellent" and "good" secure extra appreciation from the home when term standings are reported. This might not be true of any large percentage of university students, certainly would not be of the upper cla.s.ses. Added years have made them shrewder. Under the influence of our system they have become keener to appreciate a "bargain." But it certainly would be true of a very large percentage of secondary students.

Considerable experience in the secondary schools leads me to doubt very much that the typical high school student reasons as Mr. Secor suggests in his first paragraph. Some do, of course, and so do some university students, but not the great body of either. Barring a small percentage, students as they run, in both high school and college, are an earnest lot of young people. They are in these inst.i.tutions for a purpose. They are seeking, so far as their vision extends, well-developed manhood and womanhood. Their chief desire is not to slide thru. The two immediate ends normally in view are consciousness of progressive growth and appreciation from parent and teacher. How eager the majority are for this appreciation is well known to all. All the stimulus needed, in addition to what the subjects and the student's own desire furnish, the resourceful teacher has at hand wrapt up in his own personality. If any other stimulus is needed it can be given by a grading of diplomas as is now being done in many high schools and colleges. I hold that to add to the marks now in common use what may be called a monetary fringe is both unnecessary and really subversive of the true ends of the school work. As teachers we should seek to elevate ideals, not to lower them; to furnish right motives, not wrong ones; to place before the developing youth high incentives, not low ones.

Mr. Secor says, "the proposed plan is superior to the present system in that it gives a natural and not an artificial incentive to high scholarship." By what process of reasoning he reaches the conclusion that mere "marks and honors" are more "unnatural" and "artificial" than the same marks and honors with a commercial tag appended, I fail to see.

The truth of the matter is, both are artificial. As incentives, both are low, but it stands to reason that the latter is much lower than the former. The best friends of the system here, in the University of North Dakota, admit that, as an incentive, it is both artificial and low. Mr.

Secor goes on to say, "the system" (that is, the "Credit-for-quality") "puts a premium on thorough-going scholarship by enabling the student to come up for graduation without being forced to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well." If our secondary school courses are so arranged as to force the student "to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well," then something is radically wrong with the courses of study. But no evil can be remedied by introducing a greater. As a matter of fact, the application of the system does not lead to "thorough-going scholarship," at least not in the University of North Dakota where, for five years, an honest and faithful effort has been made to secure that result. In all our discussions I have never heard one of its friends make that claim for it, altho the charge has been repeatedly made that it is destructive of scholarship. The writer goes on to say, "he" (the student) "may subst.i.tute depth for breadth, if he so desires, and is encouraged to do so." Shall we, in the secondary schools, encourage depth? Yes, to be sure, relative depth, but not too much of it, and not then at the expense of breadth. For is not the high school student in that stage of his development when he responds to the sense of breadth rather than that of depth? We could not make of him a student of research if we should try. Let us not try.

In the last paragraph of the article referred to we find a hint of a lack of thoro conviction on the part of the writer himself. "It may not even be a workable scheme when put to the test," he says. Let me say that here, after five years' use, it is not proving to be satisfactorily "workable" even with students of college grade, and by a recent faculty action it has been entirely eliminated from our preparatory department.

This lack of conviction on the part of Mr. Secor calls to mind an interesting bit of history connected with the movement. As said before, it did not originate in the University of North Dakota. Dr. William DeWitt Hyde, President of Bowdoin College, is responsible for the suggestion. He sketched the plan in an _Outlook_ article of August 2nd, 1902, but evidently lacking the courage of his conviction did not introduce it into his own inst.i.tution, preferring, seemingly, that the experiment be made elsewhere. This has been, from the start, very suggestive to me. I have some admiration for President Hyde's shrewdness. The University of North Dakota fell into the trap thus skilfully set. And it is easier to fall into a trap than to get out of it. As a matter of fact, the system is more on trial now, after five years' use, than ever before. Other inst.i.tutions would do well to await further developments.

In attempting to a.n.a.lyze the situation at the University of North Dakota, let me again refer to Mr. Secor's article. He says, "The plan, with some modifications, is at present being used in the University of North Dakota and in Columbia University with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory." To substantiate his statement he refers, in a foot-note, to the articles in the _Educational Review_ from which he got his information. Now, the conclusion that Mr. Secor reaches from reading these articles is hardly warranted by the articles themselves. I fear he read too much between the lines. Let us see: Professor Thomas wrote of the Columbia system more than three years ago, and only a couple of months after its adoption; nor does he say anything as to its success,--in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say. He merely explained the new system and gave voice to his expectations. The Columbia system may be proving "highly satisfactory," but surely that article does not say that it is. And when the other article is a.n.a.lyzed, the case is found to be somewhat similar. Professor Kennedy wrote on the system in the University of North Dakota nearly two years ago, fully two academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the close of the first term of the year 1906-'07. Now two years in the life of an experiment of this kind is a long time. And Professor Kennedy in writing his article, did not put the case as strongly as does Mr. Secor from reading it. All that he said of its successful working was: "We ...

thus far can truthfully say it is working itself out in desirable results--in more and better work than under the old plan." From these data, given when they were, Mr. Secor is certainly not justified in saying that "the plan ... is at present being used in the University of North Dakota with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory."

Professor Kennedy's statement was his individual judgment at the time he wrote his article. A considerable number of his co-laborers would not then have agreed with him. He probably would not write even as strongly as that to-day. If he should, a still larger number would disagree. He might write as strongly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness of the system, but that is quite another matter. As a matter of fact, during the last two years the weaknesses of the system have become so much more apparent that many members of the faculty then favorable, or at least hopeful, have at last come to despair of ever being able to eliminate the objectionable features and strengthen the weak points sufficiently to warrant its retention.

Professor Kennedy's article goes into detail as to the adoption of the plan, and clearly states its various changes up to the date of his writing. In our efforts, since then, to "improve" and "strengthen" it, various other changes have been made so that, as a matter of fact, one who knew it in its early history only would hardly recognise it as planned for use next year (quite different in detail from that now in use) save in the fundamental principle. That remains the same; the inst.i.tution desires to secure a better quality of work from its students; it also desires to enable the student of exceptional ability or unusual industry to cut short his period of undergraduate study. To accomplish these ends it continues to use its so-called "Credit-for-quality" system of marking. This is done, altho a large and steadily increasing number of the faculty members feel that it does not do the first and that it overdoes the second.

As to these ends: I think that no one on the faculty really feels that, on the whole, we are getting a better grade of work than should reasonably be expected without the system; or, to put it in another way, no one would be bold enough to say that our students are doing better work than the students of similar inst.i.tutions that do not use the system. On the other hand, it is true that some who have come among us since the adoption of the system give the comparison the less favorable turn.

Thru the operation of the system many can and do shorten their course; too many, I feel. Too many who have neither "exceptional ability" nor "unusual industry," unless it be ability "to work the Prof." and industry in that laudable enterprise. The course that normally takes four full years can be shortened from a portion of a term to a full year. Prior to June, 1908, the "time saved" could reach to a full year and a half. True, no one had actually completed a course in two and a half years, but one young lady's time was only slightly in excess of that and the excess was fully overbalanced by the time she gave to outside work--to library a.s.sistance for remuneration, and to journalism. And that gait was being struck by others. It only remained to be seen how long the wind would hold out. It was clearly possible.

But the faculty became alarmed. Clearly recognizing the above stated possibility and being wholly unwilling thus to lower its high standard, it pa.s.sed a resolution that arbitrarily limits the number of credits a student may receive in a given time to such an extent as to prevent graduation in less than three years. But several have gained, and others are gaining, sufficient surplus to enable them to complete their work in three years. From fifteen to twenty per cent, it is estimated, are enabled to shorten their course to that extent. Now some of these are thoroly good students, and, a.s.suming that the system is sound in principle, well deserve to profit thereby. But others are just ordinarily good students, scarcely above the rank and file. In addition to those who complete their work in three years, some thirty or forty per cent more shorten it by lesser amounts, ranging all the way down to an inappreciable period.

But aside from the system's failure in reaching one of its ends and its too great success in reaching the other, it has developed numerous and unfortunate evils that many regard as exceedingly serious, and revealed weaknesses that seem well nigh impossible to eliminate. s.p.a.ce allows scarcely more than an enumeration of these, but a mere enumeration is better than to deal wholly in general terms. (1) In the first place, I should say that the "Credit-for-quality" system of marking as used by us places before the students unworthy ideals. Students of university rank can be led to seek knowledge for knowledge's sake, truth for truth's sake. They can be taught to see farther ahead than the close of the term, and something more precious than an extra three-tenths of a credit. But this thought has already been sufficiently treated earlier in the article. (2) It leads to faulty methods of study and unsatisfactory final results. In the preparation of the lessons, a good recitation, rather than thoro understanding of the subject matter, is too apt to be the objective point. Many good students have told me that they find it difficult to resist the tendency to subordinate understanding to memory. (3) It may lead, often does, to unwise election of courses. Some teachers mark higher than others. Under the influence of our system students are very quick to learn these individual characteristics, and those who have developed the "itching palm" know how to profit by that knowledge. (4) It places students who receive extra credit for quality at a disadvantage in seeking to enter other inst.i.tutions of learning. The credits thus gained will not be recognized. This would operate only in making the transfer during the undergraduate period, but it does there.[1] (5)

[1] Experience has shown that I was in error in the statement of this sentence. It has been found to operate to the disadvantage of our students entering other inst.i.tutions in graduate as well as undergraduate departments. Graduate schools have become very particular, some of them not being satisfied without pa.s.sing in review well nigh the entire former school life of an applicant, apparently to a.s.sure themselves that no short-cuts have been made.

This fact is an interesting confirmation of the position of this article relative to the importance of content--when it pleads for quant.i.ty, as well as quality.

This entire matter is made clear by referring to one instance.

Others could be cited. One of our graduates, Miss Ethel J. May, a very strong student, "profited" by the so-called "credit-for-quality" system to such an extent that she shortened her undergraduate period of study by an entire year, receiving her degree with honor. Then she taught for a few years with signal success, later returning for graduate work. For her Master's degree she spent an entire year in study, since the system did not operate in the graduate department. Again she taught with success, later entering the University of Illinois as an applicant for the doctorate. Here it was that her troubles began, and all because she had thus "profited" way back in her undergraduate days. She was told that the year "saved" would now have to be made up--that the period of study for her doctorate would have to be at least three years, and this in spite of the fact that she held the degree of Master of Arts from a state university of the first cla.s.s, and was planning to continue along the same lines of work. After considerable discussion and inst.i.tutional negotiation, this much of a concession was made: "If your work proves to be excellent, your shortage will be disregarded." So she went to work with that incubus, or stimulus--whichever you wish to regard it--over her. Neither she nor her committee knew how to plan her work, not knowing whether it was to be for two years or for three. And not until the very close of her year's work was her status determined--full credit then being granted for her former degrees. Miss May's sane comment now is, "I would not advise any one to try to shorten the regular four-year undergraduate period of study."

(Author 1918)

It is demoralizing to both students and teachers. I refer to the inevitable outcome of such a system; some students (sometimes few and sometimes many) develop considerable skill in "working the Prof."

Teachers offering elective courses are constantly under great temptation and students are shrewd enough to know it. And again, under the same count: it is freely claimed by both teachers and students that the cheating in examinations, of which we doubtless have our share (some claim much more than our share, tho personally I doubt it), is very greatly increased if not largely caused by our system of marking. In hopes of remedying this some of the students are now urging the adoption of the "honor system" of conducting examinations. (6) It is impossible to create uniform standards corresponding to our various grades. There are as many standards for each grade as there are instructors. A grade of work for which one instructor would give an "A"

(1.3), another would give a "B" (1.2) and still another a "C" (1.0).

Standards can not be fixt. To show how greatly they differ, in marking the work for the first term of this year one instructor gave only seven per cent of his students extra credit, while another thus rewarded more than seventy per cent of his. This range, however, is abnormal. But a range of twenty-five per cent to sixty-five per cent is not, even tho the two instructors have approximately the same students and do approximately the same grade of work. Other evils and weaknesses might be mentioned, but these are sufficient to show the tendency.

On the other hand, what strong paints can be urged as an offset? The only ones I have ever heard offered are: (1) it is an incentive, and (2) it does enable students to shorten the period of undergraduate work. I grant them both, but I hold that the incentive is a low one--much lower than we need to use--and that the shortening of the course is far from being an unmixt blessing.

Let me again refer to the matter of content, upon our value of which, to quite an extent, our estimate of the merit of the "Credit-for-quality"

system must rest. The young people in our colleges and universities, in planning for lives of usefulness and success, place themselves in our hands for direction and guidance. Knowing that we are older, wiser, more learned, and more experienced than they, they ask our advice and, in the main, follow it. To the incentives we use in dealing with them, they respond; the motives we supply urge them on; the standards of value we erect for them, they use; and the ideals we place before them, they try to reach. All this places large responsibilities upon us. Are we wise in telling from fifteen to twenty per cent of these young people that three years is all the time that it is wise for them to spend in college work? They will all remain the full four years unless we plan differently for them. To be sure, there is no magic in the number four as numbering the years of one's college course, nor in three, nor in two, nor in any other number. But would not any normal student who spends four years in the college atmosphere, mingling with college people, both students and teachers, doing college work, drinking from the pure fountains of literature, of history, of philosophy, of science, of art, et cetera, be broader in range and more fully equipt for the varied and complicated duties of life and for life's enjoyment, than he would be with only three years thus spent? And is not the fourth year by far the best of the four? Why shall you and I discourage him from doing that which we know to be well for him and which he is willing to do? Why deny him the rare fruitage of that fourth year? Why say to him when he is just ready to enter into the enjoyments of his student life, "you would better go?" After all, is it not this very three-year student with his finer ability, his keener insight, and his greater industry who can most greatly profit by the extra year? Shall we not rather encourage him to stay longer and delve deeper and reach to the very heart of things?

Whether looked at from the standpoint of the student's own advantage, or from that of the world at large, which is to profit by his equipment, is it not really the four-year or even the five-year student who would better be excused at the end of the third year? Instead of being in a hurry to send our choice students away, let us get them to do their high quality of work just the same, but to do it during four years instead of three. They are the very ones who will most readily respond to such appeals and they will so respond unless we put other notions into their heads. It is sometimes urged, in justification of the "Credit-for-quality" idea, that one student in three years can accomplish more, in gaining both knowledge and mental power, than another in four. There is no doubt about it. Some can do more in two years than others in four; some in one, and some with no college work can easily outstrip others with the best advantages. Shall we say to such an one, "you do not need to go to college--it would be time wasted"? By no means. Above all others we want him because he can most largely profit by what he gets, and we shall reap the reward later on.

But supposing one student at the close of his third college year is better able to make his way in the world than another at the end of his fourth year, that is not the question at all. The function of the college is not to bring students to a level, but to develop each one to the utmost. Each should be considered separately and the question asked, "the longer or the shorter term--which will do the more for him?"

Some other developments here can hardly fail to be of interest.

Originally planned to operate in our entire inst.i.tution, exclusive of the College of Law into which it was not allowed to enter, this system has gradually been eliminated from all the colleges save the College of Liberal Arts and Teachers College. True, in these colleges of exclusion the matter of content figures more prominently than in the others--the curricula are more fixt--but that is far from being the only reason for the exclusion. And even more suggestive as touching the secondary school extension recommended by the article under discussion, is our recent action excluding the system from our preparatory department, now being transformed into a model high school for Teachers College. This elimination, likewise, was in part due to the fixt number of courses demanded of all secondary schools, but yet, not largely so. When this matter came up for decision it needed no emphasis upon that point to carry the recommendation. It would have carried without those conditions. The strongest advocates of the system did not, by a single word, urge its retention in the Model High School. All felt, seemingly, that it was not well suited to students of that grade.

NOTE.--The reason for repeating this article here is largely historical, tho interest in the matter discust occasionally crops out even yet. It will be of interest to some who have not otherwise heard of it to learn that the University of North Dakota long since discarded the system. It was voted out completely early in the year 1910. And thus was realized Professor Kennedy's apprehension exprest in his _Educational Review_ discussion of 1906: "We have, I grant, had our doubts and fears, knowing well that many a promising theory lies high and dry on the shoals of the past."