Popular Education Part 22

Practice upon it, and you will be convinced of its value by the distinguished pre-eminence to which it will lead you." Especially will this be true in case the anxious teacher faithfully complies with the Divine direction, _If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of G.o.d, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him_.

Parents and citizens generally should be impressed with the truth of the maxim, "As is the teacher, so will be the school." They should desire for their own children, and for all others, teachers whose intellectual, social, and moral habits are, in all respects, what they are willing their children should form. They should, at least, be well apprised of this fact: If the teacher is not, in these respects, what they would have their children become, their children will be likely to become _what the teacher is_.

There is a story of a German schoolmaster, which shows the low notions that may be entertained of education. s...o...b..r, the predecessor of Oberlin, the pastor of Waldbach, on his arrival at the place, desired to be shown to the princ.i.p.al school-house. He was conducted into a miserable cottage, where a number of children were crowded together, without any occupation. He inquired for the master. "There he is," said one, as soon as silence could be obtained, pointing to a withered old man, who lay on a little bed in one corner. "Are you the master, my friend?" asked s...o...b..r. "Yes, sir." "And what do you teach the children?" "Nothing, sir." "Nothing! how is that?" "Because," replied the old man, "I know nothing myself." "Why, then, were you appointed the schoolmaster?" "Why, sir, I had been taking care of the Waldbach pigs a number of years, and when I got too old and infirm for that employment, they sent me here to take care of the children."

This anecdote may evince a degree of stupidity not to be met with in this country. We are, however, very far from being as careful in the selection of teachers as we ought to be. Unworthy teachers frequently find employment. I refer not to teachers whose literary qualifications are insufficient, although, as we have already seen, there are quite too many such. I refer now more particularly to those who are disqualified for the office because of moral obliquity.

Teachers are sometimes employed who are habitual Sabbath breakers; who are accustomed to the use of vulgar and profane language; who frequent the gambling table; who habitually use tobacco, in several of its forms, and that in the school-house! nay, more, who even teach the despicable habit to their children during school hours! Several emperors have prohibited the use of this filthy weed in their respective kingdoms, under the severest penalties. The pope has made a bull to excommunicate all those who use tobacco in the churches. One of the most numerous of the Protestant sects once prohibited the use of tobacco in their society; but so strong is this filthy habit, especially when formed in early life, that this society has backslidden and given up this excellent rule.

Since writing the above, I have noticed an article headed "Tobacco-using Ministers," which has appeared in several highly-reputable and widely-circulating periodicals, from which it appears that a large annual conference of divines of the same order, among other resolutions, have adopted one recommending "that the ministers refrain from the use of tobacco in all its forms, especially in the house of worship."

In commenting upon this action, a religious paper observes, that "by 'tobacco in all its forms' we suppose is meant chewing, smoking, and snuffing. But can it be possible that a minister, whose duty it is to recommend purity, and whose example should be cleanliness, can need conference resolutions to dissuade him from a practice so filthy and disgusting? And do they even carry this inconsistency into the 'house of worship?' So it seems!" But such is the severity of the strictures in the article referred to, that, although just, I forbear inserting them.

It has been suggested that, while Robinson Crusoe was alone on his island, he may have had a right to smoke, snuff, or chew; but that, when his man Friday came, "a decent regard for the opinions of mankind"--as the Declaration of Independence has it--should have debarred him at once from further indulgence.

One who has enjoyed large opportunities of observing, and who is scrupulous to a proverb, has remarked, that "the ministerial profession is probably the most offending in this particular. The Scriptures have much to say about keeping the _body_ pure. Had tobacco been known to the Hebrews, who can doubt that it would have been among the articles prohibited by the Levitical law? St. Paul beseeches the Romans, by the mercies of G.o.d, to present their _bodies_ 'a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable.' To the Corinthians he says, 'Know ye not that ye are the temple of G.o.d, and that the spirit of G.o.d dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of G.o.d, him will G.o.d destroy; for the temple of G.o.d is holy, _which temple ye are_.' He commands them to glorify G.o.d in their _body_ as well as in their spirit; for 'know ye not,' says he, 'that your _body_ is the temple of the Holy Ghost? What sort of a 'temple of the Holy Ghost' is he, every atom and molecule of whose physical system is saturated and stenched with the vile fetor of tobacco; whose every vesicle is distended by its foul gases; whose brain and marrow are begrimed and blackened with its sooty vapors and effluxions; all whose pores jet forth its malignant stream like so many hydrants; whose prayers are breathed out, not with a _sweet_, but with a _foul_-smelling savor; who baptizes infants with a hand which itself needs literal baptism and purification as by fire; and who carries to the bed-side of the dying an odor which, if the 'immaterial essence' could be infected by any earthly virus, would subject the departed soul to quarantine before it could enter the gates of heaven?"[73]

[73] A female teacher in the Bay State, in 1847, addressed the following inquiry through the columns of the Ma.s.sachusetts Common School Journal:

"I have been laboring for the last year in a large school, and have endeavored, according to the best of my ability, to inculcate habits of neatness among the pupils, especially to break them of the filthy habit of spitting upon the floor. I have often told them _gentlemen_ never do it. But at a recent visit of the committee, an individual, who has been elected by the town to superintend the educational interests of the rising generation, _spit_ the dirty juice of his _tobacco_ quid upon the floor of my school-room with apparent self-complacency.

"Shall I say to the children that this person is _not_ a _gentleman_, and thus destroy his influence? or shall I pa.s.s it over in silence, and thus leave them to draw the natural inference that all I have said on the subject is only a woman's whim?"

Mr. Mann, the editor, gave a full reply through the Journal, from which I have here quoted part of a paragraph. He closes by offering a prize of the "eternal grat.i.tude of all decent men" to the discoverer of a remedy or antidote for the evil.

"Touch not, taste not, handle not," is the only safe rule in relation to all vicious practices; and especially is it true of this habit, which we can not call _beastly_, for there is not a _natural_ beast in creation that indulges in it. I therefore congratulate my countrymen in view of the prospect before us of ultimately being freed from this disgusting and filthy habit, for the Board of Education in some of our cities have already wisely adopted the rule of employing no teachers who use tobacco in any form. Let this rule become universal among us, and the next generation will be comparatively free from the use of that repulsive weed, which only one of all created beings takes to naturally. Wherever else the filthy practice may be allowed, it ought never to be permitted in a house consecrated to the sacred work of educating the rising generation. And just look at the immense expenditure in this country for the support of this pernicious habit. It is said, on good authority, that for _smoking_ merely we pay annually a tax of ten millions of dollars, which is a much greater sum than is paid to the teachers of all the public schools in the United States.

But to return: teachers are sometimes employed who are addicted to inebriety; who are notorious libertines, and unblushingly boast of the number of their victims. But I will not extend this dark catalogue.

Comment is unnecessary. My fellow-countrymen, who have carefully perused and properly weighed the preceding considerations, I doubt not, will concur with me in the opinion that there is no station in life--no, not excepting even the clerical office, that, in order to be well filled, so much demands purity of heart, simplicity of life, Christian courtesy, and every thing that will enn.o.ble man, and beautify and give dignity to the human character, as that of the primary school-teacher. He influences his pupils in the formation of habits and character, by precept, it is true, but chiefly by example. His example, then, should be such, that, if strictly followed by his pupils, it will lead them aright in all things, astray in nothing. It should be his chief concern to allure to brighter worlds on high, and himself lead the way. Then, and not till then, will he be prepared to magnify and fill his office.

But, it may be said, we have not a sufficiency of well-qualified teachers, according to this standard, to take the charge of all, or of any considerable part of our schools. This is very readily admitted.

Some such, however, there are. These should be employed. Their influence will be felt by others. The present generation of teachers may be much improved by means of teachers' a.s.sociations and teachers' inst.i.tutes. By the establishment of normal schools, or teachers' seminaries, a higher grade of teachers may be trained up and qualified to take the charge of the next generation of scholars. These inst.i.tutions have been established in several of the European states, in New England and New York, and more recently in Michigan, by the several State Legislatures, and to some extent in other states. "Those seminaries for training masters," says Lord Brougham, "are an invaluable gift to mankind, and lead to the indefinite improvement of education." In remarking upon their advantages, the same high authority says, "These training seminaries would not only teach the masters the branches of learning and science they are now deficient in, but would teach them what they know far less--the didactic art--the mode of imparting the knowledge which they have or may acquire; the best mode of training and dealing with children in all that regards both temper, capacity, and habits, and the means of stirring them to exertion, and controlling their aberrations."

_Normal schools are essential_ to the complete success of any system of popular education. The necessity for their establishment can not fail to be apparent to any one at all competent to judge, when he considers the early age at which young persons of both s.e.xes generally enter upon the business of school-teaching--or, perhaps I may more appropriately say, of "keeping" school; for the majority of them can hardly be regarded as competent to _teach_.

For the purpose of being more specific, and of impressing, if possible, upon the mind of the reader, the necessity of professional instruction, the author trusts he will be pardoned for introducing a few paragraphs from a report made nine years ago as county superintendent of common schools in the State of New York and which was printed at that time in the a.s.sembly doc.u.ments of that state. The author, at the time referred to, exercised a general supervision over more than twenty thousand children, aided in the examination of the teachers of twenty large townships, and visited and inspected their schools. Nine years'

additional experience--four of which have been devoted to the supervision of the schools of a large state, and a considerable portion of the remaining time to the visitation of schools in different states--has convinced him that the condition of common schools, and the qualifications of teachers in those states of the Union where increased attention has not been bestowed upon the subject within a few years past, are not in advance of what they were at that time in the county referred to. The paragraphs introduced are included within brackets.

[LITERARY QUALIFICATIONS.--Some of the teachers possess a very limited knowledge of the branches usually taught in our common schools. This is true even of a portion of those who have bestowed considerable attention upon some of the higher branches of study. There is in our common schools, and indeed in our higher schools, an undue anxiety to advance rapidly. A score of persons may be heard speaking of the number of their recitations, of their rapid progress, and perhaps of skipping difficulties, while hardly _one_ will speak of progressing _understandingly_, and comprehending _every principle_ as he proceeds.

When students speak of their progress in study, their first qualifying word should be _thorough_, after which, if they please, they may add _rapid_.

The following circ.u.mstances, that have occurred in cla.s.ses of both ladies and gentlemen who have presented themselves for examination as candidates for teaching, ill.u.s.trate the nature and extent of the evil. I have more than once received, in answer to the question "What is language?" the following reply: "Language is an _unlimited sense_." I have met with some experienced teachers, holding two or three town certificates, who did not know one half of the marks and pauses used in writing. They could, indeed, generally recite the answers in the spelling-book with some degree of accuracy; but when the marks have been pointed out, and their names and use have been asked, teachers _in service_ have sometimes mistaken the note of _interrogation_ for a _parenthesis_, and made other as gross errors. In answer to the question "What is arithmetic?" I have several times received the following reply: "It is the _art of science_," etc. Sometimes this const.i.tutes the entire reply. In one instance _four fifths_ of the cla.s.s united in this answer.

The terms sum, remainder, product, and quotient are frequently applied indiscriminately in the four ground rules of arithmetic. There are, hence, three chances for them to be used erroneously where there is one chance for them to be correctly applied. The following expressions are common: _Add_ up and set down the _remainder_; _subtract_ and set down the _quotient_; _multiply_ and write down the _sum_; _divide_ and write down the _product_, etc.: never so much as thinking that sum belongs to addition; remainder, to subtraction; product, to multiplication; and quotient, to division. In attending the examination of such teachers, any person of discernment will soon become satisfied that with them "language is an unlimited sense;" that "arithmetic is the art _of_ science;" and that grammar, too, is "the art of science;" for the same answer has been given to the question, "What is grammar?" I introduce these things, not for the purpose of ridiculing any portion of our teachers, but to exemplify the extent of the evil under consideration.

The majority of teachers manifest a tolerable familiarity with the branches usually taught in our common schools. They have not, however, generally studied more than one author on the same subject.

A portion of our teachers, it gives me pleasure to add, are not only superior scholars in the common English branches, but they have made respectable attainments in philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, algebra, Latin, etc. All of these branches are successfully taught in a few of our schools.

SCHOOL GOVERNMENT.--There is, perhaps, as wide a difference in the administration of government in our common schools as in any other particular connected with them. Good government requires the healthful exercise of a rare combination of good qualities. But this can not reasonably be expected in inexperienced youth, who, instead of being guided by enlightened moral sentiment, have not only never subjected _themselves_ to government, but are totally unacquainted with the principles upon which it should be administered. About one third of our schools are tolerably well governed. A portion of them are under a wise and parental supervision, the government being uniformly mild, and at the same time efficient. But indecision, rashness, and inefficiency are far more common. Sometimes teachers resolve to have no whispering, leaving seats, asking questions, etc., among any of the scholars, and severely punish every detected offender. Soon a portion of the patrons justly manifest dissatisfaction. Then all attempts to govern the school are unwisely given up. Many teachers thus rashly fly from one extreme of government to the other, without stopping to test the "golden mean," or even appearing to bestow a single thought upon the subject.

Again: the feelings of the teacher have been outraged by having frequently witnessed severity, and even cruelty, in government; and, in studiously avoiding them, he has inadvertently adopted a lax government, if government it may be called. The latter may be the more amiable extreme, but it is hardly the less fatal. I have heard scholars say in the presence of such a teacher, "We have a good teacher, who gives us all the good advice we need, and then lets us do as we please;" and then I have witnessed whispering, talking, chewing gum and throwing it about the house, pa.s.sing from seat to seat, playing with tops and whirls, tossing wads of wet paper about the house and to the ceiling, cutting images upon the desks, imitating the practice of botanic physicians, exhibiting and pa.s.sing from one to another roots and herbs, and discoursing upon their properties, chasing mice about the house, and in some instances slaying them, and practicing sundry other antics too numerous to be mentioned. Good advice was freely given, but it was disregarded with impunity.

Government in school, as elsewhere, should be mild but efficient. The teacher should speak kindly, but with authority. Every request should meet with a ready compliance. The scholars will not only fear to disobey such a teacher, but will, at the same time, respect, and even love him.

This is not only good theory, but is susceptible of being reduced to practice. It is, indeed, exemplified in many of our schools, as a visit to them will clearly manifest. I know of no one thing in school government more mischievous in its tendency than the habit of speaking several times without being obeyed.

MODE OF INSTRUCTION.--In some schools the instruction is thorough and systematic. In them the scholars generally learn _principles_, and understand, and are able to explain, all that they pa.s.s over. But this is the case in comparatively few schools. Scholars generally are poorly instructed, and understand very imperfectly what they profess to have learned. I will give a few ill.u.s.trations:

_First._ Scholars are frequently introduced to the twenty-six letters of the alphabet four times a day for several weeks in succession, without making a single acquaintance. They occasionally become so familiar with their names and order as to repeat them down and back, as well without the book as with it, before learning a single letter.

This method of instruction is as unphilosophical as it is unsuccessful.

Were I to be introduced to twenty-six strangers, and were my introducer to p.r.o.nounce their names in rapid succession down and back, giving me merely an opportunity of p.r.o.nouncing them after him, I should hardly expect to form a _single acquaintance with twenty-six introductions_.

But were he to introduce me to one, and give me an opportunity of shaking hands with him, of conversing with him, of observing his features, etc.; and were he then to introduce me to another, in like manner, with the privilege of shaking hands again with the first, before my introduction to the third; and were he thus to introduce me to them all successively, I might form _twenty-six acquaintances with one introduction_.

The application is readily made. Introduce the abecedarian to but _one_ letter at first. Describe it to him familiarly. Fix its contour distinctly in his mind. Compare it with things with which he is acquainted, if it will admit of such comparison. It might be well to make the letter upon a slate or black-board. When he shall have become acquainted with _one_ letter so as to know it any where, introduce him to another. After he becomes acquainted with the second, let him again point out the first. As he learns new letters, he will thus retain a knowledge of those he has previously learned. It is immaterial where we commence, provided two conditions are fulfilled. It would be well to have the first letters as simple in their construction, and as easily described, as possible. It would be well, also, to have them so selected as to combine and form simple words, with which the child is familiar.

He will thus become encouraged in his first efforts.

Suppose we commence with O, and tell the child that it is _round_; that it is shaped like the _b.u.t.ton_ on his coat, or like a _penny_, which might be shown to him. After the child has become somewhat familiar with its _shape_ and _name_, suppose we inquire what there was on the breakfast table shaped like O. It may be necessary to name a few articles, as knives, forks, spoons, plates. Before there is time to proceed further, the child, in nine cases out of ten, will say, "The _plates_ look like O." Suppose we next take X, which may be represented by crossing the fore-fingers, or two little sticks. We can now teach the child that these two letters, combined, spell _ox_. We might then tell him a familiar story about _oxen_; that we put a _yoke_ on them; that they draw the cart, etc.; and that _cart-wheels_ are _great_ O's.

Suppose we take B next. We might tell the child that it is a straight line with two bows on the right side of it, and that it is shaped some like the _ox-yoke_. We might then instruct him that these three letters, B, O, and X, combined, spell _box_; that its top and sides are rectangles, and that its ends are squares, if they are so. The child has now learned three letters, two words, and a score of ideas. He, moreover, likes to go to school. Any other method in which children would be equally interested might be pursued instead of this, which is only introduced as a _specimen_ of the manner in which the alphabet has been successfully taught.[74] Better methods may be devised.

[74] Since these suggestions were first given to the public, several excellent books for children have been published, constructed on a similar plan to that here recommended. It will generally be found advantageous to teach the vowels first, and then to teach such consonants as combine with the _long sound_ of the vowel; as, for example, first o; then g, h, l, n, and s, when the child can read go, ho, lo, no, and so. After this, e may be learned, and then b, m, and s, when the child can read be, bee, me, and see. Then these may be combined as see me; lo, see me; see me ho; lo, see me ho, etc. The idea is, that every letter and combination of letters be used as fast they are learned.

_Second._ The Roman notation table is sometimes taught after the same manner. After spelling, I have heard the teacher say to the cla.s.s, One I.? to which the scholar at the head would reply, one; and the exercise would continue through the cla.s.s, as follows: two I.'s? two; three I.'s?

three; IV.? four; and so on, to two X.'s? twenty; three X.'s?

twenty-one. No, says the teacher, _thirty_. Thus corrected, the cla.s.s went through the entire table, without making another mistake. The thought occurred to me that they did not _know_ their lesson, though they had _recited_ it, making but _one_ mistake. With the permission of the teacher, I inquired of the cla.s.s, "What does IV. stand for?" None of them could tell. I then inquired, "What do VII. stand for?" They all shook their heads. I next inquired, "What does IX. stand for?" and the teacher remarked, "_They have just got it learnt the other way; they ha'n't learnt it that way yet._" They had all learned to _count_; they hence recited correctly to twenty; and when told that three X.'s stand for _thirty_ instead of _twenty-one_, they pa.s.sed on readily to forty, fifty, sixty, etc., without making another mistake. And this, too, is but a _specimen_ of the evil.

In teaching this table, the child should be instructed, in the beginning, that there are but seven letters used, by which all numbers may be represented; that when standing alone, I. represents _one_; V., _five_; X., _ten_; L., _fifty_; C, _one hundred_; D., _five hundred_; and M., _one thousand_. The child should next be taught that, as often as a letter is repeated, so many times its _value_ is repeated; thus, X.

represents _ten_; two X.'s, _twenty_; three X.'s, _thirty_, etc.; that when a letter representing a _less_ number is placed _after_ one representing a _greater_, its value is to be _added_; thus, VII.

represent _seven_; LX., _sixty_, etc.; that when a letter representing a _less_ number is placed _before_ one representing a _greater_, its value is to be _subtracted_; thus, IV. represents _four_; IX., _nine_; XL., _forty_, etc. When the child understands what is here presented, he has the key to the whole matter. He is acquainted with the principle upon which the tables are constructed, and a little practice will enable him to apply it, as well to what is _not_ in the table as to what _is_ in it. I have known scholars study that table faithfully _four months_, and then have but an imperfect knowledge of what was _in the book_. I have known others who, with _one hour's_ study, after _five minutes'_ instruction in the principles here laid down, understood the table perfectly, and could recite it, without making a single mistake, even before they had studied the whole of it _once over_.

_Third._ The manner in which _reading_ is generally taught is hardly superior to the modes of instruction already considered. In many instances, commendable effort is made to secure correct p.r.o.nunciation, and a proper observance of the inflections and pauses. But there is a great lack in _understanding_ what is read. When visiting schools, with the permission of the teacher, I usually interrogate reading cla.s.ses with reference to the meaning of what they have read. Occasionally I receive answers that give satisfactory evidences of correct instruction.

Generally, however, the scholars have no distinct idea concerning the author's meaning. They, astonished, sometimes say, "I didn't know as the _meaning_ has any thing to do with reading; I try to p.r.o.nounce the words right, and mind the stops." Teachers sometimes say their scholars are poor readers, and it takes all their attention to p.r.o.nounce their words correctly. They therefore do not wish to have them _try_ to _understand_ what they read, thinking it would be a hinderance to them. They occasionally justify themselves in the course they pursue, saying, "I don't have time to question my cla.s.ses on their reading, nor hardly time to look over and correct mistakes." At the same time they will read three or four times around, twice a day or oftener. The idea prevails extensively, judging from the practice of teachers, that the value of their services depends upon the extent of the various exercises of the school. If the cla.s.ses can read several times around, twice a day, and spell two or three pages, teachers frequently think they have done well, even though one half of the mistakes in reading are uncorrected, and one fourth or more of the words in the spelling lessons are misspelled, to say nothing of understanding what is read. The majority of schools might be very much improved by conducting them upon the principle that "what is worth doing at all is worth doing well." I am fully satisfied that it is incomparably better for cla.s.ses to read _once_ around, _once_ a day, and _understand_ what they read, than to read _four_ times around, _four_ times a day, _without understanding_ their lessons. Scholars should, indeed, never be allowed to read what is beyond their comprehension; and great pains should be taken to see that they actually understand every lesson, and every book read. The early formation of such a habit will be of incalculable value in after life.

I will introduce one extract from my note-book by way of ill.u.s.tration.

The reader will please observe that it relates to neither a back district nor an inexperienced teacher.

"This is one of the oldest and most important districts in town. The school is taught by an experienced and highly-reputable teacher. The first cla.s.s in the English Reader read the section ent.i.tled '_The Journey of a Day; a Picture of Human Life_.' Obidah had been contemplating the beauties of nature, visiting cascades, viewing prospects, etc., and in these amus.e.m.e.nts the hours pa.s.sed away uncounted, till 'day vanished from before him, and a sudden tempest gathered around his head;' when, it is said, 'he beheld through the brambles the _glimmer of a taper_.' I inquired of the cla.s.s, 'What is a taper?' No one replied. I added, 'It is either the sun, a light, a house, or a man,' whereupon one replied, 'the sun;' another, 'a house;'

another still, 'a house;' and still another, 'a man.' I next inquired, 'What does glimmer mean?' No reply being given, I added, 'It either means a light, the shadow, the top, or the bottom.' They then replied successively as follows: 'Top, shadow, bottom,' which would give their several ideas of the phrase, 'the glimmer of a taper,' as follows: The shadow of a house. The top of a man. The bottom of the sun, etc. It should be borne in mind, the cla.s.s had just read that this 'taper' was discovered after 'day had vanished from sight.'"

This example is selected from among more than a hundred, scores of which are more striking ill.u.s.trations than the one introduced, which is selected because it occurred in the first cla.s.s of an important school, taught by an experienced and highly-reputable teacher.

The habit of reading without understanding originates mainly in the circ.u.mstance that the books put into the hands of children are to them uninteresting. The style and matter are often above their comprehension.

It is impossible, for example, for children at an early age to understand the English Reader, a work which frequently const.i.tutes their only reading-book (at least in school) when but seven years of age. The English Reader is an _excellent book_, and would grace the library of any gentleman. But it requires a better knowledge of language, and more maturity of mind than is often possessed by children ten years old, to understand it, and to be interested in its perusal. Hence its use induces the habit of "p.r.o.nouncing the words and minding the stops," with hardly a single successful effort to arrive at the idea of the author.

To this early-formed habit may be traced the prevailing indifference, and, in some instances, _aversion_ to reading, manifested not only in childhood, but in after life.

The matter and style of the reading-book should be adapted to the capacity and taste of the learner. The teacher should see that it is well understood, and then it can hardly prove uninteresting, or be otherwise than well read. Children should read less in school than they ordinarily do, and greater pains should be taken to have them understand every sentence, and word even, of what they do read. They will thus become more interested in their reading, and read much more extensively, not only while young, but in after life, and with incomparably more profit.