"Smellie's Philosophy of Natural History; Goold Brown's Institutes of English Grammar; Whately's Rhetoric; and Parker's Exercises in English Composition." If we consider that in the above schedule of studies, the text-books are named without any indication as to the extent to which they are to be learned, the inference from the absence of limitations being that the entire text-books were to be studied, it is evident that in our new course of study, which is now in force, decided progress has been made during the past twenty-five years, in adapting the work of the schools to the capacities and wants of the pupils.

по

In preparing the programme, at the request of the Committee on Text-books, no authority was given me to make any change either in the text-books in use, or in the required subjects of instruction. Indeed, there was little need of change in any one of these respects, so well and wisely had the Committee on Text-books done their duty, in the previous years. The problem was to determine in what way the textbooks were to be used, what portions of them were to be omitted, and what portions to be taught; to arrange the order of the studies, and fix some reasonable limitations in each, beyond which pupils should not be expected to go, and to define, for the sake of classification, the several steps or grades of the course.

We were tardy in undertaking this work. For want of it we were relatively losing ground in respect to the handling of the studies in the grammar school department of our system of elementary education, while in the primary department we occupied an advanced position. But by delay we had, on entering upon this new step, the advantage of the results of the labors of many able hands that had been engaged upon the framing of study-plans for elementary schools. With this advantage in our favor we ought to have been able to lay out a better course than had been previously devised elsewhere.

Ever since the programme was adopted its workings have been the special object of my attention, while, at the same time, constantly getting all possible information about the ideas and plans of the wisest and most practical men all over the world who are dealing with the same problem, that is, the right ordering of elementary education. And the result is that I am unable, as yet, to point out any feature which would be materially improved by a change. Still, in my mind, it is not to be regarded as a finality. Experience will doubtless suggest improvements. But what is wanted is an honest and sufficient trial, for three or four years more at least, before its legitimate fruits will be fully developed.

ACTION OF LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

I have already alluded to the importance of comparisons in educational matters, and I shall take this occasion to make a practical application of that principle by quoting from the recent doings of the school board for London.

This body, consisting of forty-nine members, was elected on the 29th of November, 1870, in pursuance of a special provision of the elementary education act, which received the assent of the Queen on the 9th of August of the same year, and which is intended to secure to the people of England and Wales the advantages of a complete system of elementary schools. The great interest attaching to the doings of the London board results not from the experience of its members in developing or administering a great municipal system of common schools, but from their exceptional character in respect to ability and learning, and from the fact that, unhampered by tradition or routine, they have availed themselves of the light derived from the experience and wisdom of foreign countries to an extent unknown in any similar undertaking.

A special committee of fifteen members, Professor Huxley being the chairman, was appointed to submit a scheme of education. This committee has made its first report, which is evidently the result of the most careful and thorough study of the subject. This report classifies the schools into infant schools for children below seven years of age; junior schools, for children between seven and ten years of age; and senior schools, for older children. It is not expected, however, that children will be taught in these schools who are over the age of thirteen years.

It is recommended that the infant schools be mixed [boys and girls being taught in the same classes]; that the senior schools be separate or unmixed; while in regard to the junior schools no general rule in this respect is laid down.

It is concluded that the period during which the children are under actual instruction in school should be five hours daily for five days in the week.

Vocal music and drill are to be taught in every school during the period devoted to actual instruction.

The recommendation in regard to corporal punishment is substantially the same in spirit as our regulation relating to the matter.

The subjects of instruction recommended for the several grades are as follows:

"INFANT SCHOOLS.

66 a. Morality and religion.
"b. Reading, writing, and arithmetic.

"c. Object lessons of a simple character, with somesuch exercise of the hands and eyes as is given in the Kindergarten system.

"In addition, the general recommendations respecting music and drill apply to infant schools, in which singing and physical exercises, adapted to the tender years of the children, are of paramount importance.

"JUNIOR AND SENIOR SCHOOLS.

"We recommend that certain kinds of instruction shall form an essential part of the teaching of every elementary school, while others may or may not be added to them, at the discretion of the managers of the individual school or by the special direction of the board.

"A. Essential subjects.

"a. Morality and religion.

"b. Reading, writing, and arithmetic; English grammar in senior schools, with mensuration in senior boys' schools.

"c. Systematized object lessons, embracing in the six school years a course of elementary instruction in physical science, and serving as an introduction to the science examinations which are conducted by the science and art department.

"d. The history of Britain.

"e. Elementary geography.

"f. Elementary social economy.

"g. Elementary drawing, leading up to the examinations in mechanical drawing, and to the art teaching of the science and art department.

"h. In girls' schools, plain needlework and cutting out.

"B. Discretionary subjects, which may be taught to advanced scholars.

"a. Algebra and geometry.

"b. Latin, or a modern language."

The noticeable features of this schedule are the prominence which it gives to elementary instruction in physical science, placing it before history and geography in the order of precedence, and the admission of Latin or a modern language as optional branches, since the course is intended only for pupils ranging from seven to thirteen years of age. There was a difference of opinion in the board about some of the discretionary studies, and I have not learned the final result of the discussion of the subject.

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS AS TO METHODS OF TEACHING.

This report affords the strongest possible indorsement of our own course of elementary instruction. To a pupil or teacher of the "old school," who has not kept up with the times, it will appear to be altogether extravagant in respect to the number of subjects of study required. But this is not the case. In the first place, two studies do not require twice the labor of one; and then some branches, such as singing and drawing, hinder progress in other branches very little, if, indeed, they are not a positive help.

The modern facilities and appliances for elementary teaching, such as classification and apparatus of various kinds, have vastly increased the teacher's power of imparting and the pupil's power of acquiring. I will mention only one--the blackboard, which is to teaching what steam is to transportation. 1 would say, in the words of a good authority, "Let us try what conscientious and intelligent teaching can do, before we presume to decide what cannot be done." And in what does conscientious and intelligent teaching consist? It consists in two things: First, in the exercise of good judgment in determining what to teach and what not to teach, at each step, in the several branches; and, second, in the use of economical methods.

Who have been our guides as to what to teach in each branch? Compilers of text-books! Mr. Historicus compiles a history of the United States for general use, for the market of the whole country. He is compelled to embrace in it the details of the colonization, and so forth, of every State. And what have we done, in times past, but make our children learn these useless details? And so of geography. Our children have been crushed down under an intolerable load of geographical rubbish, simply because it has been printed and put up between the two covers of a book! And so of arithmetic, and grammer, and spelling. It is not the books that I so much blame; it is the wrong use made of them that I complain of.

But there is no less room for economy in the method, than in the choice and limitation of the matter, of instruction. I have seen, in one school, children kept for weeks poring over a few pages of elementary geography, to no purpose, for want of conscientious and intelligent teaching; while in the next school, by a judicious use of the globe, the wall map, the blackboard, and the text-book, the children were soon made quite intelligent on the subject of geography; and, what was more, were greatly interested in the study. Illustrations of this sort, without number, might be produced. Now, it is the object and design of our grammar school programme to make it practicable for our teachers to omit the useless parts of their text-books, and to teach all the branches in a reasonable and intelligent way. It is based on the assumption that if all

the branches therein required to be taught are properly apportioned and properly handled, the results will be reasonably satisfactory.

It assumes that it is better to know something of the history of England than to know everything of the history of New Jersey or Connecticut; that it is better to know something of the elements of physical science than to know how to locate every village and mill stream in the United States. It assumes that it is better to be able to write a decent letter than to be able to get a hundred per cent. in spelling a list of very hard words. And if in any school the classes are not up to the requirements in any branch, the inquiry should be, first, Is not too much attempted? second, Is the proper time given to it? and, third, Is it taught in the best manner? Before the programme was adopted, unsuccessful teachers were in the habit of attributing their failures to the text-books; now they are very likely to make the programme the scapegoat of their shortcomings. Still, in justice, I ought to say that but few such cases have come to my knowledge.

But, as soon as we begun to have the courage to contend that our text-books should not be taken as the standard of what should be taught in each branch, certain objectors come up to confound us by demanding if we were going to give up the idea of thorough teaching. They tell us that we must not take up a study unless we go through it, complete it, master it; that any other course makes shallow, superficial scholars, mere smatterers.

Applying their doctrine to arithmetic, they would have a child drilled on addition until he is able to rival an accountaut in adding columns, before he is permitted to know that there is such a process as subtraction; they would have him solve all possible problems involving vulgar fractions, before he is allowed to cipher in decimals. Such an idea of thoroughness, for one, I utterly repudiate.

A child should very early be taught to perform the operations not only in the ground rules, but in fractions, both vulgar and decimal, using simple examples and small numbers. As his mind opens and expands, and his reasoning powers are developed, he will in due time easily master the more difficult and complicated applications of these processes.

There are two prevalent notions of thoroughness in elementary teaching, both of which seem to me to be erroneous. First, that each topic of any given branch must be studied exhaustively before another topic is taken up: as, for example, that the geography of North America must be completely mastered before the pupil is taught anything of the geography of South America. Second, that certain studies, as arithmetic, grammar, and geography, must be learned exhaustively before the pupil is taught anything of history, or the elements of natural science. The true method of proceeding is to aim first at a general knowledge of a branch before going into the details. But a general knowledge is not necessarily a superficial knowledge. Stuart Mill has well said, "To have a general knowledge of a subject is to know only its leading truths, but to know these not superficially but thoroughly, so as to have a true conception of the subject in its great features; leaving the minor details to those who require them for the purposes of their special pursuit. There is no incompatibility between knowing a wide range of subjects up to this point, and some one subject with the completeness required by those who make it their principal occupation. It is this combination which gives an enlightened public a body of cultivated intellects, each taught, by its attainments in its own province, what real knowledge is, and knowing enough of other subjects to be able to discern who are those that know them better."

This was said of higher education, but it has its application to elementary education as well. Because some few of the pupils in our schools may become accountants or engineers, and will need in their professions great skill in figures, must the mass of pupils, who will never have any use for an extraordinary amount of arithmetical science, be required to occupy so much of their time on this branch, as to leave no time for acquiring a knowledge of the elements of physical science which would be of use to every one, whatever may be his calling in life?

Our elementary education is well organized. Each master is directly responsible for the teaching in all classes in his district. It is his duty to direct the work of his teachers so that all their labors may be turned to the best account. He is expected to give illustrative examples of the best methods of teaching in all the classes where such examples are needed. He does not imagine his duty to be done when he has given his teachers their classes and directed them to carry out the programme; he feels it incumbent on him to show how the work should be done in its details. The title of master now means something more than the designation of the head teacher or the police authority in the school; the master is now bound to be a master of methodsa real training master. This at least is the ideal of the master's position and duty, and the progress towards its realization is in a high degree satisfactory. In some districts the degree of excellence already reached exceeds my highest expectations. Respectfully submitted.

JOHN D. PHILBRICK, Superintendent of Public Schools,

VI.-SOME ENGLISH EXAMPLES.

A brief history of the efforts made by Benjamin Robert Haydon to promote education in art, in Great Britain, from 1804 to 1846; with the criticisms made in 1874 by Mr. Sparkes, then head master of the Government Art School in Lambeth, on the erroneous art training given at that time by the South Kensington school.

INTRODUCTION.

The previous articles of this appendix are connected only with early educational efforts in the United States.

With the purpose of showing that the difficulties met with by these early advocates of the general art training of the people, in public schools and other educational institutions, as recorded in Chapter I of this present Report, were neither confined to the United States, nor due to the exceptional ignorance or obtuseness of Americans; and, also, that the highest English contemporary authority on questions of art education was then in full accord with the opinions advocated by those early American writers, and, further, that the best English authorities of to-day hold to the same opinions; the present paper, giving some account of the life and educational efforts of one of the most distinguished of the English painters in the early part of the present century; with a further statement of the essential conditions of industrial art education made by one of the most successful of the modern English industrial art teachers, is added.

The several papers in this appendix well illustrate the slow and painful processes of evolution even in the world of thought. Haydon more than once quotes a remark made to him by Southey, as if fearing that it was indisputable: "It takes one generation to get a principle admitted, and another generation to get it adopted"—a statement which the sad story of Haydon's life, as contrasted with the present brilliant achievements of England on the line of Haydon's endeavors, would seem to endorse.

Standing by itself, the instance of the sudden art educational movement in England, which appeared to spring up spontaneously after the first world's fair, has always seemed phenomenal; but, viewed in the light of the true history of the long and arduous struggles that preceded, is seen to be but the occurrence of a natural and orderly develop. ment when, at length, circumstances were favorable.

For

In a monarchy, public affairs move rapidly and smoothly when the ruling power takes the initiative; therefore the word of any prince in England may well seem to have been more potent than were the long years of persistent effort which preceded their utterance, though undertaken by even so great a genius as was Benjamin Robert Haydon. this reason, doubtless, it has happened that, so far as shown by any refer ences in recent publications concerning the movement in England for extending educational training in the industrial or fine arts throughout Great Britain, this wonderful movement would seem to have burst upon the world with as little premonition as existed in the case of the fabled

birth of Minerva, and to have had its origin solely in the advantage taken, by the far-seeing Prince Consort, of the mortification by which the English were overwhelmed when the proofs of their inferiority to the continental nations in all artistic manufactures, were made manifest by the opportunities afforded for comparison during the Great Exhibition at Hyde Park in 1851.

To Prince Albert, Sir Henry Cole, and the English statesmen and educators who so ably seconded their plans, great and merited praise has been awarded for their admirable and successful efforts to effect, in the shortest possible time, the educational and industrial changes requisite. It is true that occasional allusions were made to certain previously established Government schools of design, by the early writers and speakers on this movement; but only to record the fact that they had proved wholly inadequate to the purposes for which they were estab lished. This fact, however, remained, that anterior to the coming of Prince Albert the English Government had been led to initiate educational movements with the direct purpose of improving the artistic quality of the manufactures of the country.

What had led to this movement and why had it failed?

These are interesting questions, and are of importance when considering the propriety of similar efforts; because there is often as much to be learned from failures as from success.

In the many works recounting the story of the Great Exhibition and the origin and development of the South Kensington Museum and schools, and in the countless addresses since made in connection with the English art schools and museums that have come under the observation of the present writer, there is nowhere recalled a hint of the long struggle that preceded the founding of those early schools of design; nor of the fact that as soon as they were undertaken their failure was predicted, because the sole conditions of success were wilfully ignored by those having them in charge.

As much prejudice against, and opposition to, the introduction of in dustrial drawing in the schools of the United States, was shown by people of culture, who had received their impressions from the early protests uttered by John Ruskin, and others, against the South Kensington methods and results; it became a matter of very serious importance, to those endeavoring to promote the introduction of this new study, to know the reasons on which Mr. Ruskin and his friends based their objections.

Those reasons were found to be sound; the training against which the protest was made was defective and would inevitably, if persevered in, have led the new Government schools to the same fate as that which had befallen the old. Wherein lay the difficulty will be seen by a perusal of the accompanying extracts from the paper read by Mr. Sparkes in 1874.

That these criticisms proved effectual, and that Mr. Sparkes--the head master of the Government Art School in Lambeth, a district of London who was the champion of the only method of a sound education in art, was eventually placed in charge of the schools of South Kensing ton, is a matter of congratulation.

It is certainly important that all advocates of the South Kensington methods of popular art instruction-which are practically those of the Walter Smith system, as known in the United States-should be informed as to the reason that once existed to justify Mr. Ruskin's criticism; because that reason no longer exists, and, therefore, all similar criticism at the present time falls to the ground.

S. Ex. 209- -29