District Superintendent of Schools Ellen E. Baldwin, Chenango County, N. Y.: The teachers in my district from training classes are, as a whole, better than teachers without this training. They have ideas concerning methods of teaching which they use. They are more progressive in many ways. District Superintendent of Schools J. N. Palmer, Chautauqua County, N. Y.: Our training classes are successful. Naturally, our normal schools turn out a higher grade of teachers; but the course is so long that many feel that they can not afford the course. If they had to depend upon these schools entirely we could not supply teachers for all our schools. Even under present arrangements the supply and demand are pretty well balanced. The teachers from the training classes are, as a rule, faithful and quite efficient. District Superintendent Arthur W. Eddy, Middlebury, Union District, Vt.: In our classes in Middlebury High School we have trained during the past three years 31 teachers, and we have 11 who will finish the course next month. Thirty of these have gone into rural school work in Vermont, one is teaching in a convent where she took the vail this winter. I have been pretty well satisfied with the work done. They know what to do in their schools at the start; they have a system for teaching reading that is effective; they know what to require of children; and they have considered their relations to a rural public and have entered upon the work knowing the type of problems to be met, since they have recently reviewed the common school branches with a view to teaching them and taken up methods of presentation; they are much superior to the ordinary high school graduate without training. District Superintendent Sylvanus Ames, Dane County, Wis.: My experience with teachers trained in high schools has been very satisfactory. Nearly all of them are from the rural communities, so are well acquainted with the conditions in the schools in which they expect to teach. They are much stronger in all ways than those who have had no training for teaching; they are more resourceful, more earnest; they have definite concepts of work and a good idea of what should be done. In the community they are more active than former teachers, and have been trained to do social center work of value. I have about 25 such teachers in our schools, and their work stands out strong when compared with that of those who have had no training. III. SUMMARY OF TEACHER-TRAINING COURSES IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS, WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR THEIR IMPROVEMENT. General summary.-A few facts stand out prominently in the foregoing pages. Among these are the following: 1. Rural school training courses were organized because the need was urgent. Less than one-third of our rural teachers have had any professional preparation before entering the field of teaching. The normal schools have been unable, because of the great demands made on them for city and town teachers, to do much for specialized preparation of rural teachers. Educators have had the choice between continuing the old system of recruiting the ranks of rural teachers from the immature young men and women coming from the grades and the lower high school classes, weak in academic subjects and without any professional preparation, or utilizing the most available secondary schools-the high schools-directly or indirectly, in the work of providing a supply of teachers with at least some professional preparation and a teaching knowledge of common school subjects. 2. Educators differ greatly in their opinion as to whether the new kind of teacher-preparation will become permanent or is to be considered as a mere temporary expedient. The majority opinion seems to be toward the latter. 3. The high-school system should probably be looked upon as a step in the evolution of teacher-preparation in our country—an evolution brought about largely through the unprecedented industrial changes in American national life during the last few years. There seems to be general agreement that the new kind of teacher-preparation may continue for many years to come, or until the great demand for rural teachers shall have become satisfied some way. How soon this shall come to pass will probably depend on the willingness and ability of the normal schools to adjust themselves to the new demands. 4. The teacher-training courses are in process of development. While superior to the old system of no preparation at all, they are far from what they could be made. They are really little more than makeshifts. What the rural schools need is mature teachers who have a large degree of academic and professional preparation. Especially should they have a thorough knowledge of modern agricultural life and rural needs. That the secondary school training courses have not yet to any appreciable extent provided teachers who measure up to these standards is conceded by the most enthusiastic supporters of the high school system. The secondary schools can scarcely be expected to produce ideal teachers for the rural districts. Their graduates will always lack maturity and experience. The professional preparation must be provided in an environment full of difficulties and in an atmosphere poorly adapted to rural teaching. But it should be possible to make the schools much more effective than they are now. Pertinent questions on the present system. It appears from the foregoing study that there are many outstanding questions which must yet be answered. 1. Should the work be organized as a part of the regular high school courses or should there be separate departments for teachertraining? 2. If the work is organized as a part of the regular high school courses, how much time should be devoted to the professional work and when? 3. If the teacher-training is organized as a separate department, what should be the length of the course and what should the requirements be for admission? 4. What attention should be given to sociological and other problems of country life? 5. Is it advisable to make use of practice schools. If so, should they be the elementary schools of the local system or near-by rural schools, or both? 6. Just what should be included in the course of study-just what reviews, what professional studies, etc.? 7. Finally, what special preparation should be required of the director or teachers in charge of the professional work? The training-courses organized as separate departments or as part of the regular high school course.-It was shown above that only one State has true county normal schools; 5 States have separate dǝpartments for training teachers in more or less direct connection with the high schools, and 16 other States give the teacher-training as a part of the regular high school courses. There is much disagreement as to which system of organization is the most satisfactory. The county normal schools have the advantage of being of and for rural folk; at the same time their courses are too short to provide a really adequate academic preparation. If their courses of study were lengthened by at least one year-a thing difficult of accomplishment without driving the students into other higher schools-much more mature teachers could be sent into the field. The adherents of separate departments in connection with high schools point out that under their system there is less interference with the academic work of the high school than where the training is a part of the regular course. This is true where the special departments draw their students from among high school graduates only; but where they accept them from the third or fourth high school years, as is done in several States, there is grave danger of drawing the students away from high school too early. It would be better in such case to keep them in high school for the regular four years and give the reviews and pedagogy in the regular course. Wisdom of organizing the work as a fifth or graduate year.-In only two of the 21 States can students obtain teacher-training certificates without having completed four years of high school work. The other States require that students complete as a minimum a regular fouryear course in a standard high school. There is a growing conviction among the educators most intimate with the training schools that the course should be given as a fifth or graduate year. Teachers in the modern rural schools, it is recognized, need at least as much education, professional knowledge, skill, and maturity as teachers in urban and town schools. This is impossible of attainment in a four-year academic institution. To add one and even two years to the standard high school course would be highly desirable-though in some States probably impracticable yet for many reasons. Four States already limit the work to fifth-year students, and four other States report that a majority of their matriculants have completed accredited four-year high school courses before entering the training classes. A questionnaire addressed to each of the departments of education in the 21 States concerned brought these interesting results: Fourteen State departments of education favor organizing the training work as a fifth-year course; four are undecided and express no opinion; and three believe that the course should be included in or at least should be made to parallel the regular four-year high school course. State superintendent A. M. Deyoe, of Iowa, has this to say: We favor the organization of the work as a graduate course. This will free the pupil from the requirements of the rigid high school recitation program, free her from the social and other outside activities incident to the high school work, and permit entire attention to the teacher-training work through elasticity of the daily program. It will also in Iowa free the student from the rather rigid requirements for college entrance courses which have been imposed. State Superintendent J. A. Churchill, of Oregon, speaks in much the same vein when he says: The course would be much stronger if no one were permitted to take it except in the fifth or graduate year. Many pupils in this way could not make it a "safety-first" course, while many others who do take the course in the fourth year could not afford to remain in school to take it the fifth year. Many parents feel that after they have sacrificed for the purpose of sending the child through school for four years they can not do so for a fifth year when other members of the family are coming on into the high school and requiring that they too be given a high school education. Deputy Commissioner of Education Thomas E. Finegan, of New York, would go even further and give the training departments a strong training course beyond high school education. He would require graduation from an approved high school course for admission and a two-year approved professional course for graduation therefrom. The course should be broad * * * ened and developed so as to meet the sociological conditions of rural life. Miss Mabel Carney, State inspector of teacher training departments for Minnesota, likewise agrees that the course should be put on a graduate basis, but she believes it unwise to make it a two-year course. She says: In all cases this course should be but one year in length in my judgment. The high school system is a temporary system and there is grave danger of permitting it to become a two-year course. Such an extension of time will fasten the high school system too permanently upon any State and discourage the development of rural departments in State normal schools. Since all rural teachers should finally be prepared in State normal schools and the high school system abandoned, this extension of time is extermely bad. The requirements for admission should be as high as possible. The completion of a four-year high-school course is desirable; that is, the work should be placed on a graduate basis as rapidly as this can be done. When this is impossible senior rank should be required for admission. The view that the course should not go beyond the fourth year of the high school is well expressed by State Supt. M. P. Shawkey, of West Virginia, when he says: I do not believe that the work should be organized as a fifth or graduate year. The purpose of organizing teacher-training high schools in West Virginia was to aid in providing a supply of teachers for the rural schools who have had some professional preparation for their work. If the time required for graduation from these schools is made too long, it will tend to discourage prospective teachers from enrolling in these courses. A reasonable standard of attainment.-The excerpts given above naturally reflect conditions and needs as they are in the States quoted. In a State which requires a minimum of four years of academic and two years of professional work for graduation from its normal schools, there would be little difficulty in organizing the secondary school teacher-training departments on the basis of a fifth year or even as a two-year course above high-school rank. The problem is much more difficult in States in which the normal schools have lower entrance requirements. It is regrettable that many State normal schools accept-often under legal requirements-students of less than high-school graduation, sometimes even taking them direct from the eighth grade. Where such conditions prevail the high school and the normal school become competitors. The former can |