University of Nevada: Nevada allows a student teacher to act as substitute teacher in the high school, in case of sudden emergency, for one week.

University of Pittsburgh: To the school granting the privilege of student teaching the university grants a scholarship for two hours' work in education; on the other hand the board of education pays the necessary expenses of the student in traveling to and fro.

Brown University: Brown University pays each supervising teacher in the high school $50.

Bowdoin College: At Bowdoin and also at Whitman College the student teachers receive remuneration for their services.

Indiana University: There must be "mutual agreement between the city superintendent, the university school of education, and the university department concerned." Of the annual salary of the critic teacher ($1,800 maximum), the city school pays 60 per cent, and the university 40 per cent.

An avenue for constructive activity in connection with this problem is that of organizing, at least for State universities, some definite plans for the cooperation of universities and public high schools, and getting State laws passed to require public schools to cooperate with State universities in furnishing laboratory facilities for the better training of future teachers.

State laws might also make legal such cooperation between nonState institutions for the training of teachers and the public high school, especially when such relationship involves remuneration to the public school, thus avoiding the possibility of conflict arising over the payment of a fee to persons in the public employ by non-State universities and colleges.

THE SELECTION OF STUDENT TEACHERS.

Here again the material at hand is insufficient or too difficult of interpretation to be of any real use. Some reports state by whom the candidate is chosen, but few attempt to state the basis for the selection. Further study of this problem is needed in order to answer satisfactorily such questions as these:

(1) Is there any effort being made in schools of education to eliminate the unfit? If so, at what point is the elimination made, and on what grounds?

(2) Is there a health requirement in the selection of a student teacher? For certification as a teacher?

(3) Is there a moral-social requirement?

(4) How many semester hours of work should be considered a minimum requirement in the content subjects? How many in education? Are there certain essentials in education? What are they? There is certainly great need of clearing up the obscurity (caused

chiefly by different nomenclature in different universities) that shrouds every attempt to solve these problems.

During the year 1915-16 Dr. C. E. Holley, of Ohio Wesleyan University, made a brief study of the problem of selection of student teachers by the use of standardized tests. The general plan was to obtain ratings of prospective student teachers by the standard tests, and then to find the degree of correlation between these ratings and the later efficiency of the student teacher in actual teaching work. The efficiency of the teacher was that judged by the supervisor in charge, based on the subjective criteria embodied in the supervisor's report used at Ohio Wesleyan. Practically no correlation was found between the ratings in the standard tests and the ratings upon the subjective standards of teaching efficiency as made by the supervisors.

CONCERNING METHODS OF RECORDING AND ACCREDITING PRACTICAL WORK.

Only a very few blank forms used for rating and recording the teaching ability of the student teachers have been sent to the committee.

Ohio Wesleyan contributes one, a supervisor's chart to be used at each observation, on which there are printed some 50 points in detail under four general headings:

1. Effects of work of teacher observable on pupils.

2. Technique of teaching.

3. Items of schoolroom management.

4. Personal facts about teacher.

5. Miscellaneous items.

The supervisor rates the student by inserting letters from A to F after any of these points. There is also a place for a summary rating giving each letter its value under the point system, giving average, median, or mode of these values.

The University of Minnesota offers the following list of factors to be considered in judging student teachers:

1. Personality: Appearance; health; expression; poise; impersonal attitude in discipline; enthusiasm; relation to pupils-sympathy, influence; power.

2. Scholarship: Knowledge of students and community; knowledge of subject matter; preparation of assignment; use of language; ideals of attainment.

3. Method: Use of text; subject matter-selection, preparation, arrangement, and presentation; skill in questioning; ability to clinch essentials.

4. Room conditions: Appearance; gliht; ventilation; seating.

5. Professional factors: Good judgment; sense of values; initiative; open-mindedness; sense of responsibility; spirit of cooperation; reliability-punctuality, regularity.

The University of Iowa sends a blank form used for recording observations.

Wisconsin sends two types of cards, one to be filed each day by the student in educational practice, and the other by the "instructional and supervisory staff." Both cards are worthy of study.

Teachers College requires the students to file a 3 by 5 card to record the nature of the observations made. There is also a complete filing chart for checking the attainments of the student teacher. It is an excellent chart as charts go, but it does not prove to be of any considerable value in the hands of the supervisor because the items of conspicuous importance that need to be recorded for some particular lesson can not be put down with a mere check mark or a letter or figure. Teachers College has the chart in private conferences with the student, checking up in his presence his attainments along the lines specified in the chart. For actual record we prefer the dictated reports of each observation, reports which emphasize the significant elements of the day's work. Harvard uses this informal method of reporting the work of the student teachers, although the report is made on paper of uniform size for filing with brief form at the top for record of name, school, subject, etc. After reading two or three of these informal reports of a student's work, one secures a clear photograph of the student's strength and weakness.

The secretary of the committee has recently gathered blank forms used for reporting on practice teaching from the following additional schools: Ohio State University, University of Washington, Purdue University, Minnesota Agricultural College, University of Kansas, University of Nebraska, University of Chicago, Kansas Agricultural College, Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, and Indiana University.

Undoubtedly there is a vast amount of material of this kind, that would be of help to all who are interested in the problem, if it could be secured. The committee has filed with this report all that has been made available for our use.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF COLLEGE TEACHERS OF EDUCATION.

The committee offers for consideration and discussion the following recommendations (the word "Divided" indicates lack of unanimity of opinion in committee on point concerned):

1. That the term practice-teaching be discarded.

The word practice-teaching carries to the mind of the public the idea that pupils are being practiced upon. This idea is resented by many, and the continued use of the term is apt to stigmatize our work. At least one high-school principal has already refused to permit the word practice-teacher to be used within his school for the reasons here suggested. (Divided.)

2. That the term practical work (instead of practice-teaching) be accepted as the blanket expression to cover all the different stages in the classroom experience of the candidate. (Divided; Prof. Mead recommends the term laboratory work.)

3. That the following terms be construed somewhat as follows: Practical work, to include observation, experimentation, apprentice work, supervised or directed teaching.

Observation, to define that phase of practical or laboratory work which involves purposeful study, under direction and supervision, of the work of experienced teachers.

Apprentice teaching, to define a phase of practical work that generally precedes directed teaching where the student is called upon to serve as an apprentice in performing with the teacher all the duties of the class hour, such as correcting papers, keeping attendance and reports, looking after health standards, making an assignment, teaching a small part of the period, securing control of the class while taking attendance. (Divided. Profs. Meriam, Dorcas.)

Supervised teaching or directed teaching to define actual teaching under direction.1

4. (a) That one hour of practical or laboratory work per day per semester be regarded as a desirable unit for credit.

(b) That this unit of practice should include observation, apprentice work, and directed teaching. (Divided. Prof. Mead suggests that each phase, observation, etc., be credited separately upon the above basis.)

1 The recommendations concerning terminology, by society action at the Detroit meeting, were placed in the hands of the society's committee on terminology.

(c) That this experience be divided so as to include work in two high-school subjects, or different years in one subject, rather than to be continued with one subject and one group of pupils for the entire time. (Divided. Prof. Meriam would require teaching in one subject.)

It is considered desirable for teacher in training to become familiar with first-year and with fourth-year pupils, with elementary work in a subject (mathematics for example) and with advanced work in the same subject.

5. That the giving of demonstration lessons be encouraged wherever possible in order that observation work may be enriched. (Divided. Prof. Meriam opposed.)

6. That a type of practical or laboratory work for teachers of experience be developed differing in nature from that of inexperienced teachers, this work to include:

(a) Observation of demonstration lessons in order that they may have an opportunity to see the new technique of teaching with materials that meet the present demands of society. (b) Solving of problems connected with subject matter and method,

(c) Some teaching to try out experiments with subject matter or method,

(d) Supervision of the work of inexperienced teachers.

7. That both university-controlled high schools and the public high school be used wherever possible in the training of student teachers.

"Own" school (a) because conditions can be controlled according to standards desired by the university, (b) because demonstration lessons for observation can readily be arranged, (c) because experiments with course of study and method can be carried on. In other words, the peculiar function of a university-controlled school is that of demonstration and experimentation. It should not necessarily be a "model" school.

Public high school because conditions are such as student teacher will have to face in actual teaching.

An "own" school adjusts environment to the student; a public school compels a student to adjust himself to his environment.

8. That supervision of student teaching be closely controlled by university departments of education in order to insure certain definite prerequisites in the selection of student teachers, as, for example, 1. Quantity and quality of work in content subjects. 2. Quantity and quality of work in education. Courses in education to include at least educational psychology, general methods, and special method.