Report of the Commissioner of Education Made to the Secretary of the Interior for the Year ... with Accompanying Papers

This rapid multiplication of educational courses has resulted in an unfortunately confusing nomenclature for courses. There does not seem to be a sharp differentiation between many of these courses. This often results in injustice to students who transfer from one school to another. Courses differently titled appear to be quite similar in content.

This confusion in part, with the varying practice with reference to "minimal essentials" as introductory courses, reflects a difference of opinion as to what really constitutes teacher training. It is quite evident that courses in education should be, in many cases at least, as specific as those in law or medicine. A glance at Table I reveals the fact that the only approach to a constant offered is "history of education," and this can not be judged a constant if such schools as the University of Chicago are included. Here history of education is not required. State boards of education, in the requirements for professional examinations, show the same lack of uniformity. The varying emphasis placed on courses may be due to several causes. Among these is the lack of equipment in the school itself, including the lack of preparation of the instructors in charge, and also the insufficiency of teachers. But other partial causes lie deeper than those just named.

Is there any fundamental difference between "principles of education," "philosophy of education," and the "psychology of education," as they are often actually given? These titles designate overlapping courses. In fact, the philosophy of education is still vaguely described everywhere. There is no textbook, apparently, that adequately represents what this course should include. Some schools treat principles of education as an elementary, introductory course; others as one whose prerequisites should be history of education and educational psychology. Each defines its own courses. Each State has its own requirements, with even the statutes specifying the same in terms which are not definite. A cooperative effort should be made to determine what is essential and what may serve as simply electives for undergraduates in similar groups, what as prerequisite for entrance to later graduate work, and what as merely cultural work for those who do not intend to teach, but who as laymen and citizens need some understanding of educational principles and administration.

Table I shows that our universities are responding to the increasing demand for more efficient teachers. There is not only a general increase in courses, but there is a more thoroughly trained and selected teaching body giving these courses. The number of professors with the doctor's degree indicates more highly specialized work. This is evident in the number of seminars offered and in the greater opportunities for research. See Table II.

Tables I and II also reveal a general tendency to raise the standard of teaching. The tables do not show, of course, how efficiently these courses are taught, but from the descriptions of the courses one senses the advent of the expert and sees evidence of genuine curriculum thinking.

The tables are also significant in what they do not record. There are no courses in textbook making, only a few courses on the science and art of study, only a few courses on moral education or religious education, or in educational statistics, or as yet in either industrial education or in higher education. Four institutions report courses offered in the administration and methods of higher education for those definitely preparing for work, administrative or instructional, in normal schools, colleges, and universities. (For typical contents for such a course see Ed. Rev., Nov., 1913, p. 390 ff.) It should be noted that the rate of increase in research in education and in number of doctorates conferred exceeds that in any other field of graduate study. There are only a few courses in experimental education. The technique of teaching-that is, the art of developing lessons in class is not treated adequately in the secondary subjects. Special methods are taught by college men in charge of these particular departments, but this does not guarantee that an effective technique of teaching is offered. There is a noted recent increase in the number of courses in secondary education, with in many cases a fairly thoroughgoing differentiation of courses in that field.

In addition to the catalogue study of the teacher-training, a general letter was sent to professors of education in universities and a number of the smaller colleges requesting information concerning changes in general policy or advanced steps in administration which have occurred recently, especially during the year 1912. There was a further request for accounts of developments contemplated for the near future. With this was inclosed a list of topics indicative of the kind of information sought, it being made clear that the list was not comprehensive.

The list follows (items 1-6 inclusive), with other items added which were furnished by those representing the colleges and universities who replied to our questionnaire:

1. Steps taken looking toward making the work of the professional training of teachers coordinate administratively with other professional work of university grade, such as engineering, medicine, or law.

2. Instances of cooperation in the teacher-training work by other college forces, as, for example, medical schools (medical inspection), agricultural departments, library staffs, department of physical education, etc.

3. Which of the following activities are under the administrative control of the department or school of education?

(a) Teacher's courses in special subjects given by other departments.
(b) Physical education for teachers.

(e) Extension work for teachers in service.

(f) Field work, using city schools as laboratories for advanced students, etc. (g) High-school conferences held on grounds.

(h) Summer schools.

(i) Education suiv~ƒs.

(5) Technological departments (manual training, domestic science, public-school music, etc.).

(k) Graduate work in education.

4. Special requirements for the master's or doctor's degree in education, differing from requirements for degrees in other branches of study; for example, demonstrated teaching ability, personal traits, moral force, general culture, etc.

5. Changes in entrance requirements to courses in education.

6. Changes in number of hours or in specific subjects as requirements for teachers' certificates or diplomas.

7. Practice schools.

8. School clinic.

9. Measurements of efficiency.

10. New buildings.

11. Affiliation with city schools. 12. Degrees in education.

13. Special short curriculums.

14. Follow State board standards in teachers' certificates or diplomas?
15. Double standard for granting teaching certificates or diplomas?
16. Addition of new courses.

Fairly detailed replies were received from 67 institutions. For purposes of comment and interpretation we may group the institutions heard from into three classes: A, special universities; B, State universities; C, the smaller colleges. It will be noted that some of the questions relating to administrative problems refer chiefly to the institutions in classes A and B. Most of the items, however, are significant and pertinent for all. The following Tables II and III contain the list of institutions and show roughly the information classified and attributed to proper institutions. Some institutions not reporting upon the chart items in most cases reported other interesting activities. Reports on items 7 to 16 merely show recent happenings or make incidental mention. There are many practice schools and institutions granting degrees, for example, not shown in the table.