Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

an abnormally large number of pupils in the elementary grades are overage. In other words, a number of pupils are one or two years above the normal age of the children ordinarily found in each of the primary grades. Do these facts indicate that this condition is due to overcrowded school conditions, or is it traceable to poor teaching?

Let us take another example. Suppose that in the investigation of a certain school system it is found that an unusually large percentage of the students drop out of school between the time of entering the high school and the close of the Senior year. Is this condition due to a defective high-school system, poor teaching, economic conditions, or some other cause? Obviously it is as important to interpret the facts wisely as to analyze them correctly. The facts should be organized and proper correlations established if they are to be given a correct interpretation. This implies that the principle of interpretation involves an acquaintance with many correlating factors that may lie outside of the particular facts acquired by the investigator.

3. Constructive recommendations. The object of the accumulation and analysis of data and their intelligent interpretation is to promote a more efficient organization. The third step, therefore, is the formulation of constructive recommendations for the improvement of the system. Constructive recommendations depend upon two factors: (a) the accuracy and adequacy of the method and results of the previous steps; (b) familiarity with similar educational systems and the results obtained under different conditions. This may be regarded as a check upon the interpretation of the facts acquired.

4. The formal presentation of the data. This requires considerable art and skill and a familiarity with statistical principles and methods. It is one thing to be certain of

your conclusion. It is quite another thing to present it in such an attractive and convincing way as to carry conviction to those for whose benefit the survey has been made.

5. Checking-up processes. Finally, if the best results are to follow from the efforts expended, some means must be devised to check up the educational system that has been surveyed, in order to determine to what extent the constructive recommendations have been accepted and followed. This has been a neglected element in most of the surveys that have been made. It has too often been assumed that all that was necessary was to reveal the defects in the educational system and that it would naturally follow that they would be corrected. Unless the school authorities are in sympathy with the conclusions and convinced of the validity of the recommendations, it is likely that nothing will be done to put into effect the recommendations that are made. It should not be assumed, therefore, that a survey is complete when the report is made involving constructive recommendations. The wiser plan would be to provide that those responsible for the survey should be required to check up the system from time to time, during two or three years (the length of time depending upon the nature and extent of the survey), and that supplementary reports be presented concerning the progress of adjusting the system to the recommendations made.

TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL SURVEYS

It is difficult to classify surveys in a general way, but the educational surveys may be grouped as follows:

1. Geographical surveys. Under this head we may group those general educational surveys that relate to an entire state, county, or township, and a school system

2

of a city. This class of surveys may be illustrated by the surveys made under the direction of the United States Commissioner of Education of the school system of Colorado1 and that of the state of Wyoming. A notable city survey is that of Portland, Oregon, made under the general direction of Professor Ellwood P. Cubberley. A typical county survey is that by M. L. Duggan of Raybourn County, Georgia.

2. The specialized survey. Such surveys relate to special classes of institutions, or particular subjects, departments, or aspects of education. For example, the surveys of the state higher educational institutions of Iowa and of North Dakota made under the direction of the United States Commissioner of Education are restricted to a special class of institutions and do not comprehend the entire educational system. Several important surveys of rural schools might come under this classification; for example, the survey of the rural schools of Travis County made by Mr. E. E. Davis of the University of Texas.

Educational surveys may also be classified with reference to the agency through which the survey is conducted. Differentiated in this way, educational surveys may be classified as follows: (a) surveys conducted by a committee of experts selected because of their special fitness; most of the notable surveys of states and cities and particular institutions have been made in this way; (b) self-surveys; these are made by specially appointed representatives connected with the system that is to be surveyed. This type of survey has been strongly commended by Mr. William H. Allen and seems to represent

1 Bulletin No. 5, 1917, Bureau of Education.

2 Bulletin No. 29, 1916.

3 Bulletins Nos. 19 and 27, 1916, U. S. Department of Education. 4 Self-Surveys of Colleges and Universities.

the natural, constructive method of evaluating an educational system.

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE SURVEY

METHODS

The appraisal of educational surveys is difficult to make. That many of them have not fulfilled all of the promises inherent in them is obvious to the student of educational problems. Disappointments have resulted in some cases from three very obvious defects: (1) Many of the surveys have been made by so-called survey experts who were brought together from fields of service more or less removed from the educational system that is to be examined. These experts are strangers to many economic, social, and traditional factors that will not yield to statistical measurement. The time is often too short for the surveying committee to consider thoroughly the historical development and the personal equations in a particular school situation. These factors have defeated the ends sought in several surveys that have been made. (2) In the second place, the survey has been launched on such a comprehensive plan that it has been impossible in the time allotted for the survey to secure all the necessary data upon which to base accurate conclusions. (3) In the third place, as previously indicated, no "follow-up" plan is provided for checking up the school system to see if the proposed remedies and recommendations have been put into effect.

It would appear that these difficulties may be partially overcome by self-surveys. The study of a school system by those who are both capable and intimately acquainted with all the conditions that enter into it seems to offer a rather inviting opportunity. The advantage of the self-survey is that it need not be an abnormal

or unusual thing. It gives opportunity for continuous investigation of this or that aspect of the school activities and provides a means of checking up and evaluating every department and activity of it. The timeliness of the survey is an important factor in preventing academic atrophy, or too long protracted ineffective efforts. The self-survey, however, is subject to the objection that those intimately associated with an institution are often blinded to defects that are very obvious to others. This defect can be partially remedied by inviting one or more educational experts from the outside to cooperate in the enterprise. It is not intended to underestimate the importance of the work that has been done by specially appointed surveying committees. The report of the investigating committee of the University of Kentucky can be heartily commended as a thoroughly constructive document and free from endless academic discussions of theoretical problems that are often found in survey literature. But the authorities of the University of Kentucky were not only fortunate in the personeln of the committee, but the committee had the advantage of dealing with a specific problem that yielded important facts upon which to base its conclusions. The same may be said with reference to the Portland survey and many county surveys that have been made. A study of the surveys of state educational systems has been rather disappointing. Some of the state surveys were inspired by wrong motives and, instead of resulting in constructive effort, they have often intensified local jealousies and led to distrust rather than to harmony and cooperation. There is also to be found in some of these surveys a large amount of academic discussion that has no relation to the facts developed. The impartial critic is almost compelled to conclude that the attempts made

« AnteriorContinuar »