The Future Country School

R. R. SMITH, LINDBLOM HIGH SCHOOL, CHICAGO.

.........♣T will be the purpose of this paper to propose one

I

solution for the country school problem. In proposing that solution I shall not be unmindful of evolutionary tendencies, that is, of the evolution of the small separate units into large group units. As a matter of fact, whether that small unit be a person, a school district, or a nation, I think that for the most part, progress points toward the grouping into a few large masses. In the case of individual competition, the result is first the trust, which we have mistakenly fought as an enemy; then a co-operative group. In the case of the school district the result is the consolidated school which the farmer has fought in as misguided a fashion as the general public has fought the trust; and in the case of the nation the result is the modern large federated imperialistic state like England and Germany which the world has been mistakenly fighting as an enemy instead of welcoming as the logical outgrowth of evolution.

But just as I think that individual enterprise will not be done away with entirely by the trust movement, and just as I do not think all school districts can be consolidated, I do not think that the large imperial state will mean that we shall not still have the small national group with problems which will be peculiar to a small nation. If that reasoning is true, then, in regard to the evolution of competition or conflict toward an era of co-operation, we shall still have the one or two-room country school; and if we are still to have it we must look upon it as a distinct problem. In the case of the country school, as with any other problem. we must get some background for discussion before we can understand the elements upon which the solution depends. I wish to write as a father, a farmer in a district, which on account of its situation cannot become a part of a consolidated school; and I wish further

more to be considered as a college graduate, a man who has some right to think he may judge in educational matters. I wish to be considered one of a group of my neighbors who have come together at some central point to discuss the future of education for their community.

First, what has been the history of the country school? My neighbors immediately think of the little "red schoolhouse" myth. They remember that it has been sort of fetish with us. It has been an institution from which we might expect presidents to They remember it as much a part of American traditions as the flag itself. It seems, then, that we must save it or be guilty of gross lack of patriotic devotion.

come.

Thus begins our discussion of the problem. What has led to our faith in the one-room country school? Have we been guilty of blind devotion to an ideal that did not exist except in our imagination, or has there been a worth-whileness we can analyze and explain? Somebody, thinking that he will be sarcastic, suggests that it has been merely a stepping-stone to something else, law, medicine, business, the ministry, or a step toward a job in a village or city school system. He counts off more than a score of names, names of men who since their school teaching days have become leaders in statesmanship, in professional life, or in business.

Although my neighbor introduced the proposition by way of being sarcastic, has he not hit on one of the potent factors of our country school tradition? What better could happen to a boy or girl than to come under the instruction of a man with creative ability enough to lead him to the top of a profession or business in which initiative and vision are basic factors? But I wish to ask my neighbor if he knows of any embyronic Websters who are entering the ranks of country school teachers now. He is unable to name one. It is no longer done.

Another neighbor, an older man, tells of "Ponto" whose real name does not matter, who had taught in the schools of one county for thirty-five years. He praises the work of this good school man and regrets that the days of such country teachers seem to have become a thing of the past as have the days when future

congressmen were wont to use the district schools as stepping stones to careers more to their liking. Truly the little "red schoolhouse" has fallen from grace.

Now there are many volunteers to tell of the kind of teaching which our children are getting now, or is it the kind of teaching that our children are not getting? It seems to be the latter. It seems that not only have the future congressmen deserted the long-famed stepping stone and the plodding men and women who made of this their life work but that the latest recruits are no longer to be had and that an epidemic of closing these American institutions of culture is sweeping the land. Not even the little girls who expect to teach a year or two and then get married or get "promoted" to a village school are any longer to be had. It seems that we are in a position that will require us to close the district school entirely, for there are too many better paid and more attractive fields for girls as well as for boys. The situation is tragic.

It seems that the problem is stated clearly in all its nakedness. Given, a country schoolhouse and children of solid American farmers: to find a teacher? Let us examine once more the history of the case. We were rather well pleased to have embyronic national leaders use our schools for stepping stones. Will it be possible to bribe the future leaders to step on these stepping stones? Nobody seems to think so. As the case exits now, will it be possible to get earnest men and women to enter the work as "Ponto" did for life? Not as long as they have sanity left. Do we really want the little girls who are here today and gone tomorrow even if we can get them? With one accord we say that we do not. Better keep the schools closed.

What, then, remains to be done? This is the solution that I propose to my neighbors. Why not make the job attractive enough to induce men and women to settle in our community and teach the school year after year just as we farm the same farm year after year and the doctor treats the same families year after year? Why not proceed at once to organize the work along that line? Why not admit that our children are our

There is just a They claim that

greatest assets and that we must give them adequate instruction as we give them adequate medical attention? little excitement among my farmer neighbors. it was never done. I expected them to say that. But I remind them that they are not farming as their fathers farmed before them. I remind them further that they could not make a living for their families if they cultivated one farm this year and another one next year. They admit that they could not. If that is true, how can they hope to give their children the most out of education if they have one teacher this year and at the end of the year ship him and get a new one? They begin to admit the soundness of the reasoning.

At this point we get busy and work out our ideal scheme. The first question we take up is this: Are there men and women in the country, enough to go round the rural schools, who would love to teach in a district school year after year if they felt sure of their positions, if they were adequately paid, and if they were able to feel that they would be accorded the same dignified place in the community as that occupied by the doctor and by the fa.mer himself? We conclude that there are. If there are, what manner of men and women are they? We conclude that they are lovers of the country on the one hand and of books on the other, that they are more akin to poets and artists than to farmers, that they would not be happy were they tied to farm life, as we are, but that they would be happy if they could have a little farm in the community enough to raise all the farm produce needed and at the same time have an assured income as a teacher. They are the sort that would delight in leisurely living in comfort such as we picture.

The picture begins to look bright. Granted that there are such men and women, what training do we want them to bring to this country school? With one accord we agree that the best is none too good for our children. We want them to have college degrees. Of that much we are sure. If they can bring to us the newest ideas in agriculture and domestic science, all well and good, but we do not insist on that. We do insist that they

be red blooded men and women.

We insist that they have ability

as leaders, that they be inspirational teachers, that they, understand science and history as cause and effect subjects, that, 'in a word, they be thoroughly educated and that they bring the richness of this education to our children.

What about the farm? Are we going to wait for them to save money to buy a little farm, or shall we offer that inducement to get them to come? My neighbors are so delighted with the idea that they are ready to chip in. They do not immediately work out all the details. They are not sure whether they shall let the farm go as a part of the school to be held by the teacher during tenure of office or whether they will get better service if they make possible his purchase of a small farm home as he is able. This they leave for another meeting, but they have reached one conclusion and are happy over it, and that is that they want a man or woman to come college trained to the community and take up a life job there and that they are ready to pay the price. They are not sure that it will not be well to get both a man and woman working as a team, married. They admit all the advantages of the consolidated school, but for them, give them the old country school brought up to date, taught by one teacher year after year, a college trained scholar who would become a part of the community and be treated as if he belonged.