Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

EDUCATION

Devoted to the Science, Art, Philosophy and Literature

of Education

VOL. XLII.

DECEMBER, 1921

No. 4

Pupil Government in Secondary Schools NELSON A. JACKSON, MOUNT HERMON, MASS.

T

HE idea of pupil government is not in itself modern, although the development of the idea in the schools of the United States has been largely within the last three decades. "Thomas Jefferson recommended a modified plan of student discipline for the University of Virginia. Thomas Hill, in England, a century before, conducted his school on a basis of student participation in the government. Vittorino de Feltra, in the Middle Ages, preached the doctrine of learning by doing, and recommended that boys be allowed to share with the master the administration of the school."1

In the monitorial schools organized by Lancaster in England during the latter part of the 18th century, great authority was given to the pupil teachers. However, this authority was given by the head master of the school, and the monitors in no wise represented their fellow pupils.

The prefect system which works so well in the English schools is a form of student government adapted for a monarchy. It is in no sense self-government, as the whole system is based upon the delegation of power from above. Pupil government in American schools is purely democratic. Those who have authority over

1 Training for Democracy-George Kiernan. The Craftsman, September, 1914.

their fellows, have that authority because it has been given to them by those whom they govern. Of this form of pupil government, Mr. William Gill was one of the earliest advocates. Supported by Mr. Gill, Dr. Cronson, then principal of Public School No. 69 in New York City, was led to try self-government in his school.

"When this scheme of pupil self-government proved a success in Public School No. 69, it rapidly found its way into a number of other schools, both in this and in other cities."2

This form of pupil government was called the "School City" and was modeled after the city government, where the school was located. The scheme was successful for a time, but in most instances, its ultimate end was failure. Dr. Cronson, with whom the scheme never failed, in speaking of these failures, says of those who copied his form of government in their school, "What they introduced into their own schools was not self-government but government by children; and these manifested a temporary interest in the scheme, not because it found a response in their hearts, but because its novelty supported by the enthusiasm of the teacher, attracted them for the time being." There were, however, in various parts of the country notable instances of success, enough so that some teachers and more theorists were convinced of the soundness of the idea.

Probably the most startling and at the same time, thorough trial ever given to self-government is that adopted by Mr. William R. George in the Junior Republic founded by him at Freeville, N. Y. during the summer of 1895. Here, self-government is not an experiment, but the basic idea about which the institution has grown and thrived. So successful has it been that a National Association of Junior Republics has been formed and several Junior Republics have been founded in other states.

Enthusiastic advocates of self-government in the schools have organized the Self-Government Committee. The purpose seems to be to create public sentiment in favor of self-government in schools; to help school principals in introducing the system; to act

2 Pupil Self-Government-Cronson, page 5.

3 Pupil self-Government-Cronson, pa es 7.8.

as a clearing house for information concerning self-government collected from all parts of the Union; to publish literature setting forth the reasons for self-government and rebutting the arguments against the system. The Committee is composed of public spirited men and women, most of whom are not connected with schools, who are interested in the welfare of the American school child.

The actual need for the formation of such a committee is debatable, but its existence augurs well for the interest of the American citizen in his own school. Said American citizen may not understand school rooom conditions, but he has a right to expect certain results. It is more probable that the desired results will be forthcoming, if he actively interests himself in educational problems.

The advocates of self-government maintain that we are attempting to train children for citizenship in a democratic commonwealth, in schools, which with few exceptions, are absolute monarchies ; that this paradox must be abolished before we can expect the school child to become a public spirited citizen.

The writer, in order to ascertain the sentiment toward this form of government in secondary schools, sent out the following questionnaire to 101 principals and superintendents:

1. Is self-government practiced in your school?
2. If so, to what extent are pupils given control?

3. What is the relation of the teacher to the pupil?

4. Are the regulations passed by the pupil approved by the principal?

5. Will you kindly give outline of system followed.

6. Do you consider the system permanent or experimental?

7. Are you satisfied with results?

[blocks in formation]

9. I should appreciate any printed matter you may have concerning self-government.

Eighty-five replies were received, representing 31 states; of these replies, 59 came from public high schools and 26 from private schools.

The replies to Question 1 were grouped under four heads: (a)

those schools having a fairly complete system of self-government; (b) those having a partial system; (c) those claiming no system of pupil government but depending on student co-operation in the conduct of school affairs; (d) those having no system.

[blocks in formation]

7

Probably most schools classed under (d) depend more or less on pupil co-operation so that the division between c and d is somewhat uncertain. The replies under (c) indicate that most of these writers do not believe in an organized form of self-government. It is therefore safe to conclude that 71% of the high schools and 46% of the private schools do not as yet care for or feel the need of this form of government.

Of the high schools having complete or partial systems 53% are located in New York City; the balance are scattered, one each in the following states: Alabama, California, Texas, Maryland, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana. Of the private schools 29% are located in New York City or vicinity; the balance in D. C., N. J., Conn., Mass., R. I. From these figures the conclusion is evident that the largest percent of those schools trying this system of government is located in the East, especially in or about New York City.

The following selected replies to all or part of the questions from schools classed under (a) and (b) show the attitude of principals toward this form of government. They are typical of all the replies, in which there was more or less sameness.

"2. The tendency is to place the discipine of the school more and more in the hands of the students. The chief matters which are not placed in their hands to a greater or less extent, are major offenses, such as thieving, truancy and indecency."

"3. The relation of teacher to pupils is one of co-operation and helpfulness rather than authority. The teacher is a moral force back of the student discipline, and of course may always be applied to with authority to act."

"4. The principal retains control over all regulations which are passed by the pupils. There is no regular assembly of the pupils to make rules, but there is a general organization, membership in which is open to all students in the school. This organization has the privilege of formulating rules and making suggestions, either by action of its general assembly or through sub-committees. I enclose a copy of the constitution of this organization. Pupils and teachers frequently work together in committees."

"5 The system can hardly be outlined, but some points in it are these: Each class is organized with officers,-President, VicePresident, Secretary and Marshal. Class officers are responsible for order and quiet in the class rooms in the absence of the teacher, and in certain cases, when the teacher is present. Pupils in the Senior class are held generally responsible for order in the corridors during the passing of classes and also in the study hall. Pupils belonging to the Arista league have charge of the general assembies of the school and assist otherwise in maintaining order. I enclose a copy of the Arista constitution, which explains the conditions of membership in the league, and also a copy of the circular describing the student courts and the punishment for certain offences against the order of the school."

"6. We consider that pupil government has passed through the experimental stage and will be continued. Of course, changes in the system may and will be made from time to time."

"7. Results are, in our opinion, satisfactory. We notice among these results the following: Improvement in school spirit; less occasion for discipline; willingness to accept responsibility without question; cultivation of self-reliance and in general, an increase in the happiness of the student."-Wadleigh High School, New York City.

"7. Because it gives the pupils a great freedom in which to develop. It teaches them that liberty means responsibility and self-restraint rather than license."-Miss Madeira's School, Washington, D. C.

"7. (a) Does away with the need of watching the behavior of

« AnteriorContinuar »