not the state legislature close to the people? and the national house of representatives? and the city council? and the county commissioners? Why is not a township board of education as close to the people of the township as is a district board to the people of the district? We have a county superintendent in Illinois who says that the great army of leading educationists who favor township organization because it gives a better chance to make good schools in every district, "have no faith in the people," and "do not think them capable of maintaining a system of schools." What basis is there for such a statement? If each district elects a member of the township board, or if five or six men are chosen by the township township to constitute such board, wherein does this "remove the management of the schools as far as possible from the people who pay their money to support them?"

The Herbartian Society at Milwaukee. The National Herbartian society was in evidence to its credit at Milwaukee. It may well be questioned whether any day meeting of any department, or of the general association, had exercises of more general interest and with more enthusiastic audiences.

This society will number 2,000 members before the next annual meeting. Its exercises have always been well prepared and more nearly ideal in their method than any others. The result is that many seek to attend them. Men and women of the best ability take part in their discussions. There is a moral earnestness, joined with a sweetness of temper, and hospitality to opposing ideas that always attend the earnest search for truth. The society is fast becoming the most influential in the country. Its name is a little unfortunate for the reason

that it carries with it doctrines that the society does not hold and does not teach. It is more properly Eclectic than Herbartian in its doctrine.

It searches for the truth under all forms and names, and seeks to incorporate it into an American system of educational thought and practice that is adapted to American conditions and needs. There is a strong and growing conviction that this society is leading a movement of great value. It is not a new philosophy but an improved pedagogy that they are seeking to encourage. This is not to be extended by authority, but through free and untrammeled investigation and study. It is hospitable, therefore, to everything, old and new, that has proved or can prove its right to a place in a comprehensive system of education.

It has been the target for gibes and sneers and cheap wit, but all that has passed away. No one can raise a laugh, any more, by alliterations on the words apperception, concentration, and co-ordination. This movement has proved its validity and those who once came to its meetings to scoff now remain to pray. There is much about the meetings of the N. E. A. that is merely perfunctory. It has some dead branches. But the Herbartian society is a vigorous shoot that bids fair to absorb the best energies of the parent stem.

The hall set apart for these meetings at Milwaukee was entirely inadequate.

A Protest Against Examinations. The Herald, of Rochester, N. Y., speaks editorially as follows:

"The public school authorities of Auburn have earned the everlasting gratitude of the public by voting to eject the Regents' examinations from the public schools of that city. It was found that they led to

cramming, thus diverting attention from the proper work of education, and caused pupils that had passed to think that their education was completed. Upon other pupils the effect was to fill them with anxiety about passing.

"It is to be hoped that other cities in the state will follow the example of Auburn. The only fit persons to prepare examination papers for the public schools are the teachers. They know what has been studied and are familiar with the capacity of their pupils. this important knowledge the Regents, or rather their subordinates in the Albany office, are absolutely destitute. That is why some of their examination papers are so ridiculous."

Of

New York is doing many excellent things, but the Regents' examination of the public schools is not one of them.

Professor Small's Attack Upon Superintendent Lane.

In reply to a recent attack by a Catholic prelate upon the public schools, in which he declared them to be nurseries of immorality and corruption," Mr. Lane said, in a public address at Milwaukee, "I maintain that those who attend the public schools until they have completed the elementary course of instruction will become moral, intelligent, loyal citizens."

Professor Small, of the Chicago University, said in a public meeting of the National Herbart Society in Milwaukee, in response to this statement: "I maintain that as an indiscriminate commendation of the public schools, particularly of those Superintendent Lane knows best, Mr. Lane's remark is demagogic buncombe fit for consumption only in a fool's paradise." Professor Small will probably dodge behind the phrase "indiscriminate commendation" in defending this attack upon the public schools, but his

evident intention was to reaffirm the Catholic prelate's declaration. It would be interesting to the public if he would publish a list of those who have completed an elementary course in the Chicago schools who are classed among the immoral, ignorant, and disloyal citizens. As usual with him his love for rhetorical effect ran off with his discretion, and regard for the truth. It is highly prob

able that Professor Small is the mouthpiece of a band of conspirators who have set to work to down Superintendent Lane at the next election, and that among these conspirators is a promiminent editorial writer for one of the leading daily papers, and one of the prominent city officials. This official fell out with Mr. Lane and Mr. Bright some years ago because of their support of Col. F. W. Parker, whom he endeavored to drive out of the Cook County Normal School, and he is known to have a retentive memory.

Professor Small's attack on Superintendent Lane had only a very remote relation to the question he was discussing before the Herbert club, which made it all the more evident that he was eager to seize any opportunity to open the campaign. against Superintendent Lane's adminis

tration.

Leaving political chicanery to work its will as it can, let us consider whether the Catholic prelate and his coadjutor, Professor Small, have any ground for the declaration that the public schools are nurseries of "immorality and corruption," especially the schools of Chicago. The chief count in Professor Small's indictment was that flogging was prohibited in the Chicago schools. His creed seems to be the old one of "no lickin' no larnin'" with the addition of "no lickin' no morals."

It is evident to any one acquainted with the Chicago schools from observation, that those in which the method of government tends to promote immorality

and corruption, are very few and becoming fewer every year. The old method of ruling by the rod stimulated many more immoral practices and devices than does the present one. There are individual cases where it would be better to compel obedience than to expel the pupil from school. But these are illustrations of the fact that no general law, however beneficent to society at large, can meet every individual case. Imperfection is stamped upon all things human.

Professor Small declared, in substance, that the Chicago schools promoted immorality and corruption for the reason that corporal punishment is prohibited by the rules. Are his conclusions a priori, or the result of familiar acquaintance with the schools as they are now conducted in Chicago? Some months ago this gentleman made some strictures on our schools, in a lecture at Freeport, which showed that he was speaking of the schools of his boyhood and not of the schools of to-day. He admitted afterward that he had received most of his information about the schools of the present time from a not-very-friendly critic. It is probably safe to affirm that he has not become thoroughly acquainted with the Chicago schools, by personal observation, since that time. The Catholic prelate, probably, has not felt it necessary to form their acquaintance. Since they do not teach religion, as he defines it, they must be nurseries of immorality and corruption.

Since

So it turns out that the ground of the criticism of these two critics is not personal observation and study of the schools as they are. These gentlemen seem to agree as to the facts, but differ greatly as to the cause.

If we had time, and it were worth while, it would be easy to show that a "religious" school training such as the prelate has in mind, would itself be a nursery of "immorality and corruption,"

and that the present method pursued in Chicago is much more certain to make moral, intelligent, and loyal citizens than Professor Small's prescription of the restoration of the whipping-post. It is not probable that Superintendent Lane will be driven from his position for reasons such as these. That the children are not flogged but are generally happy in their school life, and that no theological dogmas are in the prescribed course of study, the public in general will approve. We do not think Mr. Lane has had much to do in keeping either theology or flogging out of the schools, but if Professor Small shall cause the people to attribute these things to him, they will be slow to believe that he should be dismissed because of his beneficent influence in these matters.

The New Course of Study for Illinois. The committee appointed by the convention of county superintendents last winter to revise the course of study for the common schools of Illinois has completed its work, and the new course is published. It is the result of the combined labors of John W. Cook, David Felmley, Henry McCormick, James Kirk, George W. Smith, Mrs. Lida B. McMurry, and E. W. Cavins, of our normal schools; T. A. Clark and E. J. Lake, of the State University; Joseph M. Piper and W. R. Hatfield, of the County Superintendents; W. B. Davis, Superintendent of the Pittsfield schools, and C. M. Parker, of the educational press. County Supt. George R. Shawhan was the editor. The new edition is a vast improvement upon its predecessors. It is a very helpful and suggestive outline, covering the entire field of instruction in country and village schools. It is a course of study, pure and simple, with very little attempt to supply the teacher with devices, and so called methods of

doing the work. This little volume will take rank among the very best published in the country.

A good course of study is a great assistance when properly used. When abused it becomes a great curse. Its use is, to help the inexperienced and weak teachers to the order of topics in the different branches, and suggest the amount of work to be done in each grade during the year.

It is abused when the teacher is made to feel that the directions in the course of study are more authoritative than the knowledge and ability of the class. It is the attainments of the student and not the course of study that shall determine when he shall move on to the next topic. It may be before the time specified in the course, and it may be later. The objection to monthly examinations is the emphasis they give to this notion that every school must do a prescribed amount of work each month. It tends to increase the demand for definite outlines and directions for each month's work, and to promote drill upon sets of questions preparatory for examination.

The ten

dency of any prescribed course of study is to divert the mind of a weak teacher from the study of the child, and what treatment is best for him, to the course of study, and how much of it must be completed each day, in order to be ready when the regular day of accounting comes. Examinations, courses of study, tests of many kinds, and drill, all belong to a good school training. But they are valuable and not harmful only when the teachers' thought is ever directed to the state of the child's mind and his present needs. In some of the counties of this state the most wooden kind of mechanism has prevailed for years because of the abuse of the course of study by the superintendent.

The revised course will tend to discourage these practices unless some out

line machine is set to grinding out devices and examination questions and sending them around every month to harass the teacher, and prevent the continued and natural growth and progress of the pupil.

Kansas Agricultural College. The new board of regents under the lead of Regent Hoffman has virtually dismissed about fifteen members of the faculty of the Kansas Agricultural College, including President Fairchild. They defend their action by a public attack upon the faculty, accusing them of gross incompetency and neglect of duty. The principal charge against the president is that he was so powerful and influential a man that he dominated the board of regents and reduced it to a mere auditing committee. Are we to infer that Mr. Hoffman and his associates selected Professor Will for the presidency because they could dominate him? If so we think they will discover their mistake in time. What is the function of a president if not to lead the thought and practice of the institution over which he presides? The regents certainly cannot do it. They must entrust the direction of the work of the college to an expert, and hold him. responsible for results. This institution has won an enviable reputation in the country under the "dominance" of President Fairchild. How it will prosper under the dominance of Mr. Hoffman, the present dominating regent, remains to be seen. The state press declares that it is the purpose of the present board to convert the college "into a kindergarten of fiat money and socialism." The board declares that its purpose is "to raise the institution above the level of partisan politics by insuring to competent men the opportunity to teach in this college regardless of the ticket they vote." THE

JOURNAL has no interest in Kansas politics, but it does have a lively interest in the success of her agricultural college.

Mr. Shawhan and Committee of Twelve. George R. Shawhan, who has been superintendent of the schools of Champaign county for a long time, makes some comments, in the public press, on the report recently made by the ablest educators and superintendents in America on the pressing needs of the country school, known as the Report of the Committee of Twelve. Among the members of the National Council of Education who oppose Mr. Shawhan's views about rural schools and township organizatior, are our National Commissioner of Education, Wm. T. Harris; Dr. E. E. White of Ohio; State Superintendent Sabin of Iowa; Dr. D. L. Kiehle, for many years state superintendent of Minnesota and now at the head of the department of education in the University of Minnesota; Dr. B. A. Hinsdale of the department of education in Michigan University; State Supt. Chas. R. Skinner, of the state of New York; State Supt. A. B. Poland, of the state of New Jersey, and C. C. Rounds of the State Normal School of New Hampshire. These gentlemen and nearly every school authority of any eminence in America are practically unanimous in advocating a different doctrine from that of Mr. Shawhan in regard to the organization and conduct of the country schools.

In the simple matter of attempting to grade the public schools there is some difference of opinion among the educational leaders. Dr. Harris holds that if two pupils are more than a year apart in their advancement they cannot be put into the same class and study the same lessons without injury to one or the other. But in all other respects there is a practical agreement among the leading educators as to those things in which they differ from Superintendent Shawhan.

Mr. Shawhan disposes of these men and their opinions in a very summary way. He says "they have no faith in our rural schools nor in the people. They do not believe the American people have the capacity to organize and maintain a system of schools! They do not like anything we now have! They prefer some manner of appointment that puts the management and control of officers and schools in the hands of a few self-constituted experts. They believe the management of the schools should be removed as far as possible from those who send their children to them and pay their money to support them." In short, he brands them as unpatriotic citizens of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Having thus branded the authors of this report on rural schools, his audience is supposed to be prepared to believe that they are fit only for "treasons, stratagems and spoils." In speaking of their proposed improvements of our rural schools he says he is opposed to all such "vagaries."

Well, it seems to be George R. Shawhan against the field. What he says of the spirit of these men is not true, and since everything else he says depends upon the unworthiness of these gentlemen to be believed and trusted, there seems to be nothing to answer.

Editorial Correspondence.

Editor Public School Journal:

Your remarks regarding information studies in THE PUBLIC SCHOOL JOURNAL for July surprised me very much. You speak of my distinction between the results of elementary education and those of higher education as a distinction that will not be admitted by a large class of teachers, and you finally say of it that "it encourages a memorizing of facts or dead results in elementary schools which has been the bane of elementary instruction for generations."

I have carefully reread my speech as reported in the June number of Education and