Page images

that this be done. No honest treasurer objects to the fact that his books are periodically inspected and audited. The most honorable men in these positions insist that these inspections be made carefully and frequently. They are as much to guard against the making of unintentional and almost unavoidable errors as they are for the purpose of guarding against fraud. The trustee of an estate who is anxious that no accountings be made for a long period of time is more likely to be the dishonest one than is he who insists on being checked up frequently. Railroads and banks and all large corporations check their men up frequently, and the employees who object to it are generally those who have occasion to object.

Caution never implies distrust. It is not distrust when the driver of a horse holds the reins firmly in his hand. If the driver allows the lines to dangle from the back of the horse which he believes to be gentle, and that horse, in some unexpected moment, takes affright and runs away, the driver is not the victim of misplaced confidence. He is merely the victim of his own folly, and as such deserves and usually receives scant sympathy.

The right kind of honor system in high schools and academies will make provision still for a judicious system of supervision. The honor system in high schools and academies is a good thing, so long as it supplements and is subordinate to a wholesome recognition of legitimately constituted authority. It is a bad thing wherever it supplants this.



Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen: I am not at all sure that in my remarks I shall confine myself entirely to the admirable paper which I am to help discuss, but, as I understand that it is the question and not the paper which we are to consider, I presume that I am at liberty to digress somewhat.

I had read with a great deal of interest the article by Dr. Parkhurst on "The Decadence of Positive Authority," and I must say that I feel compelled to agree with the reverend gentleman in most of his conclusions. Unquestionably, we as a people are rapidly los

ing the old-time reverence and respect for legitimate authority. As Mr. Horn says, "Not only in schools but in all departments of life is there less and less tendency to accept arbitrary and unsupported authority. People have today less regard for the opinion of the minister, the doctor, the editor, the teacher, and even the prosecuting attorney than they formerly had." Now, I think this is, on the whole, a bad state of affairs. It may be, as Mr. Horn thinks, only a corollary of the fundamental proposition of democracy, though I do not think so. But unless this condition of affairs can be laid at the door of the honor system, speculation as to its causes and an analysis of its various phases has no place in this discussion.

The honor system means self-government, and, of course, no such system unmodified can exist in any high school or academy, or college either for that matter. The idea of pupils or students doing the right thing of their own volition because it is the right thing to do is a very beautiful ideal, but like most ideals can only be approximately attained. In a very slightly modified form, it may be successfully applied in colleges, and in a very much modified form, it may exist in secondary schools. In some schools and in the hands of some teachers, it can be more nearly attained than in other schools and in the hands of other teachers. And, as Mr. Horn says, the more immature the pupil, the more is it true that supervision must be exercised over him,-supervision, I take it, over his conduct, his choice of studies, and the manner and method of his preparation of those studies. I think no one will dispute the truth of the general statement that the honor system in the abstract is a good thing, that self-government is the highest, noblest, most perfect form of government, if it can be made to work. But we must keep clearly in mind the fact that a government which works in the United States would be a complete failure in Brazil or Turkey, and that a system which can be successfully operated by adults will not work with immature children. As I have said above, the honor system must be slightly modified in colleges and universities; it will not stand alone even there surrounded by the broadening atmosphere of college life. The shadow of the "big stick" falls across the path of the student occasionally, warning him back into the straight and narrow way whose end is perfect peace. And in secondary schools, even in those where conditions are most favorable, the system requires many and vital changes before it can be put into successful operation. You may make the velvet glove as thick

and soft as you will, but the iron hand within must never weaken.

Pardon me for sounding a personal note, but I honestly believe we would do more toward solving educational problems if we school people would cut out of our proceedings at our various meetings, city, county, State, and national, a large amount of the usual high flown rhetoric and theoretic nonsense, and talk more about what we have done and are trying to do, each in his own particular little school. That is true, provided always that each of us is really trying to do something more than draw his salary and hold his job. Now for my own experience. For the past four years under almost ideal conditions we have been working toward the honor system in our high school. Our pupils, on the whole, are the best, most tractable, honorable, and faithful pupils I have ever seen. Our teachers have been young, enthusiastic college graduates, strongly in favor of the honor system. We have had practically the same teachers for several years. Our patrons are intelligent and conservative, and have given us their confidence and co-operation. Little by little we have given the pupils more and more liberty, removing one restriction after another, and studying carefully the effect of the same. Now, the result of our experiment may be summarized about as follows:

1. The honor system, in so far as it works, is a most excellent thing. 2. There are some matters in which it will work. 3. There are some matters wherein it will not work at all. 4. Some teachers can apply it much more successfully than others. 5. When to allow it to apply and when not to, is a delicate problem and requires for its solution much tact and ripe judgment.

Now, to take these conclusions up briefly in detail.

As to the honor system's being a good thing when it works, I will say that the usual comment from visiting school men is that we have more liberty and less license in our high school than most schools have. We do not harass our pupils with numerous petty regulations, and, as a result, they are not in a state of chronic if smothered rebellion. We trust them to do the right thing just as far as possible, and they usually do the right thing at the right time. Sometimes we have gone too far in this respect and have had to retrace our steps, but in the main our plan is to trust he pupils just as far as experience has shown that they can be trusted.

As to our second and third conclusions, allow me to cite some concrete examples, showing in what respects we have found that we

can or cannot trust our pupils. Among the rules in force when we went to Belton was the following, which I take from the printed regulations of the then current year: "Pupils are forbidden to throw rocks or other missiles at each other or otherwise, to run, scuffle, or loiter in the halls or around the buildings, or to make a boisterous noise in the school buildings." Now, I cannot imagine a boy without a concomitant projected missile. The two ideas are inseparable in my mind. And I find some difficulty in conjuring up a child outside the hospital, boy or girl, who does not run, scuffle, or make a boisterous noise occasionally. So we immediately repealed that statute, explaining to the pupils that they would be expected to do the right thing in the matter with their new liberty, and they have. A large number of window panes have been broken out by missiles, and in practically every case the pupil who did the damage has come up voluntarily and paid for it. Student sentiment is overwhelmingly against the pupil who would not do so. On the other hand, we have found that we cannot afford not to watch our pupils on examination. Our best, most trustworthy pupils say that while they are too proud to ask for help, still they would not hesitate to help a weaker pupil to pass if asked to do so. Manifestly, then, in the face of this sort of student sentiment, it would be a pedagogic crime to trust to the pupils' honor to prevent cheating. Now these are two examples of wherein the honor system will and will not work with us. I could multiply illustrations, but my time is limited, and I think these two are sufficient to exemplify my proposition.

As to our fourth and fifth conclusions, that some teachers can apply the system much more successfully than others, and that when and how far to apply the system demands rare skill and judgment, allow me to say that the success of any play of operation depends upon the good judgment and common sense of the one applying it. It seems to me that the crying need of the teacher's profession is common sense. We teachers do more fool things than any other people under the sun. I place common sense above scholarship in the list of essentials which make up a good teacher, because if one has it he will know that he cannot make a successful teacher without scholarship. Like Cato with his famous closing sentence, "Carthage must be destroyed," I feel tempted to close every talk I make to teachers on any subject, as I now close this paper, with this exhortation: Cultivate and use common sense.



The questions that we have to consider in this paper concern the amount and, to a certain extent, the kind of preparation the colleges have a right to ask of the high schools, and here we may say at once that, since but a feeble per cent of the graduates of high schools go to institutions of higher learning, it seems strange that we could not logically require any diffenentiation of the high school curriculum looking to college entrance. The reasons for this are twofold in the first place it is hard to see why a course of study which is a good preparation for the duties of life should not at the same time be a good preparation for the duties of the university; in the second place, it is not always possible for a young man or woman to determine during their high school preparation whether they will attend an institution for more advanced culture.

It is one of the best signs of the times when we are able to say that the day is going by when those who have to do with the education of our youths think it worth while to arrange courses for business men with stress on bookkeeping and commercial arithmetic. Business men soon saw-perhaps before some school men-that all such attempts to anticipate the practical training of a shop and . office were nugatory and gave little valuable training of any sort. While the fads of commercial education-the so-called useful knowledge theory-have been gradually relegated to the limbo of educational mistakes, the curriculum of high schools has profited by the inclusion of new and interesting subjects. This latter movement has, however, not brought with it an unmixed train af blessings. The introduction of these new subjects has brought new and in some cases as yet unsolved pedagogic problems. And it is a truism that needs no discussion here, that no discipline is worth while unless it is handled by teachers with an adequate preparation in that subject, and, in the case of an experienced science, unless costly apparatus and facilities for laboratory work are provided.

As matters now stand, the University makes a minimum requirement for entrance to the freshman class of three units in mathe

« PreviousContinue »