In not a few instances a series of chance occurrences have estranged the people from the school. The institute gives the opportunity of impressing the fact that the schoolhouse is the help-mate of the home. The teacher is there to work in harmony with the community, not to insist. that the community must adjust itself to his notions of propriety and right. IV. Each state is the judge of the work its institutes should undertake. This finds expression in the laws of the various states and in the regulations of many of our cities. In those states in which an interchange of opinions and the discussion of principles of teaching is all that is required, short sessions are the rule. Where instruction in methods is required, a longer term is provided for. When instruction in the academical branches is required, a still longer term is provided for. Twenty-six states recognize teachers' institutes, and provide for their maintenance. Those in which institutes remain in session one week or less, are, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, California, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,— seventeen. Those in which institutes remain in session more than one week are, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Wisconsin,-nine. In sixteen states the institutes are controlled by the state superintendent, in the others by county superintendent. But three states recognize the faculties of the state normals in their scheme of institute work. These are, California, Maryland, and Wisconsin. A study of the practical working of these institutes reveals. the fact that the laws governing them in most states are very crude. A study of the work outlined in some states demonstrates that those administering the institutes have not improved on the laws. A "cast iron" course of study means one of two things,- either the authority that prepares the course of study fails to appreciate the various wants of different communities, or those who give instruction in the institutes are poorly prepared for the work they have undertaken. It necessarily reflects upon somebody. But enough of criticism; the teacher can but keep pace with the progress of civilization; he can hurry it little, if any. In this land of free schools we still measure the intelligence of our people by enumerating the number who can read and write. The teachers are doing much; the institute is one of their modes of progress, and it should receive the profound study of the best thinkers among us. If I have contributed a mite to a better understanding of its functions and importance, I am content. DISCUSSION. L. D. Carr of Dakota, said, "Our law provides for a township institute, which convenes one Saturday of each month. Every teacher is required to attend each meeting or lose one day's wages. By combining with this, the work of the Teachers' Association and Reading Circle, I find it a very great assistance in creating a sentiment in favor of institute. work and more thorough training. We outline specific work and follow it as closely as possible. My teachers manifest great interest in the work. I have known of ladies walking six miles to a township institute." DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER INSTRUCTION. WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, July 14, 1886. The Department of Higher Instruction of the National Educational Association met in the Senate Chamber of the State Capitol Building, at 2.30 P. M. The President of the Department, Dr. Jerome Allen of New York, in the chair. On motion a committee on nomination of officers for the next year was appointed. The President named Dr. I. W. Andrews of Marietta College, and Prof. S. J. Buck of Iowa College, Iowa, as the committee. E. J. James of Pennsylvania, the Secretary, being absent, H. H. Freer of Cornell College, Iowa, on the nomination of the committee, was requested to act as Secretary. The President then read his address. Prof. N. P. Jordan of the University of Minnesota, was then introduced and read his paper "Classics in High Schools." This was followed by the paper of Dr. W. A. Mowry, "The College Curriculum." A discussion of the papers followed. Remarks were made by J. B. Merwin of St. Louis, President Julius D. Dreher of Roanoke College, Va., Prof. Boltwood of Evanston, Ill., High School, Prof. Rix of Cincinnati, Ohio, Dr. W. A. Stille of St. Louis, Prof. L. Wiener of Kansas City, Dr. George A. Bacon, of Syracuse, N. Y., Dr. George P. Brown of Chicago, Prof. T. H. McBride of Iowa State University, and others. The time for the next session of the Department was fixed at 2.30 P.M., Friday, July 16, and the Chair announced that the discussion would be continued by President Dreher of Roanoke College, who had made special preparation upon the subject. The nominating committee, through the chairman, Dr. I. W. Andrews, made the following report, which was adopted. President Dr. W. A. Mowry, of Boston. Vice President — Dr. Peter McVicar, President Washburn College, Kansas. Member of Executive Committee · Chancellor I. J. Manatt, of Nebraska University. Secretary-Prof. H. H. Freer, of Cornell College, Iowa. Adjournment followed report of the Committee. |
