Students of pedagogics in a normal school or college are often immature; most of them have never had any experience in teaching, and the course is limited to from two to three years. The superintendent, on the other hand, has a body of teachers who are mature, many of whom have had wide experience in teaching, to which he can appeal; they can, in their daily work, apply and test the instruction they receive; and lastly, the course is limited only by his own ability on the one hand and by his tenure of office on the other. I know of no opportunity for teaching pedagogics successfully anywhere quite equal to that of the superintendent of schools.

Such a course should include a thorough discussion of educational psychology, of the general principles of pedagogics, of the application of these principles to the teaching of the various branches of the curricu lum, and a series of lectures on the most important chapters in the history of education.

In order that this work may be made a success, however, the teachers' meeting must be made the central interest for teachers and superintendent. It is here that the superintendent must do his most effective work. This meeting must take the place of the recitation in a normal school or college. It must be an occasion on which there is actual teaching of pedagogics done in the way of lectures and discussions. A superintendent can make no greater mistake in regard to the teachers' meeting than to convert it simply into an occasion for making criticisms on the minor details of the teachers' work, calling attention to the many little mistakes which he may have observed during the week, but had not the courage to criticise privately, and for giving directions as to the mechanical details of school work.

A mistake equally great sometimes made is, to devote the entire period of such a meeting to a discussion of the petty troubles and annoyances teachers have met with during the week or the month. If criticisms must be made and school-room annoyances discussed, the whole matter should be disposed of in ten or fifteen minutes, and the rest of the hour be devoted to legitimate pedagogical work.

The teachers' meeting ought to be looked forward to by the teachers as a source of real help, as an occasion for gaining new insight into their work, new inspiration for it and higher aspirations in it. At such a meeting a superintendent can give teachers more assistance in one hour than he could give them in two weeks by simply visiting their schools and giving individual help.

These meetings must not, however, be too few and far between. There ought to be a meeting of all the teachers in the smaller cities at least once a month; and, in addition, one grade meeting of the primary and grammar grades, respectively. I have found it wise to have them come more frequently-from five to eight or nine a month. There ought to be no difficulty in securing attendance even if they do come frequently. At all events, there should be no roll-call or compulsory attendance. I

should no more think of calling the roll at a teachers' meeting as a means of securing attendance, than I should think of calling the roll on Sabbath morning in church to secure the attendance of wayward members. When a minister's preaching is of such a character as to scatter his flock, thoughtful elders do not resort to a roll-call to bring them back, but they look about for another shepherd.

The meeting at which all the teachers are present should be devoted to lectures on educational psychology and on the general principles of teaching. These lectures should be of such a character as to present the subject, as far as possible, in an inductive way, leading the teachers to observe children and to acquire scientific habits of thought and scientific methods of investigation. Psychology and pedagogics should be taught, like botany and zoology, in a strictly scientific and inductive way. There is no more reason why they should be taught deductively in a dogmatic way than why physics or chemistry should be so taught. In pedagogics and psychology, as in natural science, it is only after the student has had a long, thorough course in experi mental, inductive work that he is able to verify dogmatic statements of principles by referring them to the facts from which they were deduced and to intelligently receive instruction by dogmatic, deductive methods. To teach either pedagogics or psychology from the beginning in a deductive way is to present it to the student as a tradition and not as a science, for neither can assume for him the character of a science until he sees its principles as inductions from facts and phenomena.

I am aware that this position is questioned by some thoughtful men, but I must confess to a very strong conviction of its truth, and I suspect it would not be difficult to defend it.

If these subjects are presented in an inductive way in the teachers' meeting, every teacher will look upon her school as a sort of pedagogical laboratory in which to experiment, gather facts, and verify generalizations. She will observe and study children as never before. She will probably report valuable observations at the teachers' meeting which will throw further light on the particular subject under discussion. She will form the habit of constantly looking beneath the surface of her work for principles, and will do nothing for which she can not give a good reason. She has learned how to do independent study in pedagogics, and now has within her the means of unlimited professional growth. I am far from maintaining that a superintendent can raise the dead, but I feel confident that it is possible for him to infuse new life into the living, and to train the majority of teachers in any except our most backward cities to do independent thinking in pedagogics. To assume that this is impossible is to give up pessimistically that hope which, the proverb says, even those retain who have given up everything else.

The general teachers' meeting gives the superintendent a very good

opportunity to impress upon teachers the interdependence and the unity of the work of all the grades, to lead them to see the relation of the work in each grade to that of all the other grades. Teachers are very much disposed to assume that the human soul, somehow or other, is stratified to suit the grades of public schools, and that one layer is assigned to the first grade, another to the second, etc., and that all that the teacher needs to concern herself about is to study the particular layer assigned to her particular grade.

In the general teachers' meeting, where teachers of all the grades are present, this error can easily be corrected. Teachers can be led to see that in order to do intelligently the work of any one grade they must know what has preceded and what will follow the work of that grade. I have always found the general teachers' meeting my best opportunity for interesting the teachers of each grade in the work of all other grades. This is especially true of high school teachers and the teachers of the higher grammar grades, who, whilst they are quite willing to admit that primary work comes first in point of time, are generally disposed to consider it last and least in point of importance. It is a good plan to discuss the principles of teaching applicable to all grades in this general meeting; otherwise, teachers will fail to see the unity of the work of all the grades, and will be interested in taking the classes over the ground assigned to their particular grade rather than in developing their minds and character.

At the grade meetings, the instruction ought to consist of a thorough discussion in detail of the work in each of the branches in the course assigned to the particular grade. The instruction in educational psychology and in general pedagogics, given at the general teachers' meeting, must be made the basis of the instruction at the grade meetings. Out of these general principles must now grow the principles of grading the work in each study for each grade, and the methods and devices to be used in teaching. Each branch of the curriculum should be taken up in succession, analyzed, the natural order of its development determined, the various steps to be taken marked out, and devices be suggested. Whilst it is quite true that teachers should invent their own devices as far as possible, it is also true that sometimes the very best assistance the superintendent can give a teacher is to suggest some happy device for developing a particular point in her work. The demand on the part of teachers for such help is evidenced by the many articles in our educational papers giving devices instead of discussing principles. Some earnest men see in this a degeneracy of educational journalism, but I confess I fail to see the matter in this light. Teachers must know principles, and educational papers must discuss them; but I suspect that a more careful study of the teachers' needs and the order of their professional growth would reveal the fact that it is easier and more natural, for the majority of young teachers at least, to pass from and through devices to the principles which they illustrate and

which underlie them, than to pass from the principles to the devices. A device is simply the application of a principle, and pedagogical principles, like principles in other sciences, are more readily seen in their application to specific cases than in their bare, abstract form. After a teacher has been trained to look for and discover a principle underly. ing every device she employs, there is absolutely no danger in suggesting devices to her. The only circumstances under which it would be hazardous for the superintendent to attempt to suggest devices is when he does not happen to know any to suggest. Then is the time for him to take the ground, and take it boldly, that teachers must know enough to invent their own devices, and must not look to him for help with respect to such trifles; that his sphere is to be an educator, theirs to be teachers. In this way he will maintain the dignity of the craft, and may win for himself the reputation of being too profound as a philosophic thinker to trouble himself with superficial details.

What attention should be given to the study of the history of educa tion in the teachers' meeting?

It is foreign to the purpose of this paper to discuss the importance of the study of the history of education, or the methods to be employed in teaching pedagogics; but it may be remarked that the teacher in the public schools ought to spend little time in reading the history of what was done to educate people in Greece, Rome, and over Europe in the Middle Ages, as long as she is quite unfamiliar with what is done to-day in the best schools of America and of Europe. Before a teacher has mastered to a fair degree the best educational thought, and has made herself familiar with the best educational practice of the day, I believe it is a source of confusion rather than of help to attempt to study the conflicting educational theories and systems of the remote past.

Indeed, it is possible for a person of good academic training to make himself quite thoroughly familiar with the history of education, talk and write quite intelligently about the various theories of education held by the philosophers of ancient Greece, about the schools of Charlemagne, the rise of the European universities, and the various attempts at popular education of still later times, without being able himself to apply consistently a single educational principle to the actual work of the school. The history of education is the one department of pedagogy on which a person can "cram," if you will pardon the use of the term, and it is by far the easiest department to master. It appears to me that it ought to come last in a course of instruction. I cannot help but look with much suspicion on the theory held by some thoughtful men that the study of pedagogics to-day ought to consist chiefly, if not wholly, of a mere interpretation of the masters of thought in past ages; that the history of education presents all the pedagogical knowledge there is and can be. It seems to me such a theory, whilst it shows a great deal of commendable reverence for the past, presents little hope for the future; and is in great danger of converting the science of pedagogy into a mere tradition of the

pedagogue, to be sacredly guarded and handed down from generation to generation in its pristine purity.

I believe, in short, that the superintendent should first train his teachers to think clearly on the pedagogical questions which confront them in their school work; that he should first give them thorough instruction in the methods of teaching the various branches and in the principles underlying them, and that he should above all train them to observe the child, interpret their observations, and make their own inductions, before he give them to any great extent instruction in the history of education.

Next to the teaching of pedagogics in the teachers' meeting comes, it would seem, the teaching of the details of methods, the application of principles to special cases in the school-room. This the superintendent can do only by visiting the school and giving the teacher individual, private help. His work as an inspector of schools ought not to be looked upon by the teacher as a species of detective work, but his visits ought to be welcomed as those of a friend who comes to help and not to find fault. His criticisms, if made with the proper motive and in the right manner, will be kindly received by the earnest teacher.

The superintendent ought, at all times, to be willing and ready to take charge of the class and illustrate the point on which he finds it necessary to criticise the teacher. A person of any tact at all can do this without having the pupils know that the teacher has been criticised. If we, superintendents, should make it a rule to criticise no teacher sharply for a mistake which we ourselves could not avoid making, were we in her place, teachers would have little occasion to deplore in us the "rarity of Christian charity."

How should the superintendent deal with poor, inefficient teachersteachers who are pedagogically past redemption? "The poor ye have with you always;" you may as well thoughtfully make provision for them. A superintendent's attitude towards inefficient teachers, and through them towards the local politicians behind them, often determines his degree of usefulness and sometimes even his tenure of office. The purpose of the superintendent must be to secure the best work that can be secured, both from the efficient and the inefficient, from the quick and the dead. How can he do so with the least amount of friction and antagonism?

In the first place, it seems to me that it is a serious mistake to criticise poor teachers severely when it is morally certain that they cannot or will not improve. Such criticisms only serve to create the impression that the superintendent is prejudiced against them, and if they are finally dismissed, the matter will arouse unnecessary feeling and antagonism. It is not wise to discuss a surgical operation with a patient before you perform it. It only increases the suffering.

If a superintendent commands their respect, the best way to criticise inefficient teachers is to say nothing about them and their work,