Not one of the replies received answers the first part of the question in the affirmative. On the contrary, all express the opinion more or less distinctly and emphatically that the present status of German normalschool training is insufficient. Only in one reply is an extension of the course considered inadvisable, owing to the fact that the students are already overburdened with matter and method. The fact mentioned may be true, yet it must be considered whether a different preparation for the normal school and a more practical organization of the teachers' entire training may not remove the difficulty.

Although the question had reference to the professional training alone, several replies include the general culture. In one of them it is emphasized that the greatest weakness of the students is found in the lack of the thorough general culture. It is said, "Here the lever should be applied. Only with better prepared students can higher demands be made in professional training." Thus again we see that the question of preliminary work is the keynote of the whole subject. How insufficient is the present preparation for normal schools is exemplified in some of the replies. One author says:

It is ridiculous to expect of young people to solve difficult psychological and pedagogical problems when they still wrestle with grammatical and rhetorical rules.

With regard to the strictly pedagogical professional training the necessity of reading educational sources, as well as an extension of the instruction in sciences supplementary to pedagogy, such as psychology and ethics, are recommended. This latter instruction should, it is said, be so conducted that pedagogical theories are derived from it. In the practice school instruction should be given in such a manner that the students become convinced of the fact that teaching is an art. Several replies object to the dogmatic manner in which professional instruction is offered.

Where the system of pedagogy does not grow out of the practice in school, where the practice teacher is not the most experienced, but the youngest of the faculty, one may, during the lessons in pedagogical theory, speak with the tongue of an angelthe students will after all not profit much by them, but acquire futile examination knowledge.

The seventh question proposed was:

Are the requirements for the preparation of normal-school professors generally considered sufficient?

In one reply the author declines to give a definite answer, owing to the difference of the conditions in the various countries. Four authors reply in the affirmative, twelve in the negative. Says one of the latter:

These requirements may be regarded sufficient as far as the general education offered by professors is considered; but quite insufficient with respect to pedagogical qualifications. This is particularly true of the principals of the normal schools, who are quite frequently insufficiently prepared for their positions. Until better men are put at the head of those institutions, progress in the training of teachers can not be expected.

In the second reply we read:

This is the weakest point and reform is most needed here. The present practice, according to which shipwrecked candidates for higher schools are considered good enough for the normal schools, and ambitious theologians are placed at the head of normal schools, assisted by young men just graduated, must be considered a grave error which may be explained by the want of financial means, but can never be excused. Whether the principal or teachers in the normal schools have received their preparation in the theological or philosophical faculty of a university, or only in the normal school, is immaterial; but it is not immaterial by any means whether they are highly cultivated and experienced educators, or whether they first intend to gain their experience in the normal school, according to the popular saying: To him whom God gives an office, He also gives the requisite understanding.

In another reply the author demands that all normal-school teachers should possess a university education.

The normal-school teacher should, with regard to scientific knowledge, stand on the same level with the teachers of secondary schools who must have received an academic education. Not only the work they are to perform requires that, but also the position, reputation, and importance of the institutions in which they work; in various ways this will reflect upon those who are to gain their professional education thero. This is the cardinal point of all reforms in the training of teachers. Care should be taken to enable those who have made their way through normal schools to enter such positions by special preparation and study.

In another reply university education is required only for the principal and a portion of the faculty.

Most of the authors who advocate reform in this point think it advis able that all normal-school teachers should attend, for several years, a pedagogical university seminary. In order to make this possible "the conviction that pedagogy is a science, and that it is necessary to represent it properly in the faculty of the university, must first be awakened in Prussian universities." "This demand," writes another, "will be unattainable so long as the present indifference for real national education continues. This indifference is found where the commonschool teacher is considered the servant of the pastor, and where a professor in the gymnasium is considered a shipwrecked university professor."

The last question proposed was:

Are you of the opinion that the education gained in a German normal school, if supplemented by continued private study and acknowledged practical results in school, is sufficient and will enable a teacher to fulfill the duties of supervisor, either as principal of a building or superintendent of a system of schools? Do you consider it necessary to establish special institutions for the preparation of such officers? In most of the replies received the necessity of special institutions of this kind is denied; of course, provided that the training of teachers should be reformed in the light of the advice stated in the foregoing replies. One author says:

Our present system of training teachers for the common school is entirely insufficient for the purpose of preparing supervising officers.

In most of the replies a special examination for principals and superintendents is urged, "so that all arbitrary promotions be made impos

sible." With reference to the examining board for this purpose, it is recommended to appoint only educators of acknowledged high culture, who are not suffering from the prevailing disease of the age, i. e., are not specialists of some kind, so that the entire education of the candidate may be judged fairly.

A few writers oppose this measure and recommend the custom in vogue in Saxony, which is, that candidates for supervisory offices are required to attend the university after they have graduated from the normal school. In one reply a similar custom in vogue in the canton of Berne is pointed out. Here graduates of normal schools have the right to attend the lectures of cert in professors of the philosophical faculty of the university called the Lehramts-schule (university seminary). This gives the candidates a claim upon positions in secondary schools, and it is from among these teachers that most of the school inspectors and normal-school teachers are selected.

These opinions, rendered as they are by he foremost normal school educators of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, have made a profound sensation among teachers and government authorities. The educational press has reproduced them and commented upon them; even the political press in Germany has considered them the most authoritative and important contribution to the question of teachers' training of late years, and expressed the hope that the provincial as well as the central Government will base future reforms on the advice of these gentlemen. The further fact that this symposium was called for and published by the National Union of Teachers, a union that has nearly 60,000 members, is most significant, and proves that the teachers themselves are not satisfied with the professional education the state offers them. From the historical review on previous pages, it has been seen that it was always the teachers themselves in central Europe who recognized the prevailing inadequacy, and urged reforms. The Government has not always been willing to acknowledge the force of the teachers' criticism, but in the course of time it has always acknowledged its justice.

VII. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.

During the months of January and February, 1893, the writer of this report was detailed to inspect German normal schools, and to gather material that would be useful in giving an accurate picture of the present status of professional training of teachers in central Europe. To the foregoing historical review and statement of the statistics and present condition of the normal schools in central Europe, therefore, are added here some personal observations made during several visits of inspection in teachers' preparatory and normal schools. The nature of this report requires that these observations be general, leaving personalities and localities out of consideration.

Buildings. In comparison with State normal school buildings in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States, the German normal

school buildings are very inferior. It has a depressing effect to see the most vital rules of hygiene set at naught in these schools, from which are to come the teachers of the present and future generations. It is the common experience that a teacher will teach "as he is taught," that he will conduct a school as he has seen it done. Hence it is to be supposed that the graduates of normal schools in poorly ventilated and wretchedly arranged buildings will have no very exalted idea of how a school building should be built, or how it should be kept to comply with hygienic rules. Circumstances, such as poverty of, the state, existing local conditions, old buildings which must be utilized, may explain, but can never excuse the present insufficient provision for a system of schools of equal importance with the proud system of universities in central Europe.

Even new normal school buildings in Prussia do not come up to the standard of American school architecture, having flat, expressionless fronts, unbroken rows of windows, and a box-like shape. They betoken a want of provision for æsthetic culture, serious if one considers the consequences of such a want. The students of such schools can not obtain ideals of æsthetic culture, if trained in surroundings that seem to poorly fit the purpose they are designed for.

This observation regarding style and poor arrangement of buildings is not meant to include a few buildings erected later in large cities, but refers to most of those inspected by the writer. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that the lack of cleanliness frequently found, the exces sively foul air, the crowded condition and general want of comfort and beauty noticed in German elementary schools, are chiefly owing to the lack of high ideals in school architecture and æsthetic education on the part of the teachers and inspectors, who would exert their influence toward an improvement in this matter if they had been differently trained.

A visit to a preparatory school.-The State of Prussia maintains a number of preparatory institutions in which the candidates for admission to the normal schools are specially prepared. Many other schools for the same purpose are private, especially in the western provinces. Since the candidates for normal schools rarely come from secondary schools (see Hist. Review, p. 149) special preparatory institutions seem a necessity. The writer inspected two of them, one very closely. Here he noticed a fact well known, but rarely heeded by school authorities, namely, that the most logical arrangement of matter of instruction, the most carefully devised courses of study, the most skillfully prepared appliances for teaching, the most devoted attention to study and love of knowledge on the part of students, are as nothing compared with the skill of the teacher who knows how to prepare the matter and also to prepare the mind for receiving it. A simile may illustrate this. The prevalence of indigestion in the United States is not owing to the want of good meat and vegetables, for they are as

good, if not better here than in other countries, but to bad preparation of our food in many kitchens over which ignorant cooks preside, and also to the unduly hurried mode of eating prevalent all over the country. Just so with the teacher in school. If he work like the proverbial cheap restaurant cook, the best course of study (bill of fare), the finest appliances (condiments and spices), the greatest attention (hunger), will not make the knowledge offered (sole-leather beefsteak) palatable or digestive.

The school visited offered striking examples of good and bad teaching. The instructors were selected from among the best teachers of the city, men who are specially well qualified in certain branches of study. Several lessons were offered, most of which were excellent examples of pedagogic art and skill; but two were marred by errors such as will seriously endanger the future usefulness of the students in the profession of teaching, unless they see themselves the glaring contrast between good and bad teaching and profit by it.

The boys (80 in number) sang three and four part music remarkably well and proved that they possessed commendable theoretical knowledge of music.

Then followed a lesson in mental arithmetic, which would have been a revelation to many teachers who can not conceive the idea that arithmetical problems with numbers of more than two places can be solved mentally. The students in this school had such a familiarity with the structure and value of the numbers they worked with that they could apply them in innumerable ways, analyzing them for the purpose of dividing and multiplying. Each problem was pronounced by the teacher and repeated verbally by the pupil slowly and deliberately. When he had finished this repetition he was usually ready to announce the result. At times an analysis was called for, and then it was seen what a splendid command of the language the students had, for each of the explanations was an almost faultless oral composition. The teacher explained that he still followed the Pestalozzian rules: (1) "Offer objects at first for the purpose of conceiving the numbers in the concrete, and illustrating all numerical operations." (2) "Create a profound and clear idea of the structure and value of each number, and train the student in swift and correct mathematical application." (3) "Rely not on mechanical work, such as memorizing of rules and working problems by means of them, but insist upon a procedure, the first and main object of which is to train the mind to find and make rules itself." (4) "Arrange your course so as to afford a procedure from the easy to the more difficult, or a step by step arrangement which will not leave gaps." This continuity of instruction was Pestalozzi's chief excellence in teaching arithmetic.

Another lesson given was in history. The teacher demonstrated the irrationality of teaching history backward, by beginning with the present ruler of Prussia and going into the past. Since this afforded