Extending and Improving Visiting Teacher ROVERBIALLY the gap between accepted theory and practice, what we know or agree is efficient and what we actually do about it is wide in many phases of our education programs. Such is undoubtedly the situation in the area with which visiting teacher work is concerned. The principle that school programs should provide the best 30ssible conditions for the complete development of all children, and the onviction that visiting teachers have an important role in assisting in its chievement are now widely accepted. Responsibilities growing out of he principle, however, are not as widely assumed by school systems as Dow organized. In general it is true that conditions over which the schools have little or no control have not only retarded development in new areas, but have curtailed progress in established ones; supervision, music, art are examples. Before the ill effects of the depression on financing school programs were adequately overcome, defense needs, and then the war itself, prevented fulfillment of many plans under way and discouraged new developments generally. The necessity for protecting important phases of the established program has retarded progress in providing for visiting teacher and other phases of pupil personnel services. Comments of school officials replying to the questionnaire form on which chapter III is based, while not appearing in this bulletin, are evidence of the fact that lack of more liberal school support and of adequate understanding of children's needs on the part of parents and patrons are serious obstacles to the extension of visiting teacher programs at this time. Despite these conditions, present interest in postwar planning, wider knowledge of the effects of neglect of emotional and health problems disclosed through experiences with Selective Service, and recent educational movements resulting from research in child welfare should be favorable influences in securing the extension of school services now in the planning stage, to include this and other neglected areas. In efforts to accomplish this end and to improve programs generally the situation disclosed in the cities canvassed offers some suggestions. Extension and expansion of services.-The most striking need disclosed by the canvass of cities is that for extension of visiting teacher services into a larger number of school systems. As data already quoted show, only 266 of 748 systems from which replies to the questionnaire form were received maintain organized visiting teacher services. If State and county school superintendents, as well as those of city systems had been canvassed, some additional services would no doubt have bee found, though they are all too few in such systems. However, t returns from the city systems alone offer sufficient evidence of the net for extension of services in this field. Again, if it had been feasible extend this study to include size of visiting teacher staff in relation need, measured by school population, visiting teacher load, or oth agreed-upon criterion, there is evidence that in that realm, too, the ne for expansion of the present staffs would be apparent. Observation as well as comments of visiting teachers in the cities cently visited by a member of the U. S. Office of Education staff an of others from whom letters have been received in connection with co lection of the information in this bulletin, indicate that understaf is almost universal. Some probable causes of this situation are indicate above; other possible ones will be discussed later. There is little evidenc that lack of success of the work, once it is established, is among them Dr. W. Carson Ryan, after a wide survey of conditions throughout th country, one of the few such surveys available, assured us that "fe educational innovations have as clear a record of adoption on their merit as the work of the visiting teacher."1 Desirable uniformity in standards.-A second definite need of visitin teacher services, and one on which efficiency as well as extension depend to a considerable degree, is the establishment of reasonable uniformity in titles and functions assigned to visiting teachers, of standards in prefessional qualifications in both education and social work, and of standardized State and local certificates for visiting teachers designated as such and issued by regularly constituted certificating authorities. Ther is little evidence of uniformity in standards and practices concerned with these areas in the school systems reporting on visiting teacher staffs and services. Variety rather than desirable uniformity is characteristic. While this statement applies more to titles, qualifications, and certification tha to functions expected of and assigned to visiting teachers, there is still considerable confusion in respect even to them as indicated in the pre ceding chapter. In the few States in which provision for visiting teacher services ha recently become a State policy, similar variations are apparent. The new legislation, in providing State aid to school districts for the employmen of visiting teachers in Michigan, was motivated by the desire to reduc delinquency. Accordingly the chief function of visiting teachers so employed may be expected to be concerned with serious behavior problems In Louisiana, provision for visiting teachers on a State-wide basis was inspired chiefly by the need for improving attendance at school. That 1Mental Health Through Education, New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 1938. tive will probably govern the functions of visiting teachers at least to me extent and for some time. In Alabama, State-supervised services rresponding to those usually assumed by visiting teachers are available high percentage of the counties in the State (42 of 67) and in pracally all cities. The staff members assuming the functions are known attendance supervisors. Lack of reasonable uniformity in standards and practices has many rawbacks from a professional standpoint. It means difficulty in collecting nd using information, especially for comparative purposes, including ecking and evaluating progress whether within a system or among stems. It retards progress in upgrading qualification standards for achers and directors or supervisors, in provision for proper certification gulations, and in securing appropriate salary scales. Moreover, reasonle standardization can be expected to lead to better understanding of e objectives of visiting teacher services on the part of school patrons nd consequent wider acceptance of such services as an essential and tegral phase of school programs. Increased professional contacts and xchange of experiences among school systems would be facilitated by Jesirable uniformity in practices with all the advantages that accrue from such relationships and, finally, and of special importance, effective research and experimentation in this area might well be stimulated by it. Lest the discussion be interpreted to imply overstandardization and innecessary uniformity, it may be appropriate to consider the type of standardization which is considered desirable. A good example of standardization in principle without uniformity in practice may be cited in the issue of teaching certificates, the number and types of which as well as the qualifications on which each type is based vary widely among States, even among school systems within States. But there are widely accepted minimum standards for each major type, elementary, secondary, supervisory, administrative, for example, to which practically all certificating authorities, State or city, conform. With a basic minimum to work from there is ample opportunity among States and local systems to maintain high standards, provide for necessary adaptations to local needs and still preserve considerable unity in practice among school systems. Titles and their association.-Titles are important because they are widely understood as designating individuals who have personal, and professional qualifications which fit them to perform well-known functions, as in special areas of education, which contribute to a desirable program in some essential field of work. Consider, for example, the several titles designating teachers, as, highschool teacher, elementary teacher, or supervisor or school administrator, each has a definite connotation of at least country-wide significance and understanding. But not so with the title "visiting teacher." Not alone. are many titles used to designate the individuals assuming visiting tead responsibilities-at least 50 were reported from the cities responding the questionnaire, but many are so specifically associated with ot fields of school work such as school nursing, home teaching, to cite two examples, as to occasion considerable confusion in interpreting inf mation in regard to what functions really are under way in the respect school systems. School administrators as well as visiting teachers real the unsatisfactoriness of the situation. A State superintendent of edu tion, in a State in which both counties and cities employ individuals function as visiting teachers but carry the title of "attendance supervisor comments on the situation after noting the number of different titles common use, as follows: In an interpretation and solution of problems from these areas there is a fessional job of high character.... It seems to me it would be well for edu tional leadership to reach a more uniformly understandable terminology the service. An appropriate name or title for workers in the visiting teacher an of school work has long been a subject of concern to those interested it. As early as 1921 a study3 made in the U. S. Bureau of Educati (now U. S. Office of Education), attempting to find the number visiting teachers employed at that time, reported the impossibility of doin so because of the varied titles used and the overlapping of duties visiting teachers with those of other officials, attendance officers, voca tional assistants or consultants, and teachers of special classes, particu larly. Titles reported at that time include home teacher, visiting teacher social worker, home and school visitor, room teacher, perambulant teacher home visitor, even extension teacher. Replies to the questionnaire from the cities canvassed indicate tha the title used in 122 of the 266 cities is "visiting teacher," implying its rather wide acceptance in school systems, at least as compared to any other title reported. Only 8 of the 266 cities report the use of "school social worker" though the national association, in an effort to discover a more acceptable title, recently changed its name to American Association of School Social Workers and many of its officers and members are encouraging the use of the title "school social worker." It seems understandable that school superintendents generally, as well as those replying to the questionnaire, might prefer a title that implied a school relationship rather than a relationship to a nonschool agency. This consideration might well be of importance to a superintendent or an interested member of a school board seeking approval for the establishment or enlargement of 2See Appendix, table II. The Visiting Teacher, by Sophia C. Gleim. (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1921, No. 10.) ing teacher services from patrons or school board committees. A cher," by whatever adjective modified, has a recognized place in a ol program and the contribution her services make or are expected nake to the attainment of the school's objectives probably needs less lanation than that of a person called a social worker. The school erintendent may himself understand the significance of school social and the place of a trained social worker in the school system, but boards and patrons often do not. The disadvantages of the title iting teacher," because of its confusion with "home teacher," "home tor," and others, 'should and probably would be overcome when and wider extension of the work as a school function is achieved. In meantime, now that considerable attention has been drawn to the sent confusion, a satisfactory solution should be possible in the near ure. Certification and professional qualifications.-Professional employees public-school systems, in some States those in custodial service also, required to be legally certificated by school authorities. While certation is, with few exceptions, Massachusetts, e.g., largely a State sponsibility, many of the large cities certificate applicants for positions their systems, generally in order to set up higher or more specialized andards in certain fields than those established by the State. In practheir requirements are usually in addition to the State minimum, often the State maximum requirements. As indicated in chapter III, 182 of the cities canvassed reported that tificates are required of visiting teachers, usually State teaching cerdicates; only 40 reported that "special" or "visiting teacher" certificates were held or required. This situation is probably accounted for at least in art by the lack of standardization in qualifications and functions referred above, though some of it can be charged to the existing teacher shortge. It may be influenced somewhat by the fact that nonschool agencies ometimes make visiting teacher service available to schools; that school urses, attendance officials, and others employed by the schools primarily rained for other fields often assume the functions of visiting teachers. Whether these practices are followed because of emergency situations. lack of adequate funds, or lack of understanding of the importance of professional specialization as prerequisite for visiting teacher service is not clear. No doubt each exerts an influence. Experience as well as an examination of the reports from the cities. canvassed concerning certification and qualifications of visiting teachers leaves little doubt that the establishment of certification requirements policies similar in principle to those followed in issuing certificates in the teaching, supervising, and administrative fields would have a stimulating and clarifying effect on visiting teacher programs. Another based on |