that purpose—as is generally the case in Germany-there is both intelligence and professional training. Ask any teacher of the elementary or secondary schools there the reason for any particular method or practice and you will find him ready with an answer, given in a way which leaves no doubt as to his sincerity, even though he does not convince you of the wisdom of his course.

Thus there are in Germany at the present time certain fixed and systematic regulations, largely planned by teachers, requiring positive ends to be reached and yet permitting large freedom to teachers in interpreting as well as in reaching those ends. From these conditions one sees that the schools of Germany are both conservative and progressive: conservative in having an organization planned by the accumulated wisdom of a dozen generations of earnest men, and progressive in having a body of teachers well educated, and possessed of great freedom and independence of action. As a consequence, the schools are well fitted to carry out the purpose of their maintenance; and as they are the result of growth and wise experience, they constitute a worthy object of study for other nations. Can America learn anything from them? I believe she can, in spite of the half expressed fears, occasionally heard, lest American schools shall become Germanized. So long as there is anything in common in the natures and purposes of the two peoples, so long may they learn from each other lessons of importance in matters of education. And I believe at present we can learn more from them than they from us. What are some of those lessons?

I have alluded to two features of organization which we may well borrow from Germany: (1) better qualifications for teachers, (2) a stronger tenure of the teachers' office. To these may be added a third, viz., a more orderly and thorough system of supervision of the schools-a supervision which will help to encourage and support the best work of the teacher and head off the mischief which is now frequently made by ambitious and ignorant members of school boards.

In courses of study, also, we may adopt some features of

German courses which differ materially from ours.

Nature

or elementary science lessons should have as prominent a place in our programmes, and should be as systematically planned, as arithmetic or geography. The work in arithmetic should be lessened in amount and rearranged to suit the needs and capacities of the pupils. Time should be provided for physical training, which should have as scientific a basis as intellectual training has. More time should be given in our high schools to a single science than is now generally given, and the courses and classification should be so arranged that pupils can, if they wish, begin the study of languages earlier than they do by two or three years.

In matters of helps, there should be provided by the State all needed text-books and apparatus, and there should be, in convenient places, museums containing all kinds of apparatus, text-books, and reference books. It is to our shame that we have not long ago established in this country institutions of these kinds. In methods of teaching, also, we find Germany a profitable field for observation. The limits of a magazine article will not permit me to go into details on this point: but the mere mention of the following characteristics of the German schools will suggest to us ways of improvement.

First. The general practice of leading the children to think for themselves, especially by the use of objects and pictures. Secondly. A careful preparation of each day's work by the teacher-both in planning how to present the various subjects and in storing the mind with much information about them. Thirdly. A vigorous watchful interest by the teacher in the subjects presented and in the pupils taught. I would not have our teachers adopt the same vigorous means of securing exactness as are sometimes employed by German teachers, but I wish they could have some of their enthusiasm in the schoolroom.

It is difficult to point out any one subject of study in which. our weakness in these three particulars is most noticeable. Yet I venture to speak of geography, in which I believe our pupils should acquire more real knowledge by observation and

by thinking than they generally do, even though it be at the expense of some general information.

In visiting the schools of all grades in Germany, one comes to learn that the knowledge acquired is more intensive than extensive. In the subject just mentioned, an incident comes to mind which illustrates this point. I was visiting a sixth or seventh grade in the famous Francke Institution at Halle, and was introduced to the children and given permission to examine them. They had just been reciting in geography, and now I thought was my opportunity. I had heard them, as I had heard other classes, wisely tell of the various soils, altitudes, and slopes of Germany, the causes of land and water formations, and the reason of certain climatic conditions, all in their own country. Now I thought I would test their knowledge, or rather their general information, about America. One half of the class I found knew something of New York. About an equal number had something to say of the great size of Chicago. But not one of all the forty or more boys of that class had even heard of Boston. A Bostonian would not soon forget such ignorance. Again, I remember the reply of a gymnasium boy to my question what he knew of Washington: "He, with Blücher, defeated Napoleon," he said. Washington and Wellington were all the same to him so long as the hated Napoleon was defeated.

In one

But an American in Germany, if he wishes to keep a true judicial spirit, must forget that he is an American, so often is he reminded that his country has no history. I remember one teacher in a girl's normal school who gave all the history of America that was to be given, in two lectures. of the lectures he made no less than three misstatements; but they helped to serve his purpose of not unduly exalting a country which has already too many charms for German subjects.

In what I have said of the German schools I have felt called upon to emphasize their good features only. With such elements of strength, we should expect to find some elements of weakness. These faults have their origin in the ends or pur

poses of a people who are intellectually strong, and whose political safety lies in keeping up a military spirit.

Few text-books are used in the elementary schools,-fewer, I believe, than is good for the pupils,-first, because a knowledge of the use of books and a good habit of using them are most valuable to people of any walk in life; and secondly, because a proper use of them prevents too great dependence upon the teacher. The habit of talking in the recitation clings to teachers of all grades and kinds to such extent as to preclude opportunities for quiet and independent thinking. So far at least our best teachers are in advance of the Germans. Again, so far as I could learn, the cultivation of the will is sadly neglected in the schools of Germany; self-control is lost sight of in discipline, and obedience is exacted by the severest means. In this particular, at least, their teachers may learn wisdom from us. And perhaps they will be willing to do so when the menacing armies upon either side of their country are disbanded.

One word, in closing, upon our own prospects for the future. I have said that our schools were poor in comparison with the schools of Germany. And yet I believe I am not inconsistent in saying that the best we have is better for us than the best that exist in Germany. The trouble is, our very good schools are far too few. Instead of finding them everywhere as we do in Germany, in the country as well as in the city, and in all parts of each, we are obliged in this country to make a hunt for them, even in the most favored places. When they shall be found not the exception but the rule,-not depending upon exceptional conditions but the outgrowth of a wisely planned organization, then we may not have to sit at the feet of Germany as learners, but can bid the teachers of that country come to us, and learn how to train boys and girls into intelligent, self-respecting, self-ruling, and God-fearing men and women. Let us work on with the hope that that time is coming!

JOHN T. PRINCE.

AGENT OF THe State Board of EDUCATION,
NEWTONVILLE, Mass.

IV.

EDUCATION IN THE ELEVENTH CENSUS

YEAR, I.

INDICATIONS FROM SCHOOL REPORTS.

The publications of the Eleventh Census show that its inquiries regarding education were along two distinct lines. First, the enumerators gathered from the people the number, age, sex, race, maternal nativity, and time occupied in school, of teachers and pupils; like particulars regarding illiterates, as far as applicable, with their occupations. The results are not ready for publication. Second, school officials were called upon for statements from their point of view. Customary reports were utilized as far as possible, and the general results are already published, subject to revision and closer classification.

For a century the Census has been a temporary bureau, suddenly organized and presently disbanded. Such a bureau can have but a moderate influence upon the forms of annual record on which it must chiefly depend for information. The use of a question theoretically important must, therefore, be determined largely by the ability to answer from records.

The Tenth Census collected a vast amount of information regarding schools, but the office was closed before anything except number, sex, and color of those enrolled in ordinary public schools was available. It seemed imperative on the Eleventh Census, therefore, to ask regarding education only a few salient questions requiring a minimum of labor for reply and whose general results could be quickly reached. To minimize trouble for school officers, they were asked to use their usual school year ending nearest June 1, 1890.

In view of all considerations of importance, readiness of reply and possibility of quick publication of results, inquiries