CHAPTER XXVI.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF TWELVE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.1

The committee appointed two years ago to make recommendations upon the subject of preparatory requirements in French and German has the honor to submit the following report:

SECTION I.-PRELIMINARY.

It will be remembered that the appointment of the committee grew out of a request of the National Educational Association, which has for some time been endeavoring to bring about a better regulation of secondary instruction in the subjects usually required for admission to American colleges. In pursuing this laudable undertaking the National Educational Association very properly saw fit to ask for the advice of various professional bodies, our own among the number. In particular, it was desired that we draw up model preparatory courses in French and German and make recommendations concerning the practical management of these courses. The matter was brought to the attention of both branches of this association at the sessions of 1896, and we were asked to take appropriate action. As the business appeared to be of very great importance, it was thought best to turn it over to a large committee having a somewhat general mandate to investigate and report. The resolution under which the committee was appointed reads as follows:

That a committee of twelve be appointed: (a) To consider the position of the modern languages in secondary education: (b) to examine into and make recommendations upon methods of instruction, the training of teachers, and such other questions connected with the teaching of the modern languages in the secondary schools and the colleges as in the judgment of the committee may require consideration.

That this committee shall consist of the present president of the association, Prof. Calvin Thomas, as chairman, and eleven other members of the association, to be named by him.

That the association hereby refers to this committee the request of a committee of the National Educational Association for cooperation in the consideration of the subject of college entrance examinations in French and German.

In pursuance of this resolution the committee was made up early in the year 1897, and began its work by preparing a circular, which was sent out to some 2,500 teachers. The object of the circular was to obtain information with regard to the present status of secondary instruction in French and German in the country at large, and also to elicit opinions with respect to a number of more or less debatable questions which, as was thought, would be likely to arise in the course of the committee's deliberations. Several hundred replies were received and collated, and the information thus obtained was laid before the committee at a session held in Philadelphia one year ago. We have not thought it wise to cumber this report,

1 Submitted at a meeting of the Association held in December, 1898, at Charlottesville, Va.

which will be long enough at the best, with a detailed recital of these statistics. Suffice it to say that, taken as a whole, they give us a picture of somewhat chaotic and bewildering conditions. Under various names our secondary schools have a large number of courses in which French and German figure as prominent or as subordinate subjects of instruction; courses of one, two, three, and four or more years; courses providing for two, three, four, or five recitations a week, and for recitation periods ranging from twenty-five to sixty minutes. And when we come to the colleges and higher scientific schools the requirements for admission are hardly less multifarious. Various bachelors' degrees are conferred, and for admission to the courses leading to these degrees French and German figure variously, according as the modern language is offered in addition to the Latin and Greek of the classical preparatory course, or in place of Greek, or as the main lin. guistic study. Some of the colleges have also an elementary and an advanced requirement, with options variously managed.

Upon surveying the intricate problem thus presented, the members of the committee perceived at once that any report which they might make, if it was to be really useful, must be adapted, so far as practicable, to the conditions as they are. It was not for us to recommend radical changes in the American system, or lack of system, which has grown up in a natural way and must work out its own destiny. It was not for us to attempt to decide which of the various competing courses is the best course, or to antagonize any particular study. Nor could we assume to dictate to the colleges just how much knowledge of French or German, or both, they shall demand for admission to this, that, or the other undergraduate course. The colleges would certainly not consent to any surrender of their liberty to regulate their requirements in their own way. Most important of all, it was not for us to propose any arrangements which could be taken to imply that secondary instruction in French and German exists only for the sake of preparation for college. The great majority of those studying the modern languages in school do not go to college at all. Our secondary education must be recognized as having its own function, its own aims and ideals. In the great mass of the schools those who are preparing for college receive instruction in the same classes with those who are not preparing for college. And this must always be so. These considerations seemed to indicate that the proper line for the committee to pursue was as follows:

To describe a certain number of grades of preparatory instruction, corresponding to courses of different length; to define these grades as clearly as possible in terms of time and work and aim, and to make a few practical recommendations with regard to the management of the instruction-recommendations having as their sole object the educational benefit of the pupil. The members of the committee are naturally of the opinion that the study of a modern language in school has a distinct educational value of its own. The teacher's problem is to realize this value from the study. Whether the learner is going to college or not makes no difference, save as this consideration affects the amount of time he can devote to the modern language while preparing himself in the other necessary subjects. If such courses could be wisely drawn up, and if then they were to be recommended to the country upon the combined authority of the Modern Language Association and the National Educational Association, it would seem reasonable to expect them soon to become the national norm of secondary instruction in the modern languages. It also seems reasonable to expect that the colleges will be not only willing but glad to adopt the practice of stating their requirements in terms of the national grades. Such a mutual understanding between the colleges and the secondary schools should do much to bring a definitely understood order out of our existing chaos.

Having come a year ago to this general conclusion as to what could and should be done, the committee saw that it would be impossible to submit a satisfactory

final report at the Philadelphia meeting. There were various matters that required further study. First, there was the question as to how many grades were really needed-whether two, or three, or more. Then there was the question of French and German in the lower school grades. This subject, it is true, had not been expressly committed to us; but it was known that many private schools, and not a few of our best public schools, already provide instruction in French or German in grades below the high school. It was also known that many good teachers strongly advocate this idea. But if it is wise to begin a modern language some time before the high school is reached, and if this practice is to be extended and to become more and more a part of our national system, it is evident that the modern-language work of the secondary schools must be more or less affected. Again, there was the perplexing question of method.

In view of the sharp differences of opinion and of practice known to exist among teachers, the committee thought it best, before undertaking to advise teachers how to teach, to reëxamine the whole matter carefully in the light of experience and in the light of recent contributions to the subject, to the end that their final recommendations might be as free as possible from any vagaries of personal prejudice. Finally, there was the large task of drawing up the proposed courses and formulating the recommendations. Seeing all this work ahead, the committee decided, at the Philadelphia session, to report progress, ask for additional time and money, and, if this request should be granted, to appoint a number of subcommittees, whose task it should be to inquire into and report upon the various questions just enumerated. The request was granted and the committee adjourned after passing unanimously a single resolution, the import of which will be apparent from what was said a little while ago. The resolution was to the effect that secondary instruction in French and German should not be differentiated, according as the pupil is, or is not, preparing for college.

During the first half of the year 1898 the subcommittees worked at their several tasks by means of circulars and correspondence. Early in November a three-day session of the general committee was held in New York City. The meeting was attended by 10 of the 12 members, 2 being unavoidably absent. The reports of the various subcommittees were received and discussed, together with other matters germane to the committee's general task. As a result of the three days' discussion, the substance of the following report was agreed upon. Since the November meeting the report, as below drawn up, has been submitted to the members of the committee, and, after some further interchange of views by mail, has been agreed to by them unanimously.

SECTION II.-VALUE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES IN SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Aside from the general disciplinary value common to all linguistic and literary studies, the study of French and German in the secondary schools is profitable in three ways: First, as an introduction to the life and literature of France and Germany; secondly, as a preparation for intellectual pursuits that require the ability to read French and German for information; thirdly, as the foundation of ar accomplishment that may become useful in business and travel. Under each of these heads a great deal might be said; but an exhaustive discussion of the several topics would swell the volume of this report beyond the limits within which it is likely to be most useful. A few words must therefore suffice.

What we have called the general disciplinary value of linguistic and literary study is well understood the world over, and has long been recognized in the educational arrangements of every civilized nation. The study of a language other than the mother tongue requires the learner to compare and discriminate, thus training the analytic and reflective faculties. The effort to express himself in the unfamiliar idiom, to translate from it into his own, makes him attentive to the ED 98-88

EDUCATION REPORT, 1897-98.

meaning of words, gives a new insight into the possible resources of expression, and cultivates precision of thought and statement. Incidentally the memory is strengthened and the power of steady application developed. In time such study opens the gate to a new literature, thus liberalizing the mind and giving an ampler outlook upon life. Through literature the student is made a partaker in the intel lectual life of other times and other peoples. He becomes familiar with their manners and customs, their ideals and institutions, their mistakes and failures, and with the artistic forms in which the national genius has expressed itself. When he leaves school, such knowledge not only enriches his personal life, but makes him a more useful because a more intelligent member of society. It exerts a steadying, sanative influence, for it furnishes him with standards based upon the best performance of the race everywhere. For us Americans, with our large confidence in our own ways and destiny, there is special need of the wisdom that comes from familiarity with the life, literature, and history of the great makers

of European civilization.

What has been said up to this point relates to the profit of linguistic and literary study in general, a matter about which there is no serious difference of opinion among intelligent people. of the ancient and the modern languages, we raise a moot question over which there has been endless discussion. Here, again, we refrain from lengthy argument. Let it be remarked, however, that the question is a very large one, to be decided only in the light of long and wide experience. To reach a sane view of the matter it is necessary to make some allowance on both sides for the partisanship of the professional teacher, who is generally more or less prone to overstate the importance of his specialty. Nor should we allow too great weight to the views of publicists, men of letters, and so forth, who treat the question from a purely personal point of view. The man in middle life, who has the advantage of knowing just what knowledge is most useful to him in his own work, can usually look back upon his early education and tell a tale of neglected opportunities and mis

When, however, we come to consider the relative value

applied energy.

Educational arrangements must be made for the many, and

human tastes, needs, and aptitudes are various. For the boy or girl who must select a course of study long before he or she can know just what special attainment will be the most useful in after life, it is enough to be assured that the discipline and culture derived from the study of a foreign language, whether ancient

or modern, will certainly prove valuable.

The committee is of the opinion that the best course of study for the secondary school will always provide instruction in at least one ancient and one modern language. Beyond this we do not undertake to pass judgment upon the comparative merits of competing courses. It has always been the policy of the Modern Language Association not to antagonize the study of Latin and Greek. We ask for the modern languages in school and college nothing more than a fair chance to show what they are worth. We believe that they are worth, when properly taught, no less than the ancient languages. It is, of course, conceded that the Latin and Greek are the more "difficult" in the initial stages. But difficulty can not be the highest test of educational utility, else Latin and Greek should themselves give way to Sanskrit and Chinese. Evidently it is the goodness of the kernel and not the thickness and hardness of the shell that we are mainly to think of. The kernel is the introduction to the life and literature of a great civilized people, whom it is, for some reason, very important for us to know about. And here it may properly be urged on behalf of the modern languages that, just in proportion as they are easier to acquire, the essential benefit of the acquisition is now reached such a stage that we may fairly say that a training in French or German, or both, It seems to me that the teaching of modern languages in many of the schools * can be given which is just as substantial, strong, and useful a training as any other that is given

in the same period."-President Eliot, Educational Reform, p. 378.

has

the sooner realized. They give a quicker return upon the investment. This is a consideration that is of special importance for the secondary school. It is quite possible in an ordinary school course to learn to read French and German easily. The high-school graduate who has acquired this ability can at once turn it to account, even if he does not go to college. If he allows his ability to slip from him through lack of practice, it is at least his own fault. In the case of the ancient languages, on the other hand, it is a well-understood and oft-lamented fact that the great majority, even of college graduates, never learn to read Latin and Greek with ease. Up to the last the effort is more or less painful. After leaving college they usually drop their Latin and Greek, and in a short time they can not read at all. The profit of the study thus reduces, for the many, to its purely gymnastic value. That value, we are prepared to admit, is very great; but we would urge that the purely gymnastic value of the modern languages is, potentially, also very great. The argument of "difficulty" is often misused. There may be as much valuable exercise in walking five miles up a gentle slope as in climbing a mile up a sharp acclivity.

The first and greatest value of the study of the modern languages must be looked for, then, in the introduction of the learner to the life and literature of the two great peoples who, next to the English stock, have made the most important contributions to European civilization. That these literatures are as important, as worthy of study, as full of instruction for the modern man and woman as are those earlier literatures that once formed the great staple of education, is a proposition that we do not think necessary to argue, though it is sometimes denied in toto by zealous advocates of classical study. For the peculiar intellectual myopia that can see nothing new and nothing good in modern literature the only remedy is the classical hellebore.

We attach greatest importance, then, to linguistic discipline and literary culture. But the ability to read French and German has also another value not directly connected with the study of belles-lettres. In nearly all branches of knowledge at the present time a large part of the best that has been written is to be found in the German and French languages. One who wishes to study anything thoroughly, no matter what, finds it highly convenient, if not absolutely necessary, to be able to read these languages in the pursuit of information. The high-school graduate who brings this ability with him to college has a great advantage in that he can at once begin to use it as a tool in prosecuting his studies. Of those who do not go to college it is fair to presume that a considerable portion will continue some line of private study, if not as a vocation, then as an avocation. For all such the ability to read French and German will be of great service.

It is next in order to remark briefly upon what is popularly called the "practical" value of French and German—that is, their utility as a means of intercourse. The practical command of a foreign language has a potential value that is at once perceived by everyone. It is felt to be desirable by multitudes who would probably care but little for the considerations presented in the preceding paragraphs of this section. The committee hold, however, that in our general scheme of secondary education the ability to converse in French or German should be regarded as of subordinate importance. We by no means say that it should be ignored, or that colloquial practice may safely be neglected in teaching. With this point the report will deal further on. Here we merely express the opinion that the ability to converse should not be regarded as a thing of primary importance for its own sake, but as auxiliary to the higher ends of linguistic scholarship and literary culture. The grounds of this opinion are briefly as follows:

The practical command of a living language, such as will be really useful for the ordinary purposes of life, presupposes a large amount of practice in speaking. The requisite amount of practice can not possibly be given in an ordinary school course, even in a course of four years in length, in which the pupils come together