fifty-one or a fraction over five per cent. had progrest more rapidly than the course of study contemplated. But tho double promotions are only sparingly reported, we find a number of instances in which pupils are reported as finishing the course in less than the specified time. In Cambridge, Mass., in 1907 of all pupils who finished the primary course of three years four per cent. came thru in less than three years. In Somerville, Mass., in 1907 fourteen per cent. of all pupils finishing the elementary course did so in less than the allotted time of nine years. In Boston in 1895 twenty per cent. of those who finished the grammar course of six years did so in less than normal time. In 1908 in Kansas City about nine per cent. of those completing the elementary schools did so in less than the prescribed seven years. Concerning these figures it may be said in the first place, that assuming their correctness, they embrace only a portion of the pupils who enter school. If these graduating classes represent as many as half the pupils who enter, it is safe to say that they include practically all the pupils who made rapid progress. As these are the specially gifted ones, who are likely to continue their education, it is not probable that any of them are numbered among those who have left school. In comparison with all the pupils, therefore, the proportion of those who advance rapidly is materially diminished. But can we accept these figures at their face value? Do they not in all probability include some who as young children went to other schools, which they have failed to count? Not infrequently children are sent to private school for a year or more before they go to the public school. Cases also occur which can not be neglected in this consideration of the specially gifted, of children receiving home instruction, and entering school above the first grade. It must, I believe, be granted that the child who starts late is at a disadvantage in our public school system, and that this disadvantage is rather permanent than temporary. Shall we, therefore, call him retarded? We have already seen that he produces in the school the same situation as he who fails to be promoted. His progress may be at the normal rate. But progress means more than rapidity of movement. It means in many cases the ground which has been covered. Compared with his opportunities such a child has progrest little. He made a late start and is already behind his fellows in the race. Is it any twisting of words or violence of language to call him retarded? But what of the implication that the age standard exaggerates conditions? If there were a reasonable doubt as to its propriety the question would mean how large a part of age retardation is ascribable to late entrance into school. Obviously this factor can not grow. It is fixt from the start and is found as an original proposition only in the first grade. Let us take an illustration from Kansas City. In the first grade there were in 1906-07 by the age standard twenty-five and two-tenths per cent. of the pupils retarded. There were also in the first grade 1232 pupils who had been there more than 200 days. If this is properly comparable with the total enrolment, it amounts to fifteen and nine-tenths per cent. who were retarded by lack of progress. Hence, in a total retardation of forty-eight and five-tenths per cent. in Kansas City schools by the age standard there is thirty-nine and two-tenths per cent. caused by failure, and nine and three-tenths per cent. by late entrance. If there In New York City Mr. Ayres found that among 100 retarded children by the age standard such retardation was due to a late start in only about thirty cases. were any reason for eliminating late start as a cause of retardation, it would leave us with a volume of retardation about one-third less than is currently reported. But suppose we apply the progress standard pure and simple. It is difficult of application because records of the number of years pupils have been in school are not frequent. In the hundred largest cities in the United States there are only five in whose reports I find the slightest information on the subject. In Cambridge we learn that thirty-five per cent. of the pupils fail to complete the primary grades in three years, the allotted time. There are no age figures for Cambridge, but in neighboring cities with similar conditions we find the following percentages of retardation by the age standard in the fourth grade: Springfield, twenty-eight and nine-tenths; Boston, twenty-seven and six-tenths; Medford, seven and seven-tenths. In Boston in 1897 there were forty-six per cent. of the pupils who took more than the regular time to finish the primary schools, while the age retardation in the fourth grade was only twenty-nine and three-tenths per cent. In the same city in 1894 thirty-four and five-tenths per cent. of the pupils took more than the regular time to finish the grammar grades, while the age retardation for the ninth grade in 1896 was twenty per cent. Again in Somerville in 1907 in the graduating class thirtysix per cent. took more than nine years to complete the course. No age retardation figures are available, but it is doubtful whether they would differ greatly from those of Boston, where the age retardation in the ninth grade was sixteen and three-tenths per cent. in the same year. Among 1517 pupils finishing the Kansas City schools in 1908 there were 719, or forty-seven and four-tenths per cent., who required more than the allotted seven years to finish the course, while the age retardation at the close of the seventh grade was fifty-one and two-tenths per cent. Here is a very slight difference in favor of the progress standard. Figures are available in some places, e.g., Kansas City and Baltimore, showing number of children who have been more than a year in their present grade. If, as seems proper, these be added together for the first four years, to ascertain accumulated retardation at that time, the resulting figure gives a comparison not unfavorable to the age standard. We therefore see that wherever there is an opportunity to test the relative results of the two methods the progress standard, with a single exception, gives higher percentages of retardation than does the age standard. This should absolve the advocates of the latter from the charge of exaggeration. Moreover, those who have employed the age standard have been generous in its application. Very seldom has it been so rigorously applied as in Medford, Mass. In that city many children enter the first grade at five years of age, and hence the superintendent takes five years as the normal age for the first grade. Calculating all above five years of age in the first grade as above normal age, and using corresponding figures in the upper grades, he discovers that out of 4036 school children, 3423, or eighty-four and eight-tenths, are retarded. But this is a strained and unusual application of the age standard. Generally any child under eight years of age in the first grade is considered of normal age, and those of eight years and upwards are considered as above normal age. For those who enter the first grade early, say at six, this allows for one failure, or by half-grades for two, before the child begins to be counted as retarded. On the other hand. any pure progress standard makes no such allowance. Hence the percentage of retardation as measured by the age standard as commonly applied instead of being greater is apt to be less than when the progress standard is used. Moreover, it is clear that the age standard is of easier application. It can be applied at any time. Perfect accuracy in the progress standard assumes perfect records of past school history. If these do not exist, but must first be established, we must wait eight or nine years before we can secure trustworthy results. This is a practical consideration which speaks loudly in favor of the age standard. To sum up the amount of retardation has not been overstated in current discussion. It is prevalent everywhere. Because of the impediments which it offers to the forcefulness and effectiveness of teaching, it is one of the most serious questions of school management. Because it is depriving our children of a part of the education which the state provides for them, it is most serious for the prospects of our future citizens. It is an old evil, newly stated. Every effort made to diminish it will redound to the benefit both of the schools and the children. Concerning its causes we are yet much in the dark, but who can doubt that out of the continued study of this greatest of problems of our school administration, will arise practical measures which will not abolish the evil, but will greatly lessen it? WASHINGTON, D. C. ROLAND P. FALKNER III THE MISSION OF MUSIC IN COLLEGES 1 The educational system of any period may be considered either as a cause or as an effect—that is, either as an agency modifying prevailing ideals, or as a resultant of ideals already in existence. Ordinarily, we view education in the first aspect, as a factor determining the life of the present and of the future. At times, however, we are led to view it in its complementary aspect, as being itself determined by the environment amid which it flourishes, in accordance with a principle analogous to that by virtue of which water may not rise above its source. Thus, the whole past, in education, acts as a check on the present and on the future. Altho, occasionally, this restraint impedes true progress, it makes, predominantly, for conservatism and for sanity, and is, in every way, salutary. The course of American education has thus been determined, in part, by the character, thought, and activities of a race given over to the development of a virgin country and the formation of a new civilization. From time to time, as general progress has been made, educational ideals have been compelled to undergo successive adjustments. The restlessness of a people whose highest ideal has sometimes appeared to be the discovery and exploitation of unmeasured natural resources, has of necessity made an indelible imprint on our systems of education. These systems have, consequently, been kaleidoscopic in their changes-the same elements, in general, being present, from time to time; but in varying proportions and relationships. Collegiate emphasis, for instance, has been placed, at different periods, on theology, on "the humanities," on the exact sciences, on industrial pursuits; and is now begin 1 Paper read before the Music Teachers National Association, Washington, D. C., December 31, 1908. |