Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1874-09-10
Dull Scholars.

that reason. Dull scholars are class In
whose behalf somebody should rise to a
question of privilege. They are not in
favor with the present generation ofteach.
ers,- are not, therefore, most likely to
have justice done them. We respectfully
submit that their case is q hard one. They
have more than their share Of the hard
usage which the rising generation of Am
erican sovereisns Is called upon to endure;
they have, in measure, lost caste with
the profession of teachers, and are under
cloud. Now, it is bad enough for pu-
pill to be sluggish, without being told of it
continually, and called blockhead in the
presence Of class or school. Such pupils
have feeling, If not brilliancy Of intellect,
and 1t certainly cannot conduce TO their
comfort or Improvement to have their de-
ficiencies held up to them as q matter of
reproach. Intruth, the great majority of
dull scholars, SO called, are simply those
whose perceptions are not rapid, whose
lntellects are slow in their operations, and
who cannot readily take in and grasp
question In all Its various bearings and
relations; but 1t does not follow from this
that they are hopeless class, or that they
are not worth caring for. Mind Is not
matter of quantity, and with this class of
pupils it is not SO much a question of abil-
NY rs OF readiness. OF course, we are not
speaking of those whose manifest natural
deficiencies entitle them to be included un-
der an entirely different class. BY the
term dull scholars we mean neither Idl-
ots nor imbeciles: We mean simply, dull
scholars. And dull scholars, though dull,
are not minus quantities. Generally speak
ing, they have capabilities for more than
respectable achievements, if they can have
time for development. Many disting guished
scholars, and men OF attainments aud SOL
III worth. have in their youth been charac-
terized bv this same sluegishness OF mind
anu have been kicked aud cuffed by their
teachers, and branded by such epithets as
dots. numbskulls, dullards, simpletons,
aud ounces. Ii the petulance and impa-
tience OF the teachers OF Walter Scott and
Iisbig had decided the destinles of their
pupils, English Literature and the science
of chemistry would have lost two of their
brightest lights In modern times.
In our schools, as in society, that which
shines and glitters is too apt to be the OBJ
ject of undue admiration, and to receive
more attention than il deserves. The pu-
pill OF ready memory, OF easy address, and
general precocity, is too often the idol of
the school, of teacher and fellow-pupls.
Teachers pride themselves in having such
pupils in their schools, and are. of course,
inclined to pet and praise them; thereby
losing their sympathy for pupils Oft the OPP
poste qualities, and acquiring, and often
exhibiting,a disreish for the labor neces-
sary for the instruction and management
ofthosc whose claims upon their teachers
should never be ignored. That teachers
should enjoy brilliant pupils is not strange;
but that they should neglect dull pupils.
and deprive them Of their share of instruc-
ton and attention, is not creditable to their
sense of jastice or to their Interpretation
OF the teachers duty. Fairness to all in
school means attention and help bestowed
upon that school according to the wants
of its several members. Precocious pupils
Of brilliant parts need but little assist
ance; for the most part, they are able to
20 alone. But the weak and the timid need
assistance and encouragement. Those pu-
pills who are conscious that their minds are
more or less sluggish, should never be al
lowed to suspect that they are burden to
their teachers, or that they are to be kept
In the background on account of their in
feriority. Teachers too often lose sight of
the noteworthy fact, that dull scholars are
not to blame for their dullness, any more
than they are for the color of their hair. A
teacher who should treat his pupils ac-
cordlng to their statue, favoring those
who are tall, and neglecting and snubbins
those who are short, would act upon
principle not greatly different from that
which seems to influence those who exhib-
It such marked partiality for good schol-
ars, and such noticeable dislike and neg.
lect for those VINO are dull.
The question of likes and dislikss is too
prominent in our schools. If the schools
are to be managed to crafty the personal
whims of capricious teachers, the rights
OF pupils may as well be counted out of
the case. But il teachers are to be en-
ployed to perform certain well-under-
stood work for the people, then teachers
should, before making an engagement, as
certain what that work is, and then ask
themselves If their sense of duty, their
sense OF loyalty to their employers, can be
relied upon for the faithful performance
of that work.
The silly remark is often made BY per-
sons that they should like to teach
school Of picked pupils,-all Of that type
known as brilliant scholars. Such re-
marks do little credit to those who make
them, and, in justice to the profession. we
feel bound to say that they are most fire.
quently made by those who have little or
no experience in teaching, and whose ap-
probation Of its duties and success In its
work entitled their opinion to but little
consideration. 1t is upon dull pupils that
the teacher of ability and resources eau
best show his power; and we may further
add, It Is in classes and schools where
there Is a variety Of talent, some quick
and some slow, some brilliant and some
doll, that teaching is most enjoyable. To
teach class of pupils all remarkably
bright, would be like making meal en-
tirely Of custards. That child best enjoy 8
coastlng dosos the the hill who Is obliged
\ tn carry the alo6 an tho htu olso