Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1896-03-11
OUR COMMON SCHOOLS.
Is Their Work Any More Thorough
Eficient Than It Used to Be.

Is Their Work Any More Thorough or
Eflcient Than 1t Used to Be.
For the Yorkville Enquirer.
1t is fact that will readily be conceded,
that the great majority of children, espe-
cially in the country, must depend upon
such facilities as are afforded by the
common schools tor an education. Not
only is this true of the present time; but
it has been true of the past, and, in the
very nature of things, it is safe to conclude
that it will be true of the future. For
obvious reasons, comparatively few par
ents can avail themselves of the superior
advantages of the high schools. These
institutions exist for the benefit of the
favored few. Neither can those who
have attended the common school only
expect to secure scholarship to the
Citadel or to the South Carolina college.
Why not2 I will answer this question
by asking another. Tell me how many
boys who have attended only the common
schools have been able tn successfully
pass the necessary examination ana
thereby gain admission to either of the
above named Institutions? 1 know OF
none; and if there are such instances, do
they not constitute solitary exceptions to
the general rule I notice, however, in
passing, that four colleges in the State
will cost something like SlN, ,499.
But to return to the subject of common
schools. We live in an age OF progress,
so called. Measured by the standard of
our common schools, are we progressing? :?
How does the present school system
compare with that of our fathers, or OF
our grandfathers even? Those were back
woods times. Everything was in rude
and primitive state. Few books were
used. Webster's blueback speller was an
acknowledged authority. School COM
menced early in the morning and was
continued till late in the evening. Dis
cipline was rigidly enforced, yea at the
point of the rod. Children then went to
school in order to study and not merely
to recite. What was the result of this
system of teaching? AS far as it went. it
was good. 1t embraced, of course, only
what was termed an English course"
Now, everything has undergone COM
plete change. New books, new methods,
new rules. Is the change for the better?
we Cdii Ouly JudkO oy ehio tSS
the children of today, who are MADE the
happy recipients Of modern methods ana
improved facilities, better educated than
their fathers who received instruction at
the old field, log school house 40 years
ago? Nay, verify {! AS rule, our fathers
and mothers are better educated than
their children.
Take the average man whose education
was obtained at the old field, common
school 40 years ago, and you will find tnat
what he learned he learned thoroughly.
He writes legibly, makes ordinary buSi-
ness calculations accurately, reads intelll-
gently and possesses a practical, II not
technical, knowledge of grammar. Many
ofthem in turn became good teachers.
Now, how about the modern common
school graduate ? They are scattered all
over the land. Every reader of this artl-
Gle is acquainted with dozens of them
who are woefully deficient in the rudi-
ments of an education. How many boys
and girls who have attended only the
common schools are capable of teaching
an ordinary country school? My ac-
quaintance with such may be unfortu-
nate; but I know of none. This, how
ever, may be traceable to the high
standard of competency that obtains IN
this respect. If it is true that "a little
education is dangerous thing, ETC." then
there are multitudes who are indeed IN
imminent danger. This is not written so
much in spirit of criticism as OF inquiry.
w. S. G.