Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1898-12-28
Are the Public Schools Practical !?

Measured by results, our com
mon school methods are not pract
ical. A limited class of pupils &C
quire the most possible benefits
perhaps, from prevailing mctf DDS
but the great majority might ge'
more benefits from a more practi
cal system. The schools are, IL
the first place. all conducted upor
plan that presupposes all pupils
will take a full course OF graded
studies, when as fact only one il
twenty high school students gradu'
ate. The average attendance OF
the pupils in the public schools is
about three years. BY the pursuit
of the studies prescribed for the
first three years work the student
does not acquire learning that will
be of great practical use to him in
any business calling.
The theory is advanced that a
foundation must be laid in the first
years of work for the complete
course to follow. There are logi-
cal reasons for this practice. But
when it Is known that only one in
twenty who receive these outlines
of future course ever take up the
higher branches, the waste of time
and energy is apparent to every
observer. Would it not, there
fore, be better to proceed upon the
theory that the primary depart.
ments Of the public schools are to
fit the boy for the shop or the farm
or the salesroom. than to fit him
for profession9
If the demands of the majority
Of the pupils are to be considered,
spelling, reading, writing and
arithmetic would be the curriculum
of ninety percent of the students
in the public schools. The bright
boy of twelve should be able to
read intelligently, write business
letter and solve business problems.
The fact that not one boy in ten
can accomplish either of these
tasks is evidence that our public
schools are not practical.
Forty years ago the average
school term was three months in
stead of nine. II cannot be dis
puted that the boy of that period
learned more in the three months
than the average pupil of today
learns during all of the presentte term
Three or four winter terms In the
days of our fathers gave the stu
dent practical knowledge of pen
manship, grammar, arithmetic,
geography and all of the rudiment-
airy branches of learning. In fact,
these few short terms equipped the
boy or girl for business. 1t is safe
to say that the average student
learned more i'll the same time
with inferior text books and in
ferior teachers than lie learns in
this advanced age with the advant-
ages of what we call our elaborate
public school system. Does the
present day results refute these
ficts or shall we admit the i'm.
practibility of present day methods.
There is no doubt about the
present day facilities for higher ed
ucation being superior to those OF
the immediate past even. On the
other hand. the proportion of pub
lie school pupils who become grad
yates of even the graded schools,
is smaller than the proportion to
attain equal proficiency was in the
past. Is it not possible that this
lamentable condition is traccable
to the same source that makes the
student of two or three or four
years less practical now than he
was under former methods of
teaching Is it not possible that
a comingling Of philosophy, sci
ence, metaphysics and psychology |
some students and retatd |
their primary work and causes
them to despair of higher attain
mentsi However, the student who
perseveres in gaining a professional
is benefited by the founda-
ton laid in the public schools. If
the public schools are preparatory
only in their functions, they are
success. If they are intended for
he poor children, for the masses
md to fit them for practical bust