New-York tribune., 1900-12-29
WHAT ARE THE SCHOOLS FOR,

1t is an old fashioned and still common i'm
preston that schools exist for the benefit of
children.bo Their sole excuse for being is popu-
larly supposed to be the training up of strong
and worthy men and women, who will in turn
be the fathers and mothers of a future i'm
proved general ton. This view, however, is ap-
parently out of date. To judge from comments
of official nature concerning school matters,
the welfare of the children undergoing the edu-
cational process is apparently only an incident
to the running of the educational machine. DR.
". Gill Wylie thinks that our schoolgirls are
overworked, and that at an age when great
part of their strength is needed for healthy
physical development they are subjected to a
rlinous strain through intense application to
studies in competition with boys. DR.. Wylie
says that ''the American horse receives on the
average better treatment than the young
women of America from the time of early girl
hood until the age of development has passed"
These views were brought to the attention of a
member Of the Board Of Education, who admit
ted that too much was probably attempted in
the schools, but confessed the idea that the girls
suffered more than the boys to be new to him.
In answer to the question, Would it be desir-
liable and feasible to have separate courses for
''boys and girls? he is reported by "The New
York Evening POST to have said:
No: decidedly not. The curriculum. IN my
opinion. must remain 1t is at present the
same for both boys and girls. To create differ
ent courses would introduce grave complica-
tons in the matter of promotion for teachers
The teacher who had instructed girls In a mini
mized course would have no experience qualify
ing her to teach boys in a more elaborate course
and, consequently, she could not be promoted
and receive the larger salary attached to bows
classes. No; the idea of different courses is i'm
practicable; 1t would work injustice to teachers
/ and breed discomfort among them
This exposes plainly enough the nonsense of
making curriculum to meet the needs of the
pupils. The curriculum is not made for the
pupils, but for the teachers If teacher was
set to teach what was best for child it might
interfere with promotion and it is to be under
stood of all men that persons do not enter the
noble profession of teaching with any idea of
doing the greatest good to the young genera
tioh' Dut merely for the sake of getting a COM
portable and progressively increasing salary.
Inc prime requisite of curriculum is that il
snail not work injustice to teachers and breed
dlscontent among them. After they are salts
ned Incidental regard for the material provided
Tor them to earn their salaries upon NAV he
permitted. We do not know whether or not DIR
"ylles views are correct, or If a new course of
study would be better for girls than tha ono
provided. but evidently that makes no differ
ence The learned member of the Roard or
Educauon gave no attention to that phase of tha
quesuon. Probably the children could NOT con
Dihe and raid the Legislature or oyerawa tba
board or Education with their demands Thera
lore 1t was of no use TO consider what cbanga
IN the curriculum would promote their interest
The vision of an organized teachers machine
was before his eyes, and its requirements con-
cerning salary and promotion were tba cbior
worry OF the burdened school legislator.
Ihis is by no means an isolated instance -,
tne ofnciai attitude toward schools. or for that
matter other public departments. The machine
Is mace fetish. 1t is guarded for it's own
sake Ii 1t does its work. well and good Tr
not so much the worse for the work. Puhlic
o'nees are created ostensibly to perform soma
Iuhetion, but in the eyes of many politicians
eAist Tor spoils, regardless of the duties
I lfanins 10 them. 1t is the old story of the