The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-01-30
STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS FOR OHIO


system.
State Normal Schools have been es-
tablished in every state in the Union, |
except Ohio, New Mexico, and Arkan-
sas. New York has thirteen; Pennsyl- |
vania twelve; Wisconsin seven; Mas
six; West Virginia six; and |
all the other states from one to five.
That Ohio should establish and main
tain State Normal Schools is evidenced
by the following considerations:
First 1t has come to be an accepted !
fact that trained teachers are as neces- |
sary to teaching as are trained profess
sional men in the practice of profess
sions. This granted, it follows that
every state which demands the high
est grade of teaching should provide
schools for the training of teachers.
Second. Educational training today,
as can be noted in the great eduCa-
tional journals of the country, is in
the direction of ultimately requiring
professionally trained teachers in all of
the schools. The great city systems of
the country are already demanding
professionally trained teachers, or
teachers having had a nmuebr Of years
of successful experience as a condition
precedent to their being considered ELI
gible for city positions. In the stand
ard Of the teaching qualification, the
cities are entitled to more than the
country schools.
Third. Ohio teachers ought not to be
compelled to go into other states to OBJ
tain such professional training. Nor
NAL schools at home open the doors of
pedagogical training to a large class
that cannot afford the expense attend
ant on obtaining such training at
distance from home.
Fourth. If Ohio has trained teachers
from other states, it must be obvious
that greater inducements are offered.
If it could be computed, it would be
found that the advance in the wages
paid trained teachers in the state of
Ohio above what these same teachers
| would receive in the state in which they
were trained, would maintain a large
normal school in the state of Ohio.
Fifth. The fact that Ohio is the only
state of any prominence in the Union
that does not maintain a state normal
school initiates against the reputation
! of Ohio in advanced educational mat
ters, and tends to place Ohio teachers
J in a class to which they do not belong
| Sixth. The influence of q normal
! school is not measured alone by the
| graduates or undergraduates that en-
| ter the teaching ranks, but also by the
| educational influence eXerted on the i'm
| mediate community in which it is To-
Gated and the general influence that is
exerted throughout the state. So even
| if Ohio should have trained teachers
| educated in other states in every school
| in the commonwealth, yet there would
be wanting the forceful local influence
| of a normal school as an impulse to-
ward renewing inspiration of the teach
ing force, and a releavening of the ed
ucatiOnal system.
| Seventh Teachers educated in other
states in this professional work bring
with them into Ohio the peculiar genius
of the state in which they were edu-
Gated, and this initiates more or less
against the genius of Ohio Institutions
Eighth. A normal school must be
measured as a means of intellectual
power and educational influence on the
teaching force, and also as source OF
intellectual information toward awak-
ening and informing the people.
Ninth. 1t is a strong argument ir
favor of normal schools that not one OF
the states that has established norma
schools has ever given them up after
having them fairly tried.
The establishment of normal school:
in Ohio sets up no educational oppO
sition to the colleges of the state. In
deed this unusual number Of eXcellen
academic school makes unusual provi
zion for the fundamental qualifications
of the teaching service-a high type
Of liberal learning. Few states ar,
able to make such adequate provision
and by reason of this, Ohio is ready t
give the professional pedagogical schoo
a larger and higher function than al
5 most any other state.
While we recognize scholarly attain
ment and the scholarly spirit as tn
first essential in the teacher, we mus
also recognize the distinction betweel
the teacher and the mere scholar
That which differentiates the one from
the other, or rather that which project
the one into the other. is that specia
and specific knowledge which can com
only from the professional school.
D The aim of the college and the norma
3 school are so radically different tha
. neither can do the work of both. The
!, may be supplemental, but not identi
cal. The one in it's training is acad
! emic, the other professional.
That we have in Ohio many successfu
Il ledCISlS WIlO nave never Ildu the du
- vantages of normal school training
true. This is not, however, saying tina
: our schools have realized the highes
Z possible degree of proficiency or tina
k our teachers would not do their wor
o more successfully if their earlier prepa
o ration for the great work of teachin
had been broader and deeper.
Hon. Lewis d. Bonebrake, state com
missioner of common schools, in his re
> cent report to the governor, recon-
u mends the establishment of five norma
schools in Ohio.
S The writer during a recent agitatio
f of this question, received nearly thre
o hundred letters, from leading educa
; tors, representing every county in tn
;. state. All with one exception, express
8 ed themselves in favor of norma
4 q ~