The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-19
THE NEWS IS RrGHr.

| THE NEWS IS RIGHT. Some days ago The Nashville News
 remarked that "when the mother at home | is obliged to take the time from her housekeeper, sewing. nursing and other
 home duties to teach her children the lessons assigned them by the teacher, | that teachers work Is travesty upon
 the real meaning of the profession. The l Chattanooga Times calls this ''an as-
 founding statement" and adds:
 On the contrary, the mother or father who fails to take the time necessary to | explain and help the child. even though | 1t bs pupil of the public schools, may
 expect his or her child's education to be | travesty." The great complaint against | the public school Is that it too much usurps the domestic home duties of the nation, and the very least 1t succeeds in doing that the better it will be for the l child and the country. The idea that the parent should leave the entire training. and instruction of its child to the public school teacher, is so preposterous that it | is difficult to believe that The News. which in all respects is thoroughly com mitted to the success of our public school system, really meant what it said By all means, let us have efficient, capable
 teachers, but on that account let not the mother at home" imagine that ''her housekeeping. sewing and nursing" may
 be urged as an excuse for the total rele- gation of her child to the care and train
 ing of the public school teacher.
 In this comment The Times is not as
 fair as It usually is in discussions with its contemporaries. The News did not say that the mother should not "explain | and help the child," but that she should
 not be expected or required ito teach he | by their teacher" So far as The News | Is concerned, we propose to let it fight it's | own battles, but the matter of which 1t speaks Is of general concern, and is not
 confined to Nashville. The complaint is
 not that parents are required to assist
 the children, but that they are forced to
 teach them, which Is widely different | When children of both sexes, not more
 than ten or twelve years of age, go home | from school every afternoon loaded
 down with books which they must study till late bed time. it Is time for the news papers to say something. When The
 Times takes another paper to task for
 condemning overstudy at night for little
 children, we hardly think 1t means what
 1t says.
 And by way reinforcement of some of
 the comments of The News on the strict
 ures of some of it's contemporaries, we copy these two selections:
 Now, we did not say that the teacher should explain everything to his pupils,
 but we did say and still insist that what
 ever explanation is needed after the
 child has exerted his faculties, unaided, to the utmost, should be given by the
 teacher. This, in reality is the essence
 of teaching. If the parent has 'heard"
 the lesson till the child is letter-perfect,
 and has elucidated every point not fully comprehended. what remains to the teach
 CT but to rehear and mark properly the
 result of anothers labors? Surely this
 brings down very low the calling of the pedagogue which we are coming to honor
 so highly in this country
 Again it says:
 disposition to leave the father out of iG sends her child to the public schools because that child can secure there the benefits of instruction which she has neither the tune nor ability to give it. We contend that special training, eXpe-
 rience. and gifts are necessary to equip
 our teachers for their chosen task. and
 we insist that they prove their qualif-
 cations by the strictest regulations.
 These teachers, as rule, have no house.
 keeping cares. and they are not hampered
 by the care of children. Their business is
 teaching, they are paid for that work,
 and are supposed to give their time to it. Why, then, should the most import ant part of the teachers duty (for with out the explanation and needed help, the
 task is purely mechanicaD be relegated
 to woman whose life Is filled with the cares of a home and family, who has no
 personal fitness for educational work,
 has received no training for it, and in
 most instances is ignorant of present
 requirements and methods? The idea Is
 manifestly absurd, and, we believe. would
 not be indorsed by the most conscien-
 tious and efficient members of the teach
 ing corps.