The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-10-23
OUR CH0OLS.
PAPER no. 4,
By PROF. WILLIAM II. HAND.

The Course OF Study-There is d
small bat turbulent class of -overwise
writer's who periodically belabor the
,purlic schools. In their nightmares
they see thousands Of tender children
murdered or MANNED in the publi.
schools, and give vociferous utte:-
ance to so much wild nonsense that
they have but one effect-making
people refuse to heed them even
when they point out some real de-
feet. Some of these writer's have
warned us against one great evil
which we have gone on ignoring
that of an overcrowded course OF
study To be brief, some years ago
our educators realized the poverty
OF our common school course Of
study; confined almost exclusively to
the three RS. A just demand was
made for an enriched course, giving
a wider range OF subjects to the
pupils. A. number Of subjects has
been added. Now, in order to en-
courage individual initiative. take
it, the State Board OF Education has
never prescribed "a maximum or a
minimum number Of subjects for any
course. Instead it has adopted text
books covering a rather wide range
OF subjects, and grouped these into
yearly grades, leaving each school to
make up a course or courses from
this list.
The building Of well-balanced
course Of study Is the work OF an
expert. Comparatively few teachers
Ray claim to that stage Of fitness.
Yet each teacher, or at least each
principal, experienced or inexperi-
enced, sets about to make his own
course. Theories, 1rejudices, and
tastes begin to clash fpr the mastery.
One teacher Is an arithmatic crank.
and his course has but little else
in it; another's favorite subject is
grammar, and he makes his pupils
analyze and parse everything in
sight; another has no taste for &C.
ography, and he practically omits
II; another "dotes on" poetry and
The whole school is put to memoriz-
ing and reciting gems; while lot OF
thorough-going teachers who take
everything literally. put the whole
adopted list into one course, and give
il to every pupil in the school.
A great deal of ignorant and un-
lust criticism is made against the
frequent and useless change of tex
books. It would be neither wise nor
defensible to have. a child use the
same reader through two or three
grades, or to use the same geog-
raphy through the 4th. 5th and 9th
grade, for instance: If the book Is
suited to his advancement when h.
begins it, it is reasonable to say that
it Is not suitable two or three years
.laEer in his life. And if a teacher
we're to keep the child Of one OF
these watchful guardians of the
schools in fourth reader. for in
stance, for three years, this same
guardian would make the columns OF
the local newspaper smell of sui
nhur in declaiming against the out
rage (then fail to sign his name.)
On the other hand, many OF our
schools do needlessly tax the pa;-
rons for books. and burden the chill
dren with books. Let MS give con-
crete cases: / have just examined
the published course of study in a
ten-grade school in ne-of our towns.
In that course are prescribed fifty
FIVE separate texts, exclusive OF conF
books, drawing books, scratch pads,
etc. In the, school are ten teachers.
In another ten-grade- school, with
four teachers, there are sixty-four
texts prescribed. In the first men
toned school there are ten sepa-
rate texts required in the seventh
grade; In the second mentioned
school eleven texts are given in ths
eighth grade.
Every child ought to have the best
obtainable book in every subject he
pursues. and he ought to have all
the books he needs-books suited
10 his age and advancement, but I
protest that the above mentioned
oonrcoc ra ont oP reason To under-