The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-03-16

Dr M. c. Donovan, superintendent .of schools, submitted his report to the board of education of the meet ing of the National Education Asso- citation, Department of Superinten- dents at Detroit, February 21 to Feb ruary 26, 1891, at the session this afternoon. It is as follows:
 To the Board of Education.
 City of Waterbury.
 Gentlemen If one has sufficient vision and imagination, 1t Is not dif- ficult to visualize this convention as an inventory of educational condi- 4ions, from the standpoint of admin fstration. in all of the United states of America.
 General Summary.
 Twelve thousand persons officially connected with the schools were in attendance. About one-third of these were superintendents of schools: city superintendents, county superin- tendents and state commissioners of education. The national commis- sioner of education was also present. There were in all ninety-two sep arate meetings, seven of which were general sessions held in the large and beautiful auditorium of the Ma sonic Temple in Detroit. Many of the smaller meetings were held in the numerous and wonderfully beau- tifu1 chapels and side-meeting rooms of this huge structure, the cost of which was $S,0O0,0 900.
 There were approximately three hundred speeches, with an estimat- ed total of more than one million words. When printed, as most of these speeches will be, they will make fifty books of the average oc- tavo size. To certain extent, these speeches become the property of the association. But only excerpts from them will be printed officially by the association. These will be issued and sent free to every school officer in attendance. and. will contain the pith and gist of the utterances of most of the leading educators now in this country.
 It is estimated that the convention cost the schools and school men and women of America one million dol lars, most of which was paid to the railroads of the country and the hotels of Detroit.
 Five other departments of the Ma tional Education association--be- sides the uperintendents--hel
 1.--The Department of E1emen- tary School Principals.
 2.--The Department of Rural Ed ucation
 3.-The Department of Secondary School Principals.
 4.-The Department of. Vocational Education.
 G.--The Department of Super viDion.
 Other bodies not forming an es- sential part of the National Educa- ton association. but loosely related to it met also. They were:
 1.-The National Association of Deans of Women.
 2.--The National Society for the Study of Education.
 3.-The National Society of Col lege Teachers of Education.
 1.-The National Council of State Superintendents and Commissioners of Public Instruction.
 6.---The National Council of Edu- cation.
 6.--The National Council of Child hood Education.
 7.-The National Association of High School Inspectors.
 S.-The Municipal Normal School and College Group.
 Prophets foreboded good and i'll; critics both destructive and construc- five had their little spot of daylight and their hour of garrulous glory and publicity; pleaders begged for reform and novelty or defended what is good and true in current customs; researchers made public statics enough to keep the mathematicians of the country figuring for more than a year to come. The whole insides of the entire school system of the country: all that is questionable. all fesr TIT ifro i,, iuu pf this country, was confessed and meditated upon.
 You might say that the thousands of men and women for convention assembled made something like q successful attempt to make a com plete picture of the American child entering the pre-school and the kin dergarten, than eithersuccessfully or unsuccessful1y going through the primary grades and the upper grades. of the common school through the high school--oE dropping out as many do in upper grades and In higil-school time, through college and on to the job or position or vo- cation. The whole thing was vis- ioning of America--young and old at its books-under the care and guidance of its more than million teachers.
 Naturally, measurements and grading and promotion and retarda- ton come up for review. Those who speak for the schools are beginning to show an admirable frankness in the handling of this, the most diff ficult and the most tremendous of all school problems. We are--and have been and probably must be for long time to come--comn.itted to group education in this country. No doubt 1t is so in most countries, par ticularly those which attempt as we do to educate all the children of all the people. But the fundamental process in all human education is the education of the individual. So we face huge anthony, as the philos- ophers would call it. We must teach individuals and yet we must always have--or nearly always have "A group of pupils in our room. The national average fin the primary grades is thirty-five pupils per teach CT; the national average in high sehool--at least in public high schools Is 25. Therefore the ques- ton of how to group is {. fundamen- ial problem. On the whole and speaking by and large. there is at least a tentative consensus among leading American teachers that the more nearly alike the groups are in ability, the better they can be taught: there is q corollary to this now that this ability can be meas- ured by examination. Yet this set up came in for q great Ceal of harsh criticism at Detroit The leader of the opposition was our state com missioner of education. Dr Ernest w Butterfield. The intrenehment on the battlefield of education around which most blood was spent was in- telligence testing. pr E,utterfield said in part: You can not classify your merchants as dull and bright. We assume that ministers are bright and deacofis are dull, but there Is no way of finding out. We divide our schools into ability groups; but when the wOmen,g club gathers. Solomon could lanf rnaa f thrnIiRh fha audience