Year: 1862

common schools are not in more fourishing
condition There is, undoubtedly, some obsta-
cle and where it lies does not appear to be known
by great many who are highly interested in
the public schools. And not seldom do we hear
the inquiry ''Why have we not better schools!"
We must acknowledge that the free schools, in
some parts at least, are far below desirable
standard, and there must be some cause for the
defect; but, at the same time, it is certain that
the cause is not embraced in the school system:
though imperfect in some respects, yet, if prop
erIy conducted, it would exhibit more efficacy in
a general diffusion of knowledge. 1t may be
asked if the system does not, in itself, include
the obstacles that impede its progress, where do
they exist? The answer is ready at hand, and
plain one. The opposition to the system is the
sole cause of the work of education not progress
sing more rapidly and generally throughout the
community. True, every thing has met with
opposition; but, whilst other changes have out
lived their opposers, it appears that the system
Ci education by common schools, has yet, for
some time, to contend with opposition. Although
the opposition to the whole system is slowly di-
minishing, yet portion of its regulations is as
violently assaied as ever by some who may be
truly termed dnti.school men.


Daniel Webster, the Demosthenes of Ameri-
ca said: eff had as many sons as old Priam,
would send them all to the public schools"
And the most eminent men at the present time
regard the common schools as the only reliable
means by which education can be generally ac-
complished. Yet, in the face of all these evil
dences from philosophers and statesmen in favor
of the common schools, there are those who tell
us that 'prior to the adoption of the free schools
there were better teachers, and better scholars than
noW." This assertion is frequently made and
supported by the fact, that in those days "the
scholars received from Sir to eight lessons per
day, though the schools were larger than most
schools now" Thus the value of the labor OF
the teacher, and his ability to teach were esti-
mated by the number of lessons given each day,
and the teacher that could give the greatest num-
Der OF lessons was the best. f-


AS this assertion is frequently made by the
opposers ut the system, it may be expedient to
notice 1T and show some of its fallaeies- The
assertion may be true as far as tho o'anaher nf
lessons goes, but the manner was undoubtedly,
very defective, and is to be approved by those
only who value the schools by the number Of les
Sous girea, and not by the Information impaired.
BY taking school of thirty pupils-and most
of the schools contain more-and examining IN
to the particulars of a school room, some OF the
ubsurdites of the statement may be exposed.
No teacher, at the present day, would think OF
giving each pupil-taking the whole school at
an average-less than three minutes for the re-
citation of each lesson. To give thirty pupils
one lesson of three minutes to each pupil, would
require one. hour and half, and to complete
the whole routine of s,r lessons, would require
nine hours, three houre more than ou' school day
embraces, being very nearly the entire length OF
the day during the winter months. In school
of forty pupils it would require t'celre hours to
give each pupil Sir lessons per day of an average
length of three minutes to each pupil: longer
time than is possible or profitable to devote to
school room exercises. Yet, in spite of these
facts,we hear it insisted upon that such was the
manner of conducting schools prior to the pre-
sent system, and upon it are based the import
ance of the school and the ability of the teach
er. Yet we meet with many who still cry out
for the sic lesson arrangement, not thinking that
''a little we'll done is worth more than great
deal half done" Lessons must be well gotten
in order to be beneficial, and great number OF
lessons precludes the possibility of getting them
thoroughly.


Another of the Objectionable features is the
Superintendency. Despite the good it has done,
and is capable of doing it is said to be entirely
useless. The principal objection to it is the dol
lar and cent consideration 1t is necessary to
watch monetary affairs closely, in some respects
but when the culture of immortal minds is con-
nected with it, pecuniary interest should not
for a moment be allowed to run paramount tt
the interest of the developing of the mental fac
ulties of the youths of the land.


But why so much opposition to the schoo
system? Does there not arise some benefit from
it? Certainly it has accomplished much good
and to be appreciated needs only to be rightly
understood. A distinguished writer said: "Tha
is an auspicious day to any country on which
the subject of training the young mind for fu
ture usefulness, and aiding it in developing it
mental powers, is made the subject of serious
consideration and active effort; and more to b.
regarded even than the day upon which states
men and patriots meet to devise plans for sus
tanning our institutions of freedom, for, in few
years, those who occupy the highest stations il
the gift of, free and enlightened people mus
yield them to those who are now school-boys.
The future of any country depends a great dea
upon the education of the young. The youn|
miad must be nurtured and trained as its powe
is developed, and thus made capable to contem
plate more difficult subjects. The happInes
and prosperity of a free government are con
trolled by the masses; hence the Importance o
educating the masses, particularly IN republi
can government like ours. "It has been observ
ed by Fellenburgh," says an excellent writer
''that his last hope for the liberty of Switzer
fSnd was in the reformation of hex comnlo,