DISCUSSION. 191 
thy 
of 
2el- 
ng 
1 
180 : 
eri- 
e of 
y to 
orn- 
shat 
n to 
aich 
akes 
DeYr- 
er it 
the 
the 
1e to 
‘hers 
1f 
cem, 
attar 
ter- 
:s to 
are 
that 
6 do 
the 
1sion 
ome- 
on’ 
aper- 
me a 
nave 
1 the 
mtry 
old- 
aYS- 
you 
ad it 
it my 
[ am 
ched 
shool 
said, 
3 had 
rsup- 
rs, as 
rs to 
yught 
jut last night by Dr. Ross, of Ontario. It was plainly seen that the advantage he 
snjoys by the power of appointment of teachers is an enormous advantage. Until we can 
n some way obviate the necessity of consulting the opinions of persons not expert, and 
serhaps not educated, and in some cases unreasonable. we cannot hope for great advance- 
nent in this matter. 
H. L. Boutwoon, Principal of the High School of Evanston, IIL. : TI regret that I 
lidn’t hear the paper, but the general subject of private schools and legislation calls to 
nind a little of my experience. I served the first seven years of my teaching life, after 
rraduating from college, in what is known in New England as a one-horse academy, 
where there is a great deal of work done by the horse, and where the idea of individual 
struction was carried to its maximum. = But passing from that into the public high- 
school, 1 had a chance to contrast my experience. Now, as I look back to it, asa young 
ceacher, full of experiments and conscious of the blunders that young teachers often 
make, I confess that the individuality of the private school accomplishes more in pro- 
portion than the carefully superintended work of the graded high-school. I remember 
in a little New Hampshire academy, where I had sixty-five pupils, who came to me 
rom country homes, with the spirit of hard work, and I think perhaps ten of the 
sixty-five made a decided success. Passing into graded work, where the number of 
pupils was much jarger, there was no such proportionate outcome, Of course I don’t 
thow the circumstances that went into those individual lives. When a school board 
is either directly elected by the people or is appointed by those who are chosen by the 
people, and when a course of study cannot be upset by newspaper criticism, and when 
the whole public sentiment is largely controlled by a certain element that is not well 
informed, there are some dangers of supervision. 1 have seen it work admirably in the 
hands of men who had the true idea of supervision ; that is, to conduct the general 
ines of work, and hold the teachers accountable for the results. When these things 
are combined with the presence of a public that has sense enough to keep the school 
ooard out of partisan politics, and allow the superintendent time to shape his school. 
The trouble of supervision generally is the failure not to allow the individuality of the 
teachers, nor the individuality of the community, in the course of study. Asan example: 
a course of study prepared for a city like Chicago, which reaches out far into the coun- 
try, with communities inside of our city limits which are engaged in farming, in gar- 
dening, and manufacturing communities, and places where the wealth is concentrated, 
yet one uniform course is insisted upon. So supervision looks to me as one of those 
juestionable things. Some of it is necessary ; too much supervision may entirely dis- 
regard the individuality of the teachers, and the wants of the local community, and, in 
» certain sense, the individuality of the children. The course of study and graded sys- 
tem which is carried with such minuteness that the teacher is rebuked for anything 
‘hat he does which is not specified in the graded work, is of doubtful utility. 
LEROY STEVENS, President of the Mount Pleasant Institute, Mount Pleasant, Pa.: 
_ want to express my appreciation of the paper. I have a very high appreciation of it, 
indeed. There are people here who represent other countries. I would like to hear from 
abroad. 
Miss ZiMMERN, of England : I don’t know as I have very much to add to what has 
seen said. 1 feel that I should like to say that we should be a great many years ahead 
of what we are in England if we had more supervision. You know, doubtless, in our 
slementary schools there are visitors. We have had supervision ; they call it inspec- 
tions. We have inspectors who are extremely popular with the teachers. They visit 
them once a year, formally ; and informally oftener. In the country, they have little 
‘nformal mectings to which the inspectors invite the teachers. Many of the teachers 
qave told me how extremely valuable these meetings are. 
I teach what we call a high-school for girls. We have thirty-five schools, all under 
the same management. These schools were started to give education to the girls of 
rather the higher class—to give them an education which should begin at the very 
beginning, and carry them on till the time they want to go to college. These schools 
have a very slight supervision, but they have a substitute for it. Every year they are 
examined by a board from Oxford and Cambridge. Each year each school sends in an 
account of the work that has been dove. We have occasionally visits every two or 
ihree years from those who technically are not called inspectors, but who occasionally 
call on the schools and give a little advice. 1 think, however, if they would come once 
in three months, instead of once in three years, it would be better; because in many 
»ases they are men of considerable learning. I really think I speak for many English 
teachers when 1 say if we could have more supervision we should be very much better