the School lives on, and is always in the hands of the active and the capable. Homes are more dear and valuable, and more to be cherished because they have the helpless and the infirm therein, the wee babe and the unsteady tread and voice of the grand-parents; but schools have no nursery nor easy chair for such as these.

The Home is the place for natural affection—the School, for the common civilities and regards of society, and for the bonds of social friendships, and for the accomplishment of Business, hard and imperative. The Home has friends by natural rights-the School establishes legal and civil rights only. In the Home all are blood relations in the School there is no such thing possible-the State has no power to create blood relations. Some even almost wish that those in authority could have no blood relatives, and while this might be well for legal relations, yet its desirability otherwise is a subject for grave question!

These remarks upon the Home and School have been somewhat extended because it is feared that those often quoted words, "in loco parentis," are not sufficiently understood. They are almost without meaning—for all they can mean is this: that the State has given the School, as a corporation, certain authority-some of which authority is not 'unlike, in kind, that which the parent has by natural and civil right. But this authority belongs exclusively to the School-not to the Instructor, except as the Trustees delegate it to him.

Because a conductor of a railroad train has the right by delegated law to expel a noisy and boisterous passenger, or a three-card-monte gamester-and because a principal of a school enjoys the same rights, do we say that the principal stands in loco conductoris? Hardly, although there seems to be as complete an analogy in the case as in the other. "In loco parentis" means only that the State has given the Trustees authority in this or that direction-in the direction, as to its exercise, which resembles that which the parent seems to have by natural right. In fact, there can be no similarity between the Instructor and Parent, as related to the possession of the rights involved in the case-that of the Parent being natural, that of the Instructor being legal.

11. The School being the creation of the State, and the interests involved being so vital, it would seem to be a legitimate and necessary consequence that all schools should* as to their advancement by the States. Hence, all work having for its end the bettering of the factors in the efficiency of the schools-in especial the Instructors-all such work should be under control of the same power that has authority over the Schools. Unless this be the case there must arise discrepancies, and a diversity of interests and views that can not secure as certain results as are desirable. Besides, unless this be so, over-zealous ambition, dangerous radicalism, and unwise indiscretion have power to harm delicate interests to a

[* The writer of this paper has evidently inadvertently omitted in his copy after should, one or more words, which the printer is unwilling to attempt to supply. The reader should look for the writer's correction in a note at the end of this volume.-Printer.]

deplorable degree-and the door is also open for admission to men whose interests in a school is measured by the amount of money it will bring them. It should never be forgotten that while a School is an Institution created for economic purposes, to increase the wealth of the people, yet this wealth consists in the power to create material wealth, rather than in that material wealth itself. As well might one talk of establishing a State government for the express purpose of enriching the coffers of its officers, as to talk of creating a school for the purpose of enriching in material wealth, the Board of Instructors, or youth attending.

It does not help the case to answer that men have grown rich by means of establishing private schools. There are exceptions, and it is a question of not a little gravity whether the people have been as fortunate in securing returns in sound education and elevated manhood, as those men have been in regard of material wealth.

A School is an Institution-the Bench is an Institution-the management in both cases are equally bound to have no moneyed interest in this matter, in special, if the best discharge of conscientious and impartial labors is to be expected.

Hence all Teachers' Institutes, and all Normal Schools, and all chairs of Pedagogy in Colleges and in Universities-all these should be under the control and supervision of the State.

12. It would seem a proper inference from this discussion that the Normal School has its field very definitely bounded.

For: the State has, in its schools, provided for a general education—the State desires to better its Instructors-it establishes Institutions expressly for this purpose, viz., to do just what the other schools do not do,—that is, give professional tuition-that, and that only.

The difference between the provinces of a School and a Normal School is clear-for, as in Law, so in education-every one who knows Law is not thereby a lawyer, for the application of this Law to this case, how it shall be successfully done-this is the very essence of the Profession of Law. So, in education, how to apply this subject-matter to the case in hand, the best development of this child-this is the very essence of the Profession of the Educator.

13. It would appear that a chair of Didactics simply, can not serve the full purposes of a Professional School. In Law Schools Moot Courts form a central importance-they afford the test of practice. So, Normal Schools are hardly complete in education, without schools for Practice.

14. A legitimate inference would seem to be that the attempt to carry forward both the Scholastic and the Professional investigations at the same time by the student, is attended with somewhat of hazard. For: the two fields being so wholly distinct-and both requiring the undivided ability of the students and Instructors-there must be suffering somewhere, either in the Academic scholarship or in the Professional skill. To be learned in science, as a scholar, does not confirm one as established in the Profession of Literature-so, knowledge of science is not confirmation in the Profession of Pedagogics.

15. Another consequence would be, with Professional Schools occupying their special and proper sphere, that they would establish the Profes

sion as no other means can-they would elevate it into the highest rank, and that right early.

For, as in Law: (Forsyth, "Trial by Jury," p. 10.)

"As the affairs of civil life become more complicated, and laws more intricate and multiplied, it is plainly impossible that such persons, by whatever name they are called, whether judges or jurors, can be competent to deal with legal questions. The law becomes a science which requires laborious study to comprehend it; and without a body of men trained to the task, and capable of applying it, the rights of all concerned would be set afloat-tossed on a wide sea of arbitrary, fluctuating, and contradictory decisions."

As the Science and Profession of Law are grown up, as stated above, so must the Science and Profession of Pedagogics grow up-and Normal Schools are the special schools entrusted with this profound labor.

16. An inference is, that children are legally entitled to enter the schools -they have no natural right there.

Finally: The attempt has been made to outline a School, that it might be viewed by itself-that the boundary lines might be well establishedthat its own grand proportions may be studied in its own contour-that its beginnings, foundations, may be considered whether they be safethat its purposes, whether they be wise, may be scrutinized-that its means and appliances, whether they be ample, may be understood.

If this discussion has helped to bring up before us more vividly, and in clearer light that Institution in which we labor, that corporation which honors us by employing our experience, then is the hope of the writer accomplished, and his desires fulfilled?

The paper was discussed by L. H. SOLDAN, Principal of Normal School, St. Louis, EDWARD BROOKS, D. B. HAGAR, Principal State Normal School, Salem, Mass., C. C. ROUNDS, Principal State Normal School, Farmington,. Me., and J. H. HOOSE.

Adjourned.

Second Day's Proceedings.

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1876.

The Normal Department was called to order by President Brooks. The Secretary being absent, the President appointed J. H. HOOSE Secretary pro tem.

J. H. BALDWIN, Principal of State Normal School, Kirksville, Mo,, presented a paper on The Relations of Normal Schools to Other Schools. [This paper has not been received.-Printer.]

The paper was discussed by Messrs. Geo. P. BEARD, J. H. HOOSE, S. H. WHITE, FELLOWs of Iowa, BALDWIN, J. B. MALLON of Georgia, J. R. MALONE of Texas, ROCKWOOD of Wisconsin, W. E. CROSBY of Iowa, L. H. SOLDAN of St. Louis, and Miss S. A. STEWART of Milwaukee, Wis.

A paper was then presented by C. A. MOREY, of Normal School, Winona, Minn., on the question,

WHAT MAY NORMAL SCHOOLS DO TO FORM RIGHT HABITS OF THOUGHT AND STUDY IN THEIR PUPILS.

There is an old maxim, that children should be taught that which they are to practice in after life. For obvious reasons this has been the subject of much dispute.

In the first place, much that is practical depends upon that which is purely theoretical; and in the second place, much which can never be practical in the ordinary meaning of the maxim, is, considering the child's whole nature, as thoroughly practical as anything he can be taught.

For years theorists have quarrelled over courses of study, the plain, matter-of-fact men insisting upon an adherence to the maxim; others claiming that the studies which merely discipline the mind, should take precedence. Of late years there has been a compromise between these factions; or, rather, both have carried their points, as is usual in arguments. But in either case, or in both combined, the great object of the schools and of the courses of study, is to have the pupils acquire as much matter as possible. Now admitting that both are right, it would seem that in this sense both are wrong. If the matter of a child's ordinary school course' is ever so well chosen, it can only be a beginning; a foundation upon which he himself must build the superstructure of culture and growth. This being true, it becomes very important that the manner of building the foundation should be an index of the whole work. In the school he should not only learn how to do the work of the school, but how to go on working after he gets out into the world. To this end he must learn how to study and how to think. He must learn how to paddle his own educational canoe, and to steer it as well. Then by proper exertion and ambition he may drop his oar into one of the many rowlocks of life, and help to move the world onward.

Children cannot be taught how to study and think properly by one who himself is but indifferently qualified. Therefore Normal Schools have an important duty in this respect. As the pupils in these schools are taught, so will they teach; and the influence of their work will go on forever. What, then, are right habits of thought and study? and how shall they be established in normal pupils?

Neither question is easily answered. There must be a profound love of truth, and a desire for investigation; a sound logic, or knowledge of the laws of reasoning; the power to read rapidly and to observe closely; and the ability to generalize, and to apply facts to the purposes of life.

Culture includes much more than is usually taught in schools. It can not be tested by written examinations nor expressed by a per cent. It

consists more in what a man can do, than of what he remembers. It implies an understanding of the real uses of knowledge, and of the true purposes of life.

To make teachers who shall have this love of truth, and broad culture, Normal Schools must in the first place choose their material more carefully. Everything that comes to a mill will not make flour. At the first all those who will make teachers cannot be separated from those who will not; but it does not take long to determine them. It is difficult, sometimes to make pupils understand it, but it is far better for all concerned to graduate only those who have at least a moderate amount of talent for teaching.

Perhaps the first important thing for the pupil-teachers to learn is the proper use of books. It is useless to cry down text-books. All books are text-books, whether used in schools or not, and teachers must know how to use them. The practice of memorizing lessons is going out of fashion in association speeches, and educational papers. It still sticks fast in the schools because pupils are not shown how to use books in any other way. I remember with much pleasure the young graduate of Amherst who first taught me how to get a lesson in Physiology by reading it. There was a large class of us in the high school, and we began as usual by memorizing the whole lesson. He forbade it, and showed us the better way; we were astonished that such a thing could be done.

The reading-lessons in schools should be made to develop this power, Too much elocution is taught. The lessons of the day should be read in class for the ideas in them, without particular reference to the tone of voice or the quality of the emphasis. If a class thoroughly understands. a paragraph in the Natural Philosophy, nine out of every ten of them will read it well.

But it is no easy matter so to read a lesson as to notice and remember all that is important in it. Pupils will skim it at first, and it is for the teacher to show them how to dive for the complete ideas and hidden meanings. All the nooks and corners should be laid open in the class; every possible view brought to light and discussed. Then will the pupils begin to see the ideas in the words of the book, and they will soon learn how to dig them out, and to throw away the shells in which they lie. There must be a broad preparation on the part of the teacher. It is not enough that he look over the lesson in the book. If he only does that, he will question the class with the book before him, either actually or mentally; and as a consequence the class will be confined to it in their study. They can have no rope longer than his halter.

Cultivation of the memory, however, must not be lost sight of. Many are running to the extreme. Intellectual power depends largely upon the memory; and in turn the best use of the memory depends upon the ability so to collate and join facts together as to form the knowledge of a subject into a compact, closely-related whole. There can be no separation of the two. One recruits; the other drills and organizes the militia of ideas into a regular army, sure, reliable, and always ready for the intellectual en

counter.

Young teachers are cautioned against talking too much. The caution