children go to work before the eighteenth year as possible and to insure that while in school the very best education that we know of is given to all children. The question now arises, what is the best education we know of? Let us begin this discussion this way. Let it be granted for the sake of argument, that certain high schools have a legitimate function as selective agencies and feeders for the colleges. such high schools would be few in number, and limited in their offerings. For the great mass of children who cannot go to college either because of lack of money or lack of the grade of intelligence the colleges demand, there should be other types of senior high schools, other types of junior high schools, and possibly even other types of elementary schools. We hope that eventually our studies in curriculum construction will bear fruit in the form of at least a minimum core curriculum which all children with an I. Q. of seventy-five or over can take with profit, up to, let us say, the sixth year. The speed with which this work is accomplished will vary according to each individual child's ability. From the very first year, it ought to be possible to group children into at least three groups, preferably more, on the basis of teacher's estimates, intelligence tests, achievement tests, and any other reliable indications that we have. Assuming genuine teaching on the teacher's part, each pupil should advance as rapidly as he is able to. There should be an increasing diversity in the offerings of fine arts, industrial arts, and prevocational work as we go up the grades. As the terms go by, we would be able to note those pupils who give promise of being able successfully to attend college. Such pupils could go to the college preparatory high schools. Most of the pupils, however, would give promise of better performance in the commercial schools, the technical schools, the vocational schools and the trade schools. If these schools insist on apparently excessive academic standards before admitting a pupil, let us establish this work in our junior high schools, or as separate schools, or as special groups in the above-mentioned schools, for which more desirable academic standards exist, and wherein any pupil, all the way down to the dullest of the dull-normals will find something that he can do successfully. Here he will be trained for some vocation, however humble it may be, and at the same time will receive a training in social adjustments which that type of pupil usually needs so much. Here, if we have done our work well, he will be happy in his work, simple though it may be, and he will stay until his work is finished or his time is up. At such a time he will graduate or receive a diploma or certificate to that effect. Under such a system there would be no pupils failed or left back. All pupils would progress and the amount accomplished by any pupil would depend on that pupil's capacities and upon our ability to make him see these capacities and develop them. Such a scheme would require a revision of our educational philosophy and a systematic course of education for our educators. It would mean a greatly diversified system of elementary, junior and senior high schools; a greatly increased and improved system of vocational guidance; an intensive study of curriculum revision; and a large improvement in our methodology. It would cost more for adequate buildings, for equipment, and for training of teachers. It might cost more for a number of other reasons, but if we are going to do the job at all we might better do it as it ought to be done. There is nothing very revolutionary in this doctrine. It has been agitated often in the past, but a great deal of agitation is still necessary. The future is bound to witness great changes in educational procedure. Before we come to that time, might we not with profit pause for a moment to consider whither we are heading, to plan for that future, and to ask ourselves several pertinent questions. Are we really sold to this idea of "Democracy in Education?" If we are, does this mean that the future will see, enforce a universal compulsory education law for all children through the eighteenth year, with state aid for those children in need of economic assistance? Will not such a universal education demand adequate education for each individual child in accordance with his individual abilities? If such be the case, ought we not to start in now to determine what each child needs and how best to provide it? Will this mean that those above a certain I. Q. will be the only ones to go to college; those in another range the only ones to go to technical school; those of a lower range the ones to go to vocational and trade schools; those of the lowest range to fill the routine, mechanical, almost futureless positions? It has meant virtually A this in the past. If it is to continue thus in the future, let us plan for it now. Let us recognize these differing abilities, capacities, and prospects for the future and insure that each child be trained for what he is best fitted to do. Let us disabuse our minds of the tradition that the only real education is academic education, and that only those who can profit by such have a right to be educated. Let us realize our duty to all the children and let us avoid in future the waste of a useless expenditure of millions of dollars and countless precious hours in an attempt to force a mass of children to master that which they cannot master and ought not to be expected to master. SOME STATISTICS ON THE have adopted it in the junior or senior high schools. A glance at the above graph will reveal By J. T. JOHNSON, Department of Education, Chicago Normal College T Bluffton, Indiana, in 1902 Superintendent W. A. Wirt originated the work-study-play plan of school organization which he has developed further at Gary, Indiana in the city. that was "made to order" in 1906. Here during seven years of careful experimentation the plan was tried out. By 1914 it spread to 15 schools in 4 other cities. During the period 1914-1920 it was adopted in 35 more cities where it was used in 148 schools. From 1921-1925 it spread to 336 schools in 53 other cities at the rate of 67 schools a year. Thus at the date of April, 1925, this new type of organization was established in over 500 schools of 30 states in a total of 93 cities having a combined population of 16,000,000. Twenty-one of these cities including Detroit and Pittsburgh have adopted the plan as a city-wide policy, while twentyone have adopted the system in about onehalf of their elementary schools. Ten 1902 1907 1914 1922 1925 NO-OF CITIES GROWTH OF PLATOON SCHOOL IN CITIES 15 160 453 that the platoon school is no longer an experiment. It outgrew that stage in 1914. It is here to stay. VARYING SIZE OF PLATOON SCHOOLS The following table, which consolidates information from 369 executives in charge of 419 schools, shows the distribution of platoon schools varying in size from 100 to 3,000 pupils: NO. OF SCHOOLS 63 136 187 33 NO. OF PUPILS 100- 500 500- 800 800-1500 1500-3000 2. It is adaptable to any type of community as it enables each school system to have an individuality of its own. 3. It increases the capacity of the school building. 4. It greatly enriches the school life of the children. 5. The academic work does not suffer but improves under the plan. 6. Education seems to be "catching" in these schools. Superintendent Wirt, the originator of the plan, says there are only two essential NATIONAL CONFERENCES ON THE PLATOON points about the plan-first, it does away PLAN Upon repeated requests from superintendents interested in the platoon organization, Mr. John J. Tigert, federal commissioner of education, in February, 1922, called the first national conference on the work-study-play or platoon plan in connection with the meeting of the Department of Superintendence of the N. E. A. in Chicago. This conference was for the purpose of giving information and exchanging ideas on the plan by those who had had experience with it. The Bureau of Education has acted as a clearing house of information and conducted four conferences. The last one held in Cincinnati in February, 1925, was so large that a National Association of Platoon and Work-Study-Play Schools was organized which will carry on the work. The Bureau of Education will continue, however, to collect and distribute data on the new type of school. During the last 4 years it has received requests for such information from 1,200 school superintendents, principals, supervisors, and teachers from forty-four states of the Union. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A PLATOON SCHOOL All the speakers at the first conference. agreed upon the following six features of the platoon school: 1. The plan sells itself to a community once it is started. with the reserved seat idea; and second, it makes it possible for every school system to work out a program to suit its own individual needs. Endeavoring to find out more about the nature and status of this new type of school from those in actual control of such schools, in June, 1925, the writer prepared an extensive questionnaire on all phases. of school work which was sent to the superintendents of 45 cities where the new plan had been in operation for 3 years or more. |