« AnteriorContinuar »
TOO MANY RULES. i Messrs. Editors :- Your correspondent “Q,” in his comparison of public and private schools, has maintained some views which I regard, at least, doubtful. With your permission, I propose to review a portion of his last article in the Journal. He opens the discussion by the following negative question," Are not the numerous and stringent rules laid down in private schools admirably suited to the training of young people ?” He then answers his own enquiry' by the confident “No, we think not." Your correspondents objection to private schools seems to be, because they have “ numerous and stringent rules.” I infer, therefore, that his model public scbool has no such rules. I never before learned that such a marked difference exists between a good public and privato school. I have supposed that every good school was made so under “ numerous and stringent rules," expressed or understood. This is still my opinion. A well governed school without stringent rules is a solecism. If not so, the observation and experience of twenty-five years in the school room have availed me nothing. Systematic order must prevail in every school-room, or the school is worse than useless. There can be no system without rules and no order without stringency. These rules may be printed and placed upon the wall for reference, or announced verbally in the bearing of the pupils, or they may be entirely unexpressed. The teacher may be his own judge which is best suited to his purpose, but to maintain that good order can uniformly prevail in any school where the pupils are left to follow their own in. clinations, (I care not how well disposed those pupils may be,) is mere nonsense. There must be rules so stringent that perfect order can at any moment be preserved or restored, and so numerous that they will reach the whole routine of school life. A good school without law published and enforced! We might as well insist that the planets of our solar system would keep in their orbite without the action of the centripetal and centrifugal forces.
But your correspondent urges that the “ number and strictness of these rules is but a temptation to wanton transgression." This, certainly, cannot be true of the conscientious and faithful pupils whose whole aim is improve. ment. They are always in favor of "stringent rules," as they are thus protected from the intrusion of the reckless and enabled to gain the control of their time. And I deny that the lawless even, are as often guilty of “wanton transgression” uhder stringent as under lax government. All my experience is against this conclusion. And even if it were true, must we give up our schools to the mercy of circumstances and expose the many to the recklessness of the few, for fear of offending them? But we are told that the pupil knows “the thing forbidden is not wrong in itself and cannot be convinced that the doing of it will work him any injury.” Whether wrong in itself or in the circumstances, makes no difference. It is wrong, and the good of the school and, of course, of the i dividual, demands that the prohibition be enforced. This is an axiom in school government. Would my opponent consult the inclinations of his reckless pupils as to what regalations should be enforced? He may have high authority for so doing, in the management of our Chief Magis. trate with his secession rebels at the south! Rather tame, it seems to me, in either case !
And it is further said," he knows the probibition is purely arbitrary.” This is begging the question. He knows no such thing. The rules, whether five or twenty, which are usually adopted for the direction and govern ment of a good school, are not arbitrary. I have not managed a private school in twenty years, in which such "stringent rules” would not have been adopted by the popular vote and a large majority. The teacher is in fault, if his pupils take such a view of existing laws and regulations.
And must “ Thou shalt not” never be spoken in school? “Q" informs us that it is "a temptation to do just the thing interdicted.” Then God made a mis take when he said " Thou shalt not kill !" All prohibitions on our statute books are wrong, for they tempt med to commit the very act forbidden! Will your correspon." dent allow his reasoning to work out its legitimate results? Would he never make a "stringent rule," or enforce a severe regulation ? He favors us with an example of a “boarding school miss” who expressed to him the pecessity of “letting off occasionally.” He does not blame her, nor allow any other one to do so. That “Miss" must be one of that kind which needs the restraint of law, for the studious and faithful have no need of sucli a safety valve. If that “Miss” was a pupil of mine, I should insist, for the good of the school, “that she “ let off" in va cation, or at least in recreation hours. "Q's" "spontaneous development” is all well enough, if the growth is in the right direction. If not, it must be "checked." The pruning hook is for the ill-shaped tree ; law is for the law. less. It does not interfere with the better class, but rather aids them in their work of self-culture. The reckless must be restrained. To be sure, “that government is best which governs least," but in no school except that which is already under the control of systematic and rigid laws, can government be dispensed. with. A well made watch whose wheels and springs are perfectly adjusted and completely lubricated, and which is "wound up” under "strin. gent” law, needs no one to govern the movement of its hands. Every action is harmonious ; the machine is selfadjusting; it keeps good time. So with the strictly governed school; it can be true of no other kind.
Power, in its quality and degree, is the true measure of manhood.-Dr. Holland.
HONORARY TITLES FOR TEACHERS. The Rev. T. Starr King speaks as follows of the injustice done our fraternity, and of the deserved merit of our profession:
" Profession," did I say? No. Here is the injustice. Here is the proof of the marvellous infidelity of our public as yet to the service which can hardly be surpassed by any other type. American liberty and hopes are based on comprehensive education, mental and moral, and we do not yet recognize the teacher's calling as one of the " learned professions." There is the degree of M. D., a title of respect for every one who enters the ranks of the healers by the regular door. Every clergyman has his prefix of “Rev." which floats him sometimes like a cork, upon waters where he could not •swim. “D.D.” is con. ferred, every year upon many a man who is no scholar in Christian history or dogmatics. I have known cases where LL.D. has been affixed, by prominent colleges, to the names of men who could not have told what the two L'a, with a period after them, were the abbreviation of. But there is no title for teachers. And I am ignorant of the fact, if any University or College has yet sought out an eminent, consecrated, thoroughly efficient teacher, to confer upon him or her any title of honor as an acknowledgment of personal service to society, or the rank of the calling to which he or she is pledged.
We must do what we can to repair this injustle--we who know the value of the office, the grand portion or the gifts that are so often brought to it, and the nobleness of the spirit in which those gifts are frequently dedicated.
A correspondent of the Home Journal, writing from Japan, says, that during a half year's residence in that country, he has never seen a quarrel, even among children.
THE ASTEROIDS. As many of the readers of the Journal may not have seen this table of asteroids, we give the following com plete list, bringing the discoveries down to November 1st, 1860. The Roman numerals annexed to the names of discoverers, denote the numbers discovered by them respect ively.
15 16 17
No. | Names of Asteroids | By whom discovered Date of Discovery. 1 Ceres,
1801, January 1. Pallas, Olbers, I,
18G2, March 28. 8 Juno, Harding,
1804, September 1. Vesta, Olbers, II,
1807, March 29. 6 Astraa,
Hencke, I, 1845, December &
Hencke, II, 1847, July 1.
1847, August 13. 8 Flora,
1847, October 18. Meris, Graham,
1848. April 26. 10 Hygeia, De Gasparis, 1, 1849, April 12. 11 Parthenope, De Gasparis, II, 1850, May 11. . 12 Victoria,
1850, September 13. 13 Egeria,
De Gasparis, III, 1850, November 2.
1851, May 19.
De Gasparis, V, 1852, March 17.
1852, April 17.
1852, June 24. 19 Fortuna,
1852, August 22. Massalia, De Gasparin, VI, 1852. Spiember 19. Lutetia,
Goldschmidt, 1, 1852, November 15. Calliope, Hind, VII, 1852, November 16 23 'Thalia,
Hind, VIII, 1852, December 15. 24 Chernis, De Gasparis, VII 1853, April 5. Phocea.
Chacornac, I, 1853, April 6. 26 Proserpine,
1853, May 5. 27 Euterpe,
1853, November 8. 28 Bellona, Luther, III, 1854, March 2 VO Amphitrite, Marth,
1854, March 2. 30 Urania,
1854, July 22. 31 Euphrosyne, Furguson, 1, 1854, September 1. Poinona,
Gold.chmidt, II, 1854. October 26. Polyhymnia, Chacornac, II, 1854, October 29, Circe,
Chacornac, III, 1855, April 6. 35 Leucothea, Luther, IV, 1855, April 19. Atalanta, Goldschmidt, III,
1855, October 5.