Printed on another page of this number is a paper by Miss Briggs upon her experiences as an examiner and reader in history for the College Entrance Examination Board, in which figures are given to show that history papers are rated lower than any other of the major subjects, and that the average grade in history, instead of rising, is actually getting lower year by year. Miss Briggs expresses the hope that the low grades are due to the number of applicants who prepare by rapid tutoring or wholly by themselves for the history examinations; a practice, of course, almost impossible in the other major subjects. But while such cramming is partly responsible for the failure of history applicants, it cannot relieve the history teacher of blame. All who have had experience in the marking of history papers in entrance examinations know that much of the teaching of history is careless, indefinite, and without evident purpose or understanding. If our subject is not to lose caste altogether we must find a method which will give the student that which can be measured objectively, as well as furnish subjective satisfaction or culture.
Such a method will not add to the intricacy of history for the student, but it will require more efficient teachers of the subject, and it will prevent that serious evil of the high school teaching of history,—the assignment of history to any unattached instructor, whether he or she knows anything about history or no. History teaching in the college or the graduate school has, to a certain extent, found itself, and won the respect of its fellows; history teaching in the high school and preparatory school has not yet reached that point of self-development.
There has been much talk, and rightfully, about the content of secondary school history courses. The market has been filled with excellent text-books and admirable source books—indeed they are almost too good in that they have made text-book recitations easier and somewhat more interesting. There have been pages and volumes of reading references and map references and source references. Yet with all these aids to the better teaching of history there has not gone a proportionate ability to use them. Let us ask for a while, not what period of history shall we teach? but, how shall we teach any period of history?
In the Latin or Greek class there are objective standards which must be reached; in the mathematics or the English class there is a certain amount and quality of productive work to be accomplished; in the physics or chemistry or botany class there is laboratory experience to be gained and recorded in note-books. Has history a method which can be compared with any of these? Can we measure objectively the student’s acquisition? Can we get him to use in some way his experiences in the field of history, or have him record them in a valuable form?
It may be objected that the establishment of a more intricate historical method will add to the duties and labor of the history teacher. This may be true; and indeed ought to be true. The day ought to have passed when a college graduate who took in college but one course in history, and that in Oriental history, should be thought qualified to teach history in a secondary school. Such cases are not rare to-day; they would be rarer if the historical method were more definite and required better training.
Professor Fling’s article in the SeptemberMagazineand Professor Trenholme’s articles in this and subsequent numbers will furnish some details of historical method which should be valuable to every history teacher. In carrying out these suggestions the teacher may temporarily add to his or her own labors; but this will not be for long. Added efficiency will mean greater respect for the teacher and the subject; and increased respect will bring more assistants in history, more time devoted to the subject, and incidentally a stronger demand for good history teachers. Economically as well as intellectually the history teacher will profit by raising the standards of his profession.
A noted journalist, who is also a writer on educational topics, and a trustee of a large eastern university, in writing to the editor respecting the establishment ofThe History Teacher’s Magazine, said: “Your idea is an admirable one. It ought to do good.... With this teaching, as with all others, I fear the difficulty is the spirit in which it is done, as hireling and not as consecrate.”
Is this charge true of the history teachers of the country? We know that history teachers were among the last to organize for common purposes; that to-day their associations are not as strong as those of teachers of the classics and of other subjects, that their class work is not as well organized as the work of that far more indefinite subject, secondary school English. Are these facts the result of a hireling spirit? We think not. Rather they are due to the unfortunate place which until very recent years, history has occupied in the elementary and secondary school roster. And yet, while we believe there existed and still exist valid impediments to the greatest success of the history teacher, it may be well for each of us to ask himself or herself the question. Am I doing the work as hireling and not as consecrate? At times we need such searching questions. And until the time when we have a great body of history teachers who are teaching the subject because they love it and love to teach it to others our history teaching will be heartless and sterile.