and the professional subjects are needed in the education of the teacher. The trouble lies in the sharp demarcation that exists between the two groups. This imaginary student will be under teachers of the sciences and languages, each of whom teaches his subject in its scientifically organized form, with little or no relation to the everyday affairs of life. His major subject, history, will very likely be taught by professors who have obtained their positions through their ability and industry in research, but who were not appointed because of teaching ability, and who very probably know nothing and care very little for the problems of the secondary teacher. The teachers of the professional subjects, on the other hand, in their keen desire to be "practical," are likely to let their work degenerate into a mere conglomerate of directions for meeting "specific school-room situations." Educational psychology, for instance, may be such a hodge-podge of specific training; or it may be so taught as to connect physiology, hygiene, mathematics, physics, industrial geography, economics, etc. In-so-far as it is not so taught, educational psychology or any other professional subject not only fails to realize its inherent cultural possibilities, but it becomes less effective as a vocational subject, since the student is being trained for certain specific situations, but is not being given the type of training which makes for flexibility and skill in meeting new situations. And if there is any occupation where such skill is needed in a superlative degree, it is that of teacher. An incident that happened at a certain college of education a few years ago, since it illustrates so well the conventional as well as a more enlightened conception of the purpose of professional educational courses, may be related here. A middle-aged lady, with many years experience in teaching, came to summer school and, on the advice of the secretary of the college, registered for certain professional courses. About a week later, she came back and complained to that functionary that the courses he recommended were not what she wanted at all. They were too historical, too general. "What I want," she said, "is something that will help me in meeting the specific situations that arise in my school." The secretary replied: "You don't want an education; you want a box of tricks." Professional subjects should not merely supply to the student a box of tricks; they should contribute to his education. Thus the training of teachers, as it is often conducted, with the liberal and professional subjects taught in watertight compartments, suffers from the same evils that attend the separation of liberal and vocational subjects in the work of the public schools; each set of subjects loses in effectiveness as a result of the artificial separation. What can be done to break down this separation and thus obviate these evils? The remedy, as I see it, has, to some extent, been intimated in the previous discussion; it remains to make it explicit. I offer three suggestions. First, let us so far as possible, secure for teachers of the academic subjects in our colleges of education persons who are not only competent scholars in their respective fields, but also realize that a subject gains instead of loses in cultural value when it is related in as many ways as possible to the practical affairs of life, and that one of these practical affairs is public school teaching. It is, of course, impossible that all college teachers should be acquainted with the problems of the elementary and secondary school. But it is probably not too much to hope for a time when in every college that trains teachers there will be for each subject ordinarily taught in the schools at least one teacher who knows the subject thoroughly, who is a skillful teacher, and who has sympathetic understanding of school problems. Under such conditions, every student, at least in his major subject, would have the opportunity of coming in contact with a man who could teach the subject and give instruction in methods of teaching it at one and the same time. Methods would then be taught in intimate relation to the subject-matter and illus trated and enlivened by the skill of the master teacher. The student's major subject would thus become to him, in the best sense, both a vocational and a liberal subject. Second, let those of us who are teachers of the professional subjects abate our zeal for the "useful" and the "practical" sufficiently to recognize that our chief business is to help educate the prospective teacher. We must teach our subject in intimate relation, not only to the problems of the classroom, but to the whole intellectual and social life of the time. Third, let us emphasize more than we have in the past those subjects whose special function it is to study education in the broadest and richest possible context. It has always seemed to me that the two subjects of supreme importance in this connection (though as above stated, all professional subjects should contribute toward it) are philosophy of education and history of education. Neither is directly concerned with specific training for the details of teaching or administration, but each, in its own way, can render invaluable service in placing the technical, scientific aspects of education in relation to the whole social life of the time, and with all the subjects of the liberal curriculum. In-so-far as they do this they tend to make the education of the teacher a unity instead of a duality. T Mentality and Delinquency ENOLA B. HAMILTON, NEW ORLEANS, LA. HE cost of maintaining corrective and penal institutions, the desire for the safety of society, and other considerations have made the following questions important: (1)* What causes delinquency? (2) To what extent can delinquents be cured of their attitude toward society? (3) How can delinquency be prevented? In other words, what methods investigative, remedial, or preventive — should one use in order to lower the percentage of delinquents? The determining of the mental status of delinquents, both adult and juvenile, began in efforts to decide what form of punishment should be given to the individual on trial. The first tests given were those for insanity. Mental testing of delinquents not insane was at first used to determine where cases should go; also as a basis for transferring inmates from one kind of institution to another; for example, from the reformatory to a home for feeble-minded, or vice versa. The first statistics gathered from institutions for delinquents showed a high percentage of feeble-mindedness as compared with school children. For example, Goddard estimated this percentage at 25%; Elmira Reformatory found 70%; Dr. W. J. Hickson of the Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago estimated 93% defective. (1) These figures led to the question: Is feeble-mindedness one of the main causes of delinquency? More recent investigations have shown that these percentages were too high. These high rates were probably due to the fact that the mental age of the average adult was thought to be about sixteen years. Examination of 1,700,000 drafted men in the U. S. army showed that, according to this • Explanation of notes: (1) means reference (1); (2) means reference (2), etc. standard, 40% of our soldiers would have been classed as morons or worse. Even in juvenile institutions, the first percentages were too high; for the majority of the delinquents were adolescents, and the first scales used were later found to be too hard at the upper end. Even at present the percentage of the subnormal and feeble-minded in corrective and penal institutions shows a higher rate of defectives than do court cases; for suspended sentence and probation act as a sieve, by means of which the mentally normal delinquent is segregated from the defective. The Voluntary Defenders' Committee of New York City found the following facts: Out of 574 cases heard, 11.9% were found mentally defective. Among those sentenced, 16.2% were mentally defective. Out of all those sentenced, 32.5% were placed on probation. Only 18.2% of the defectives, however, were placed on probation. If, therefore, one wishes to estimate the percentage of feeble-mindedness among delinquents, court statistics are preferable to institutional statistics, although even these will not give an exact estimate, for it must be remembered that the more intelligent criminals are the ones who most often escape arrest. sources. Below are given a few reports from various The Juvenile Court of Cincinnati gives 8% feeble-minded. (2) The Psychiatric Travelling Clinic held by the Commonwealth Fund in St. Louis (2) found among delinquents 8.4% feeble-minded, 10% borderline, 26% subnormal. Dr. William Healy, (1) after studying 1000 cases in the Juvenile Court of Chicago, found 8.9% morons, .8% imbeciles, 8.1% subnormal mentally. Dr. Augusta Bronner in the same court, out of a study of 505 cases found 8.1% feeble-minded, 2.2% doubtful, 10.3% defective intellectually. The Voluntary Defenders Committees of the New York City gives for court cases: Borderline .... 2.5% |
