requirement. Each historical field-ancient, mediaeval and modern European, English and American-should, if retained, be so stated as to show with some precision the topics or classes of topics to be treated, and the chronological proportions. The farce of announcing "English History" as a requirement should end, and the schools should be told what parts or aspects of that vast subject the college expects. The text book, incomparably better now than ever before, should be reinstated in its proper place as the core, and for most purposes the sufficient body, of elementary instruction. If collateral reading is to be retained, the particular books or parts of books expected to be read should be specified, and examination questions set upon them; otherwise collateral reading had best cease to form any longer a part of the entrance history requirement.

The Reconstruction of History Teaching

BY J. MADISON GATHANY, A. M., HEAD OF THE HISTORY DEPARTMENT, HOPE STREET HIGH SCHOOL,

I

PROVIDENCE, R. I.

........................T is common knowledge that there is widespread and severe criticism as to the results of history and civics teaching. Among the critics are history teachers, history writers, educators, a host of parents, and an almost countless number of boys and girls who consider the study of history as a necessary evil. Perhaps Dr. Snedden, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education, has summed up the opinion of these critics as well as anyone in his book, "Problems of Educational Readjustment," Chapter IV. He says: "all of us feel vaguely, that in history, if anywhere, should be found valuable means of liberal education. But scientific methods, an insufficient pedagogy, and a prevailing lack of social insight have contributed to the sterilization of this subject as a soil for the growth of ideals, sentiments, and useful social knowledge." "The study of history as now carried on in secondary schools, does not 'function' in appreciable modification of civic attitudes, ideals, or knowledge, because teachers of history do not certainly know what results they seek, in terms of valid educational utilities, their efforts seem to be largely wasted, if measured in terms of better citizenship." "History courses, as now found, especially in secondary schools, reflect only the most superficial pedagogical organization." "As respects both aims and methods, the various courses of history are still in essential respects unexplored territory." "Both historian and history teacher tend to organize and interpret the sources of history without reference to the significance or applicability of these to the problems of present and future social life." "History teaching fails to serve as an instrument of civic education in the secondary schools because its aims are undefined and its organization and study are pedagogically

unsound." These statements are severe, and if true constitute a serious denunciation of the ordinary history writer and history teacher.

In discussing the Reconstruction of History Teaching it might be well to arrange what we have to say under three headings, namely,

At the present time there are two groups or schools of history writers and history teachers, and these two schools are radically and sometimes almost unforgivingly opposed to each other. The older school, which may be termed the conservative, reactionary, stand-pat school, says that history should be studied for history's sake. Some of this schools say that the primary, others say that the only object at which the teacher of history should aim is to impart as much knowledge of the history of the past as possible; that the function of history teaching is not to enable the pupil to understand or appreciate his social environment and the problems of his own time. These say that such a function is wrong because it is making the study of history bear almost wholly upon the present and the future,-wrong because it is always drawing attention to what we are to become. And as history teachers, we are not to be concerned about the present, not about the future. In the eyes of this school the function of history teaching is to draw attention to things that have been, because they have been. We are to center our thoughts in the life that was. Study the facts! Study the facts! The facts of the life that has been! And stop right there.

In very recent years another school of history writers and history teachers has arisen, which may be termed the insurgent, progressive, radical school. The point of view of this school is fundamentally different from the view point of the older school. The newer school says study the past, know the facts of the past, study the things that have been, but what things and why? Just because the things of the past have been? Just because we wish to lay claim to being "cultured", "educated" beings? "No! No!" This

newer school says: study the past, but don't stop right there. Study the past not simply to know the past because it is the past, but study the past so as to know how the present has come to be. Don't stop there even, says this recent school, but go a step further, and study the present, so as to understand the life that now is. Study the past and the present so that we may intelligently analyze the present and its problems. This school believes that historical facts or events are comparatively of little value unless they have a bearing upon the present world of thought and action. The real function of history teachings according to the new school is to develop constructive and interpretative power in order that we may rightly judge contemporaneous problems, movements, institutions, and public leaders. We are to study history not for history's sake, but for our sake and for our children's sake.

To illustrate the spirit of this school, it is their contention that it is wrong to send forth each year from the publicly supported schools into the life of the public a multitude of youth without useful knowledge, without knowledge of American government and of present-day conditions, without knowledge of existing social, economic, and political evils, without knowledge of the great forces that have been turning this old world upside down in the last twenty-five years,-forces that have caused the disintegration of ancient monarchies and established republics in their places; without knowledge of the evils of child labor and life-robbing conditions of the laboring class; without knowledge of the surging forces that are causing the spread of Socialism and the ideals of the Industrial Workers of the World; without knowledge of the wickedness of corrupt politics and corrupt business methods. This school maintains that it is socially criminal to send forth scores of thousands of boys and girls every year into a social organism without giving them an understanding of the essential conditions and needs of that organism when it is crying loud for intelligent and true leadership. It is this school that has caused within the last few years a revolution in viewpoint, selection of material, and methods of history teaching, and the revolution from all present indications, is spreading with great rapidity. It is this school that has forced to the front the question of the reconstruction of history teaching.

In addition to the above criticism, the newer school maintains that there are other fundamental reasons why the theory of history teaching of the older school should be modified and history teaching reorganized. (1) One of these reasons is that the results of history teaching according to the other theory are far from satisfactory. The permanent acquisitions are far too meager. In the study of the minutiae of history we have lost history. The residuum has not justified the terrific exertion of school authorities and school teachers and the huge expense to which the public has been put. A very keen observer and competent judge has said that he thinks that boys and girls do not remember one-tenth of one per cent of all the facts they are asked to learn in the history courses. Further results of the older theory are that the customary way of teaching history has a deadening and ruinous effect upon the interest the adolescent would naturally have in such an inherently live subject; that boys and girls leave our schools after spending ten or twelve years in them almost completely out of touch with current issues and problems, knowing more of the sixteenth century than of the twentieth; that they have almost no understanding of the world they are about to live in; that the history courses usually fail to make pupils think; that the public is not getting its money's worth.

(2) Then, the newer school says that the older way of teaching history is based on a false theory of culture, that theory being that culture is a product of the study of things hoary with age. Who says that is the way to get culture? Culture? What is culture? Will a pupil or an adult receive any more culture in studying the recorded deeds of old military chieftains and elaborate descriptions of old tombs than he would receive in making a careful critical study of the Panama Canal tolls repeal bill with its historic background? Is it not pertinent to ask whether we have not by means of our immemorial conception of culture developed false ideals of culture, hypocritical ideals of culture?

(3) Again, the newer school says that the old theory of history teaching from a truly educational view point rests upon a psychologically unsound basis. From the standpoint of psychology a pupil will not and cannot learn effectively, and what he learns will not remain with him permanently unless he has direct in