An Experimental Critical Study of the Problem of Grading and Promotion

Author:

23. Franklin Jones, Ph.D.,

Head of Dept. of Psychology and Pedagogy, Maryland State Normal School, Baltimore, Md.

Part I.?The Formal Aspect of the Problem.

Introduction.

The old ungraded school, whatever else may bo said about it, had one splendid feature that the graded school has never attained; namely, its instruction was individualistic. On the other hand, the graded school has come to us as an administrative necessity; its economic aspect is unmistakable, and it has made possible the education of the masses. Once with us, we were quick to discern that the graded school was a mighty, social institution. We have seen that the members of its epitomized society render valuable service to others at the very time they are working for themselves; that its recitation is a veritable mental clearing house in which values are exchanged, each sees through the eyes of others, and the individual is taught by forty teachers instead of by one. The principle of highest value in the graded school is thus held to be the social principle; and this, whatever else may come to the school, we are not now willing to sacrifice. But if, while conserving the social, we can in some way bring back the valuable individualistic principle of the old, ungraded school, then we shall have realized, perhaps, the ideal on that formal administrative side which we call grading the school.

Within this problem of grading, wo have to recognize a subproblem. The school grade is not static; but the moment instructions begins, this feebly cohering mass begins to disintegrate, one student forging ahead and another lagging behind. This subproblem which we have to meet is the problem of re-adjustment; that is, promotion, positive and negative.

Students of educational administration have been at work with this problem of grading and promotion ; but unfortunately in this, as in other fields of education, we have been offered an array of opinions, rather than facts. We have had but few investigations that have given us facts, and these it seems have been of the extensive rather than of the intensive type.

It is a significant fact that investigators who have dealt with the different aspects of the problem of grading and promotion have apparently never failed to find that the more deeply one enters into the study of this problem, the more one is aware of the needs of individual and intensive studies. Thus Thorndike1 notes that

“the school histories of individual pupils are the proper data”

for measuring the unequal lengths of the different grades; and he points out several 1 inadequacies” in his own extensive study.

Ayres” notes that grade distribution is the result of such diverse elements, that without the most careful analysis, conclusions as to any of these elements are liable to go astray.”

I he fact is, we need many investigations of each type before w e can hope for a definite solution of the serious problem of grading and promotion. We shall havo to have a multitude of facts that call for further study. With 110 thought therefore of being able to settle the matter, it is the aim in the present study to approach the subject of grading and promotion from the intensive standpoint, with the hope of being able to throw some light upon the problem.

Study jSTo. 1. The immediate aim of this study may be stated in the form of three questions:

1. That portion of the failures to carry regular school work under the lockstep3 system is due to incapacity?

2. What portion of the elimination from school under this system is due to incapacity ?

3. W hat light does this study throw upon the problem of grading and promotion ?

Material.

One of the public schools under my supervision in Illinois presented what seemed to be a favorable type for this study. The situation was not too complex. There were eight grades in the ui ing, aei aging a little less than forty students per grade,4 t e argest enrolment in any grade being forty-six, and the lowest, t irty two. ach grade was carried in two sections, working rat er c ose together (lockstep). The eight teachers were well acquainte with their work, 110 one of them having served less than tirce }eais at her post. My own acquaintance with nearly every ami 3, lepresented in the school, was not my least encouragement, mally, every child of school age in the district was in attendance ; for this city, not unlike what Comman5 says of Boston, could sss &s Smc- u‘Proceedings of the N. E. A ‘ 1003 n’n 4n? 10 STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 65 “boast” that it had “a seat for every child able to attend,” and the school law enforced attendance.

Method. In the choice of method, I met two apparently opposing demands:

1. It was evident that in assuming to pass upon a student’s capacity to do the required work under given conditions, I must have something more than “examinations.” I must come into close touch with him, see him work, converse with him, pry into his mind and into his methods of study; in short, I must make an intensive study of the student.

2. 1 could not make an adequately intensive study of all the students in this school, yet I must have an adequate measure of class abilities under the existing conditions.

The plan adopted was as follows:

The investigation covered a period of three years. As soon as work was fairly under way in the fall, the classes were tested for class average in each subject. Work was assigned at the beginning of test, periods and the class closely supervised to see that all ‘tried”. One test of from fifteen to thirty minutes was given in each of the major subjects each day. The total number of class tests ranged from five to twenty per subject in each grade. The object of these class tests was twofold:

1. To find the average ability of the class in each subject, working under the usual conditions.

2. To locate doubtful students.

As soon as it appeared that a student could not do seventy-five per cent as much work in a given time as the average of his class, he was made the subject of special study. All tests were on current school work. In the private tests, the student was first examined to see if his “back work” was sufficiently sound to warrant his classification. If so, he was then tested on the work the class was tested on, but which he had either failed in or had not reached in the class test. The object of the private tests, to repeat in part, was to determine:

1. Classification.?Whether or not the student was in the best place the school could offer him.

2. Ability to maintain rate of work shown in class tests.

3. Validity of often meager showing made in class tests.

4. Personal characteristics at work.?Methods of attacking work, grasp of subject, industry, persistence, conservation of time, etc. Similar though less searching tests were given during the year, as new subjects (i. e. division, fractions, etc.) were reached.

It must be remembered that the object was to test the student’s ability at the time to do the work the class was regularly engaged in, whatever that work was, under the usual conditions of study, teaching, and so on. Since it is impracticable to do more than indicate the nature of these numerous tests, I give herewith one test in each of the school subjects (major). These tests are picked at random, except as noted later.

Test in Beading?First Grade. (Class of 18)

Material Used.?Story of the fox, pages 108-100, in the first book of the “Stepping Stones to Literature” series, published by Silver Burdett & Co. jSTo one in the class had ever seen the lesson before.

Instructions to Class.?”Study it as you usually do your reading lesson. As soon as you know what it says, close the book quietly and fold your hands.” (Time was recorded for each student. Each was then questioned in private for the thought, and remanded if necessary, counting additional time.) Test in Arithmetic?Fourth Grade. (Class of 21)

Material Used.?Problems on page 111 of Book I, Werner Arithmetic, published by the American Book Company. Instructions to Class.?”Take the problems in order, and work as many of them as you can before time is called. Only those which you get right will be counted.” (These students had been taught during a test to leave problems which they could not work out without losing considerable time.) (In handling problems of a series growing gradually more difficult, the plan commonly followed was that of having the students first work through the even-numbered problems, then through the odd numbered.) The results of this test are as follows:

widths:

25 25 25 25

header-rows:

1

1 28 3 17 1 24 3 16 1 21 2 2 20 2 11 3 19 1 2 2 18

Class average, 17 problems.

STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 67 (Tliis test was not picked at random, but selected for reasons shown later.)

Test in Grammar?Seventh Grade. (15 students) Material.?Fifteen typewritten slips of paper containing ten sentences each. Instructions to Class.?”Underscore once the logical subject, and twice the logical predicate, in each of the ten sentences. Raise the hand when finished.” The ten sentences were as follows:

1. The old man was often in want of the necessaries of life.

2. The book of which you spoke is not to be found in the library.

3. He did not understand the assignment.

4. The train which was expected at ten o’clock did not arrive till eleven.

5. How many men were killed in the battle? G. Those of you who can answer my question, raise the hand. 7. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” 8. I shall probably reach home before dark. 9. Several men died of fever in the ship. 10. Are you not trying to do your work well?

(Time recorded for each student. Rating combined accuracy and time.) Test in Geography?Eighth Grade. (15 students) Material.?Physical and relief maps of Africa. Instructions to Class.?Recalling the prevailing winds, see how many facts you can discover that go to show why the ^ile, the Sahara, and the Congo are what they arc and where they are. (This class had done similar work with other continents. Time was called in twenty minutes. Xo one had finished.)

Test in History?Fifth Grade. (22 students) Material.?The teacher narrated that portion of the story of Joliet and Marquette which may be found in the two paragraphs extending from the bottom of page (51 to the middle of page 03, in McMurry’s “Pioneer History Stories of the Mississippi ^ alley, published by Macniillan Company. G8 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Questions.?The students were then asked the questions given below. The answer to one question was written before the next question was asked. jSto other time limit.

1. What time of the year did Joliet and Marquette reach the Mississippi ?

2. Did they go up or down the Mississippi ?

3. What did they see that reminded them of the Indian story ?

4. What did they see on the prairies?

5. What did they do to avoid dangers of night attacks of the savages?

6. IIow did they happen to find the Indian village?

7. IIow did they attract the attention of the Indians of the village ?

8. What did the chief Indians first do in receiving the Frenchmen ?

9. What led Joliet and Marquette to think tlie Indians must be friendly ?

10. What name did the Indians claim for their tribe?

11. In what strange way did the Chief honor the Frenchmen ?

12. IIow did the Frenchmen learn of the “Great Chief?”

13. In what strange way did the “Great Chief” receive them ?

14. IIow were the Frenchmen able to talk with the Indians?

15. What did they tell the “Great Chief?”

16. What reply did the “Great Chief” make?

These questions were framed with the design of calling out short, definite answers that would be either right or wrong, with as little mixing of right and wrong as possible. The Table of Statistics. The marks recorded in the table that follows are in terms of the class average. To illustrate, the last student in the arithmetic test recorded above, worked two problems. This is about 12 per cent of the seventeen problems which the class averaged. This student’s record for this test is thus 88 per cent below the class average, that is?88.

Any student who in the class tests had demonstrated his ability to do at least 75 per cent as much acceptable work as the class averaged, was counted competent to carry that subject and he was not held for private tests. Students failing to do this 75 per cent were held for private work. In the final rating for capacity to carry regular work, the amount of additional (outside) time required by a given student to do the work shown by the STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. G9 class average, was calculated. If this “extra time” exceeded onelialf of the actual school study periods for these major studies, then the student was regarded incompetent to do the regular work. (Divested of accessories, these actual study periods in school footed up two and a half hours, approximately, in the seventh and eighth grades, and decreased through the grades to less than an hour in the lowest primary grade. Attention is called to the fact that the “outside” study thus meant over an hour in the upper grades; this, too, in solid study at the probably unusual rate shown in the class tests.) The time absent, previous to elimination is recorded in each case where unavoidable absence was the cause of the failure to carry work and meet promotion with the class. Students found competent, but unwilling to do the work, are marked “indolent.” In dealing with the difficult question of actual cause of elimination, my own wide acquaintance with the patrons seemed to be my license. I had no method, unless it was that of pursuing the case. When I reached a point where the actual cause seemed no longer a matter of question, I ceased pursuit. In order to illustrate my procedure, I will deal with a few typical cases in the higher grades where the actual cause is likely to be more carefully concealed.

Number 89 in the table was a fourteen-year-old girl. The reason she gave her teacher for leaving school was, “Too much work at home.” This case was first attacked through the girl’s intimate associates, and it was found that she had given them the same reason. The girl’s father was next approached. He indignantly denied that the girl was worked enough at home to interfere with her school work, and ho stated that the girl had pleaded for permission to leave school because she could not keep up with her class. Fearing that the father might be in error as to a reasonable quantity of work, or even that he might be attempting to deceive, one of the high school teachers who lived near this family was asked to call at the home and cautiously investigate. This was done, and the teacher reported that there was no overwoik. I then requested the girl to call at my office, and when she came she admitted with shame that she had not given the teacher the real reason. “I didn’t want my teacher and everybody to know I was dumb,” was her confession. Since our records justified this reason, I ceased pursuit.

Number 97 was a sixteen-year-old girl. ITer father came to withdraw her from attendance because “she is too lazy for am use in school.” Tliis mail was an alderman, high spirited, and I feared he was concealing what he really knew. The girl had come all the way up through our grades, and the teachers were called on for opinions. There was not one of the teachers who thought the girl actually lazy, but the consensus of opinion was that she was only “a fair worker and very dull in arithmetic.” The girl was then called and asked for a reason. She hesitatingly said, “My father says I am too lazy.” “But what do you say ?” was asked. In sobs and in fragments came the answer, “I have tried hard to do my work, but you know I can’t.” I felt that I did know this, and I gave my assent.

Number 90 was a thirteen-year-old boy, native born but of foreign parentage. He had been a good worker in school until the last year. He left in January, at the end of the sixteenth week of school. He gave “work” as his reason for leaving. The coincident facts were noted that lie left school just as soon as the sixteen weeks school law at that time permitted, and that he would be fourteen before the beginning of another school year. Our records showed that this was the third instance of the kind in this family. The boy really went to work in his brother’s harness shop, and remained at work. The brother stated that the family felt that the boy knew enough to enable him to “make his way.” It was thus not only evident that the boy actually left school to go to work, but also that this knowledge that he was to leave was the cause of his failure to carry his school work. (This case coincides with Falkner’s0 findings that some students “anticipate the fourteenth birthday.

Under the heading, “Reasons for failure,” in the table, are given reasons other than that of incapacity. Records of students whose failures were due to absence, are not given, since they would only complicate the records needed. The list contains the names of the entire number of students who failed to carry school work during one or more of the three years covered by the investigation. Absence that could well have been avoided is marked by the abbreviation “Av.” The number after the word “Absence” indicates the approximate number of weeks. Ages in all cases are computed up to the first of January of the school year in which the failure occurred.

(Since the number of eliminations from death would not here alter conclusions, they are not thrown out. Strange though it mav seem, the school was blamed (bv the girl’s father) for the case of child-marriage; hence the case is allowed to stand.)

All told, forty-nine out of the one hundred and two failures were due to incapacity; and twenty-seven out of fifty-eight alleged reasons for leaving school agreed with the actual facts. Significant Facts Revealed by This Table of Results.

1. About one-half of the failures to carry work in this school under the lockstep system were due to incapacity to do the required work. (49 out of 102.)

2. About one-third of all eliminations were due to incapacity to do the work under existing conditions. (19 out of 58.)

3. Over one-half of all eliminations came from students who had failed to carry their work. (34 out of 58).

4. One out of three failing students left school. (34 out of 102.)

5. One out of thirty-three non-failing students left school. (24 out of 837.)

6. Alleged reasons for leaving school were about as often false as true. (27 out of 58.)

Comparison of Results ivitli Those of Other Investigations. —––——————————————————

We may now compare the results of this study with those of some of the recent investigations of the extensive types (I know of no similar investigations of the intensive type; none, at least, have been published).

Ayres7 found that on the average, death eliminates each year about three-tenths of one per cent of the students enrolled (27 out of 1000 in eight years). My tables show four-tenths of one per cent (4 out of an average enrolment of 313 for three years). The difference is slight, but the enrolment upon which my figures are based is too small to offer anything more than a mere comparison in this respect. Ayres found that “for each 1000 children in the first grade, no more than 871” reach the eighth grade. My study shows 803 out of 1000 (122 enrolled in the first grade and 9S in the eighth). Neither my own figures nor those of Ayres are quite reliable here, since they arc not based on the history of individual cases. Ayres found that one-fifth of the students enrolled fail to be promoted, Thorndike8 found one-seventh, and my figures show one-ninth (102 out of 9159). As to the number of students lea^ng school, the results of Ayres and of Thorndike are hardly comparable with my own, since the recent compulsory school attendance law of Illinois holds the child in school until he is sixteen years ‘The Psychological Clinic, Vol. II, pp. 121-133. ?The Psychological Clinic, Vol. Ill, p. 8. TEE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 48 Age. 1st grade 6?7 8?6 6?6 6?7 6?5 6?8 7?6 7?1 6?5 7?2 7?1 13?6 6?: 6?5 2nd grade 9?5 7?7 7?9 8?0 8?1 7?5 7?7 14?1 7?6 7?5 3rd grade 8?5 9?1 8?9 8?6 8?8 8?4 8?7 9?1 11?1 9?4 10?2 4th grade 11?6 9?5 9?4 10?1 10?2 13?4 13?1 9?5 9?5 10?1 9?6 9?8 9?5 5th grade 12?7 10?5 10?6 12?8 11?1 10?6 13?4 10?4 10?9 13?8 10?9 11?1 10?6 10?8 12?7 ojs .5 “Si ? -35 -50 -37 -34 -37 -51 -35 3 -67 -43 7 -14 -43 _ 2 -37 10 -32 -24 -20 -38 -15 -18 -29 3 -20 -20 -21 ‘ 12 -16 -18 - 3 -78 -12 -18 -4J -53 -37 -88* -32 -55 -32 -28 -35 -14 -26 - 8 -55 4 -24 -51 -29 o cs 0) S IS S ? 1-J -38 - 7 -41 4 -38 -34 -43 -51 -23 -38 -54 - 5 -38 -58 -12 -16 -57 -19 -50 -13 (Nervous) -15 -44 -39 -30 56 50 -31 -12 - 3 -49 -41 -34 -40 -32 -14

Reasons for failure other than incapacity. (Omissions and ‘Defective’’ mean incompetent.) Absence 4 Absence 12 Indolence. Absence Av Absence…. Absence A v. Absence Av. Absence 8 Absence 11 Absence Av. Mind Wanderer. Absence 7 Mind Wanderer. Absence Av. Absence 5 Absence 9 Indolence. Defective. Absence 4 Absence Av Defective -11 Indolence. -32 Absence Absence Av. Absence A v. , Absence Av. -30 -48 1 69 Absence 14 … Defective. … I Absence 6 -12 Absence 9 Absence.. -30 J lndolenco. -18 9 ‘ Indolence. -41 Absence.. 8 Indolence. -40 -42 -i9 -42 Absence 7 bsence 8 -19 I Indolence. “8 J Withdrawn for time. Elim. Elim. Elim. Elim. Elim. Work. Too old. Moved away Eyes bad Incap. Incap. Incap. Won’t study, then must work. Elim. Elim. Withdrawn for time. Knows enough. Work Elim. . Death. Elim. . Elim. . Elim . . Trv St. Albans Inappre. Incap. Incap. Can’t get nlong with teacher. Needed at homo Moved away Incap Incap. Record of single test. STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 73 Age. 6th grade 14?6 11?7 13?1 11?G 13?7 13?5 14?1 11?6 13?1 11?5 11?8 14?1 7th grade 14?0 12?6 13?2 12?8 14?3 12?8 13?3 12?7 12?9 13?2 14?2 12?6 12 14 8th grade 13?6 13?8 15?1 13?5 14?3 13?6 13?5 16?1 15 13?5 14?9 13?8 13?8 Grade. Year. First Second Third -32 -39 6 -20 -24 -12 -11 - 8 -40 -41 -24 -32 -33 -20 -57 -21 -29 M ?3 a 8 SrJ h) -38 -22 -17 -45 St. Vitus * -43 -41 -53 38 -54 4 -54 1 -10 -69 -5i -72 -35 -10 -29 -43 -37 -26 -14 -83 -39 -28 -56 -23, -34 -30 - 5 -18 -15 -48 -55 -16 -46 -29 -40 -23 -36 -28 -47 13 - 7 -32 -30 -38 -39 -29 -52 -46 -24

Reasons for failure other than incapacity (Omissions and ‘Defective” mean! incompetent.) Absence…. Indolence. Absence Av. Absence Av. Absence…. Absence Av. Indolence Indolence Indolence. Absence 17 Absence 5 Absence Av Absence 8 Elim Elim Elim Elim Elim Elim Elim Elim Elim…. Elim…. Elim Expelled. Elim Elim Eliin Better go to work Work Work Work Work Work Can’t keep up Indolence i Elii Indolence. Absence. Absence Av. Absence Incap. Work. Work. Work. Incap. Incap. Incap. Won’t work in school, try something else. Work . .. Work … Too lazy Work .. Married. Too much work at home Work …. Too slow Work Work Too lazy … Can’t keep up Too slow … Elim. Elim. Elim. Elim . Elim. Elim Moved away without warning Work. Incap. Incap. Work. Incap. Work. Incap. Incap. Work. Incap. Incap. Incap. Unknown. CONDENSED STATISTICS FROM THE FOREGOING TABLE. (with additional facts) Enrolment. First Year. Second Year. Third Year. 36 37 39 42 41 42 33 32 302 Enrolled. 302 315 322 939 42 38 42 39 45 43 32 34 Failures. 30 35 37 102 44 40 38 46 40 45 37 32 322 Total. 122 115 119 127 126 Eliminated. 9 130 I 10 102 13 98 H 939 I 58 Carried and eliminated. 7 10 24 Failed and eliminated. 10 12 12 34 Total eliminated. 17 19 22 58 Per cent, eliminated. 1.6 1.7 2.5 4.0 7.1 7.7 12.8 14.3 6.2 Eliminatedi for “Incap.” 5 6 8 19

Number of deaths, 4. Marriages, 1. of age unless released after fourteen on a “school and age certificate.” (This stringent law went into effect during the third year of my Illinois research, and the anticipation of it went into effect at least a year earlier.) Ayres found that “irregular attendance is accompanied by low percentage of promotions.” My own study fully corroborates this finding, and I also found that failure of promotion is almost certain to be followed by irregular attendance. My results also agree with Ayres’9 third conclusion; namely, that “Low percentage of promotion is a potent factor in bringing about retardationbut my study goes farther and reveals that under the lockstep (still the prevailing scheme of classification) something like one-half of all failures to carry grade may be attributed to inability to do the required work under ordinary conditions. The fourth conclusion reached by Ayres, namely, that “retardation results in elimination,” is also found true in my study; and my figures reveal that more than half of all eliminations under the system studied were of students who failed to carry their work. My table of statistics shows agreement with Thorndike’s contention that10 “there is no support whatever in fact for the doctrine that the retarding force is greater in the early than in the later grades (grade one being left out of the question).” The striking fact here revealed is that the number of failures is so non-varying throughout the eight grades. Failure here meant retardation ; and the per cent of failures throughout the eight grades in order is as follows: 12 per cent, 0 per cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 0 per cent, 14 per cent, 13 per cent. The highest percentages of retardation (the number of over age students who “carried” their work did not alter the relative per cents given) are thus found in the seventh, eighth, first and fifth grades. I believe that as compulsory attendance laws become more rigid, we shall find no reason to make Thorndike’s exception of the first grade, and this too in spite of the fact that11 “a very important cause of retardation in the primary grades is inadequate and irregular attendance,” as Johnson found in his Pennsylvania studies. My figures agree with Thorndike’s12 findings that the highest elimination occurs in the grammar grades; but the “greatest increase” in elimination here occurs in the seventh year, thus agreeing with Oornman,13 and not in the sixth or the last grammar grade, as Thorndike found. It is a significant fact that investigations ?U. S. Bur. of Ed. Bui. No. 4, 1007. ‘“The Psychological Clinic, Vol. ill p 2.”ft “Tiif, Psychological Clinic, Vol. Ill, pp. 89-95 “Tf. s. R.,r. of Fil. Bnl, No. 4. 1907 “The Psychological Clinic, Vol. I, p 245 STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 75 agree in showing eliminations clustering cliiefly around the seventh year (sixth, seventh and eighth). It is safe to say that the explanation is to be found in retardation plus the fourteenth year school law limit.

The causes of eliminations are not clear in Thorndike’s study; in fact causes are difficult to find in studies of the extensive type. School records are far from reliable here, and we need many intensive studies upon which to base judgment. Thorndike is evidently correct in his belief that poverty, lack of interest in school work, and intellectual inability are important causes. My own study shows that alleged reasons, such as are found in school records, are as likely to be false as true (27 out of 58 alleged reasons agreed with the actual) ; that one out of three failing students left school, and that over one-half of all eliminations came from failures to carry school work (34 out of 58). I found also that even before the stringent new compulsory school attendance law went into effect in Illinois, eliminations as well as attempted eliminations came almost entirely from students near the fourteenth year age limit. (The old law in Illinois required but sixteen weeks attendance out of the year; and this was not hard to escape, if we judge from experience.) This agrees with Falkner’s conclusion drawn from a review of Corn man’s study, namely, that “dropping out of school depends more upon age than upon the degree of advancement in school studies.”14 t”L”’ ?

Criticism of Systems of Grading and Promotion. In the light of the foregoing experimental study, we may now make a critical study of the various systems of grading and promotion which have gained some prominence in educational literature. First comes the lockstep, at the very mention of which the school principal seems as ready to fly to arms as the savage does when his fetich is picked to pieces. But, however we may decry this time-honored system, and however shrewdly we may study to find a new name for our minor variations of this primal scheme of grading, the fact remains that the lockstep is the prevailing system tli roughout the states.

The Lockslcp Characterized. The lockstep system works the students of a given grade along together. If the grade is so large that it is deemed advisable to “Tiib Psychological Clinic, Vol. II, p. 58.

divide it into any number of classes, the different sections still do about the same work in about the same time. The characteristic feature of the lockstep is that the students of a given grade move forward at about the same rate, hence the term “lockstep.” Criticism of the Lockstep.

Human beings differ enormously in mental capabilities. What, then, shall we say of the lockstep, which proceeds squarely on the assumption that students may do about the same quantity of work in about the same time? It harnesses together forty students, and with little respect for their individual differences, hobbles their legs of progress for eight years. Briefly told, the individual is hardly an individual under this system, but rather onefortieth of a mass. Under the lockstep system? I. The individual is lost in the mass.

The most serious aim in any system of grading should be, to group together students who need similar treatment, whatever that treatment may be. One asks, “How many children should be given to a teacher?” The answer in interrogative form is, “How nearly alike from the pedagogic standpoint are the members of the group or groups which she is to handle?” This is the first and foremost factor in settling the question of number.15 Forty students of like ability are more easily handled than twenty students of unlike ability; and the chances of carrying the work are easily in favor of a student in the better classified group.

Attention is here called to an interesting fact revealed by the statistics of the foregoing study. If but three-fourths as much work had been required of the forty-nine students who failed because of incapacity, forty-two (85.7 per cent) of them would have apparently been able to carry their work. I do not wish to imply here that they would have done so, but only that in so far as their records show, they could have been expected to carry their work. (This statement was fully justified by the number of these students who remained in this school after the grades were redivided into two groups each, on the basis of ability.) Coining directly to the point, a flexible system which, without giving more work to the teachers, would have divided each of the eight grades in this school into two groups, on the basis of ability, could have saved most of these failures, by working the less able students at a rate suited to their capacity. 1 his fact indicates a second charge against the lockstep, namely,?

?Soo Cornman. “Size nf (‘lasses and School I’rocrcss,” Tin: Psychological Clinic, Vol. Ill, pp. 1’0C-212. II. It does not classify students so that the teaching may be readily modified to lit ability.

Again, the forty-nine students recorded as “incompetent,” gave the teachers in this school more concern than all the other students (939 students in all enrolled in three years) combined. The dull students are the teacher’s nightmare under this system, and she is bound to spend an over-proportionate amount of time trying to keep them from falling behind. Now, education should not consist mainly in coddling the weak, but rather in freeing the strong; and any system of classification which requires of the students more work than many of them can do under existing conditions, is sure to bind the teacher’s time and attention upon the weak students. Hence arises a third charge against the loekstep system,?

III. It puts the emphasis upon the weak, rather than upon the strong.

There is another fact related to, yet quite distinct from, the second charge mentioned, which quite regularly appeared in the tests given in this study. It may be noted that there were ten students (about half of the class) who made in the arithmetic test previously recorded10 an average of about twenty-one problems. It is thus evident that the brighter half of this class might well have done more work in arithmetic than the amount required to fit the class average. As it has already been shown that the dull stud outs are usually assigned too much work, so now we are confronted with the fact that the bright students are assigned too little work. This is a veritable companion of the loekstep system; hence a fourth charge against it:

IV. It. does not work the bright students up to their mental capacity.

Returning now to the arithmetic test, the reader may wonder why promotion would not have been a reasonable suggestion ior improving conditions in this class. The fact is, the boy who made the highest rank in this test was a strong all-round student. He was a good candidate for promotion, but the “jump of a year > work” was a bugbear to him and to his parents. Promotion oei a large part of a year’s work really does mean a serious struggle, with a splendid chance of losing a portion of the intervening work. Hence a fifth charge against the loekstep,?

V. It does not make promotion feasible. Closely interwoven with the evidence up to this point i* t e “Boo p. 00. problem of adjusting the work to class instruction. The teacher who finds her class made up of students of widely varying abilities, is at one time tempted to adjust the work to the class average, at another time to the mode, again to the median, and still again to the duller half or to the brighter half, but never is she fully satisfied with any “adjustment” that she can make; for the reason that it is not an adjustment. Indeed, this study revealed the fact that in dealing with heterogeneous groups, the assignment of work may actually not fit a single individual; but instead, the class may be found to be divided into two groups, one on each side of the mark aimed at in making the assignment. The point to be noted here is that the lockstep class is nearly sure to present abilities represented by a broad surface of frequency, and this means poor opportunity to make well-adjusted assignments. Hence a sixth charge against the lockstep,?

VI. It does not facilitate well-adjusted assignments of work. There is still another fact, distinct yet closely related to the preceding evidence, to which attention should be called* namely, the lockstep formally attempts to cast all students?the bright, the mediocre, and the dull?in the same mold. Now, the school is an institution whose positive duty it is to emphasize individual inequalities. 1,uFor the individual, concentration and the highest development of his own peculiar faculty, is the only prudence. For the state, it is variety, not uniformity, of intellectual product, that is needful. It is for the interest of society to make the most of every useful gift or faculty which any member may fortunately possess; and it is one of the main advantages of fluent and mobile democratic society that it is more likely than any other society to secure the fruition of individual capacities”. 18”The ability to discover people’s capacities, lo find situations where they can be used to advantage, and then give the individual the opportunity to show his worth, is one of the secrets and necessities of all successful executive work.” Measured by this yardstick, the lockstep system falls fearfully short; hence a seventh charge against it,?

VII. It fails to emphasize individual inequalities. Referring again to the statistics, the reader may note that 23.5 per cent of the failures to carry work were due to unavoidable absence. After a legitimate absence of a few weeks, the student, weakened by sickness perhaps, returns to school, only to find his “Ex-rresident Eliot, of Harvard University.

“S. C. Parker, Miami University. grade beyond liis reach. Now the loss of a grade is bad enough, but that may not be the worst of it, for under the lockstep the student who loses his grade formally loses a year, perhaps. Sickness steals a few weeks from his schooling, but the lockstep system steals the remainder of a year. Thus arises an eighth charge against the lockstep,?

VIII. It gives inadequate opportunity to regain loss due to absence.

We come now to the question of what responsibility the lockstep has in the matter of failures to carry school work, and this brings up the most serious charge, probably, that has yet arisen. The statistics of my study reveal the fact that in forty-nine out of one hundred, two failures to carry grade work were due to incapacity. These students simply could not do the amount of work that their fellows were doing under the given conditions. It has already been pointed out that had the grades of this school been divided each into two sections on the basis of ability, then a small reduction in the amount of work required of the weaker sections would have made it possible for 85.7 per cent of the otherwise incapable students to carry their work. (It would also have been advisable then to increase the amount of work of the more capable sections.) We may now go one step farther and say that, whenever it is found expedient to divide a class into sections, the division should be made on the basis of ability to do work; and that there should be just as many divisions as the teaching force can judiciously permit and the conditions require. This is exactly what the lockstep docs not do. Instead, it aims to keep the students together, thus if it does anything at all like giving the stronger portion of the class enough work to do, or even aims at the class average, it fosters failures among the less competent students. Hence a ninth charge against the lockstep,? IX. It fosters failures among the less capable students.

Next comes up the fearful question of elimination from school. The foregoing statistics show that out of fifty-eight cases of elimination, covering a period of three years in the given school, nineteen (33 per cent) left school because they could not do the quantity of work necessary to maintain class standing. A very large part of this elimination might have been obviated by the introduction of a flexible system of grading. A system, such as would have divided each grade into sections, on the basis of ability, and then worked each of the sections at the rate indicated by the new class average or mode or median, would have been better for both sections, and at the same time it might have saved something like fonr-fifths of the forty-nine hopeless failures, and it would have saved fourteen (74 per cent) of the nineteen eliminations due to incapacity. Hence arises a tenth charge against the lockstep system,?

X. It is responsible for much elimination from school. Special attention is now called to two students (numbers 7 and 44) in the list, who were victims of worry. They were two gills, with so generous a share of ambition and persistence that they could not leave their work partly done. The reader may note that each had one subject in which she was apparently “born shoit , }et one (number 44) of these high-pitched little creatures was actually the leader of her class in all subjects except the fatal arithmetic. 1 hough unquestionably incompetent to do the amount of work required of her class in this subject under existing conditions, it was discovered in her first private test that her habits of studv in this branch were very bad. Everything on her desk had to be kept in just such a position or she became nervous. She spent much time in arranging things; and after she had worked a pro Jem, feaiing there might be an error, she went over the prob em again and again. (This child’s actual ability in arithmetic was, speaking approximately, something like sixty per cent of the class average; that is?40; but owing to nervous condition she was not held for further tests in arithmetic, hence definite grade m same cannot be given.) The other child was simply , aC in hei reading, and became nervous through worry over ler i culties. Both of these students were temporarily withdrawn from school as a result of nervous condition. Now, in justice to the despised lockstep, it should be said that no system of classification is immune to cases of this kind; yet the lockstep, a oc a otheis, is the system under which such students are not a e to uoik. Hence arises an eleventh charge against the lockstep,? b ? casily works beyond a safe limit the slow but persistent student who is prone to worry.

• i^^e^G ^ another consideration which should probably be

\eij_, ie< inc. Serious arguments are now and then put forward or cutting down the elementary course of study to six years. len, too,^ Ave have already thrown out portions of the subject matter which we are now pleased to call “obsolete.” The fact is, pp. 1 (JS?l’si”;’ (;iwnvoyd” K ” s l! n r?VrCt“‘0(1 i0f Elem. Schooling,” Ed. Rev., Vol. 25, Vol. ii4, pp. 384-3’JO. ‘ ‘ t’T’liiK the Time hi the Klein. Schools,” Ed. Rco.> there is a strong feeling that in some way we must not only stem the tide of the eight-year course, which has been stuffed and “enriched” till we are all threatened with school gout, but that we must actually cut down the eight years to six or seven. The several hundred tests covered by this study clearly indicated that some students ought to complete the course of study for the eight grades in less than eight years, while others should and some will take a longer time. It is economic, as regards both time and expense, that the stronger students be given opportunities to complete work as fast as their mental growth will permit, without going beyond the point of diminishing returns. We are sadly in need of facts to show where this point is likely to be, but it is at least safe to say that it is not the same for all students. Hence a twelfth charge against the lockstep,?

XII. It stands in the way of shortening the elementary school period for competent students. Summary of Criticisms against the Lockstep. By way of summary, and for convenience of reference, we have the following twelve indictments against the lockstep system: I. It loses the individual in the mass. II. It does not classify students so that treatment may be readily modified to lit abilities. 11T. It puts the emphasis upon the weak, rather than upon the strong. IV. It fails to work the strong students up to their reasonable limits. V. It does not make promotion feasible. VI. It, does not facilitate well-adjusted assignments of work. VII. It fails to emphasize individual inequalities. ^ III. It gives inadequate opportunity to regain loss due to absence. IX. It fosters failures among the less capable students. X. It is responsible for much elimination from school. XT. It easily works beyond a safe limit, the slow but persistent student who is given to worry. XII. It stands in the way of shortening the elementary school period for competent students. Criticism of St/stems A iming to A void the Defects of the Loclstep. Without exception, the numerous systems of grading and promotion have arisen through efforts to avoid the defects of t le 82 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. lockstep system. There are so many of these systems that it will be found expedient to classify them for treatment under eight heads:

1. The double promotion system.

2. The double track system.

3. The group system.

4. The double tillage system.

5. The review back system. G. The concentric work system. 7. The ungraded class, or individual, system. 8. The minimum work system.

The Double Promotion System.

The double promotion system represents probably the first wide movement to heal lockstep ailments. It grew out of the feeling that the old annual promotion scheme was an elevated road system with too few stations; and it set to work to double the number. No system perhaps has given us so many variations, and for simplicity and clearness we may deal here with that typical form which admits two classes a year in the lowest primary grade and carries them along through the grades about a half year apart. Unless some further movement toward flexibility is introduced, this system may be viewed as the lockstep with the unit of work reduced to the half year. It is clearly a marked improvement over the lockstep wTith the full year unit of work; the most commendable feature being that promotion, either positive or negative, is much facilitated by the shorter step. The fact that this typical form is clearly lockstep, however, with each of the twelve indictments holding against it, though most of them with diminished force, has led to many complications of this system by mingling with it some ingredients of the systems yet to be described. The Double Trade System.

The system popularly known as the double track system has been in successful operation in a few schools of a few states for a number of years. Cambridge, Mass., may be taken as an eastern type of this system, and Portland, Oregon, as a western type. The difference between these two types lies mainly in the fact that in Cambridge the plan is used only in the grammar grades, while in 20Portland it holds throughout the grades. In other respects the two types may well be considered identical. The 21 Cambridge plan “Portland City School Report. (Any recent year.) “Cambridge. “Annual Ileport of the School Committee.” (Any recent year.) STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 83 is outlined in the city’s “Annual Report of the School Committee” as follows:

“The course of study is divided in two ways: (1) into six sections; (2) into four sections; each section covering a year’s work. Pupils taking the course in six years are classified in six grades, called the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth grades. Those taking it in four years are classified in four grades, called grades A, B, C, and D. When pupils are promoted to the grammar schools they begin the first year’s work together. After two or three months they are separated into two divisions. “One division advances more rapidly than the other, and during the year completes one-fourth of the whole course of study. The other division completes one-sixtli of the course.

“During the second year the pupils in grade B arc in the same room with the sixth grade. At the beginning of the year they are five months (one-half the school year) behind those in the sixth grade. After two or three months, grade B is able to recite with the sixth grade, and at the end of the year both divisions have completed one-half the course of study?the one in two years, and the other in three years. The plan for the last half of the course is the samo as that for the first half, the grades being known as the seventh, eighth and ninth in the one case, and as C and D in the other.

“There are also two ways of completing the course in five years: (1) any pupil who has completed one-half the course in two years may, at the end of that time, bo transferred to the seventh grade, and finish the course in three years; (2) any pupil who has completed one-half the course in three years may, at the end of that time, be transferred to grade C, and finish the course in two years. In both cases the changes can be made without omitting or repeating any part of the course.”

Diagram, of the Double Track Scheme. 1 2 3 Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D 1 1 1 X .5 ?????? > 6 Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth grade grade grade grade grade grade 12 3 45

It is to be noted that the double track system aims to classify students 011 the basis of ability, and then to move the unequally competent classes forward at rates suited to the different abilities. Nov, whether 01* not this aim is well carried out, it recognizes and attempts to proceed 011 the only sound basis for classification; namely, the ability to do work. The indictments laid against the lockstep grow pale before this system. The evils pointed out by six of these indictments are here reduced well-nigh to the minimum ; but there is still much to be desired in the way of removing charges I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII. There is one thing which this system does better than any other system known to educational literature,?it takes cognizance of the meeting points of classes moving through the course of study at different rates, and definitely plans to reclassify while on this common ground. Class disintegration is thus relieved at the zero point of the scale of promotion. Promotion at other times under this system is about as feasible, on the whole, as it is under the double promotion scheme.

The argument that 22”dull students should have a few bright minds mingled in the classes with them in order to afford stimulation and example,” can hardly be regarded as sound. The counterclaim that bright students under the double track scheme continually find their way into the slower classes through promotion, is equally worthless. Both of these arguments fail to recognize the most valid principle in classification; namely, the principle of homogeneity of groups. There is one vital caution that must go with the double track system, and that caution is: See that no stigma is attached to the “freight train” classes, and that the clamor for the privilege of “taking the express” is silenced by a judicious hand.

The Group System. In the group system we again meet many variations, though all may be conveniently subsumed under the three types that follow.

The St. Louis Plan. The St. Louis plan was introduced into the schools of St. Louis, Mo., bv Dr William T. Harris (late commissioner of education), as long ago as 1872. This plan divides a large school into something like thirty-two classes, representing steps of about onefourth a year’s work each, from the first grade to and including ?”The Cambridge Experiment,” N. E. A. 181)4, pp. .*{.38, 342. the eighth. Work is laid out on the basis of the average elass as determined by experience. Some classes do more than this amount, others less; but there is no artificial time limit. The work of a quarter begins at any time of the year. Promotion to the high school occurs twice a year.

Feasibility of promotion, with all that this implies, is the strong feature of this plan. It is twice as efficient in this respect as the double promotion system. Dr Harris was clearly a pioneer in this field, and long ago he expressed his opinion of the group system as follows:

23?Thirty classes between the first and eighth years are possible in the large schools in cities. That all cities do not avail themselves of this possibility is one of the most serious defects in American supervision.”

The Elizabeth Plan.

The 24Elizabeth plan was introduced and successfully operated for a number of years in the schools of Elizabeth, ]ST. J., by Superintendent William J. Shearer. It is little more than an elaboration of the St. Louis plan. It made from thirty to sixty grade divisions below the high school. Each division advanced just as far during the year as the ability of the students enabled them to do the work well. There was no set amount of work, and no time fixed for the completion of the course of study. Pupils worked in small classes in the “essential” branches only.

This scheme evidently intensifies all the commendable features of the St. Louis plan, and puts a little more definite emphasis upon the adjustment of the quantity of work to the ability of the students, independent of time limits for completion of the course of study. The objection may be raised that the scheme is quite complicated, and that it means so much machinery that (1) it is not feasible to hand it over to a successor without loss, and (2) there is likely to be a tendency to worship the machine. In spite of these objections, however, which are by no means confined to this system, we must not fail to see in this plan an admirable move toward reaching the ideal of efficiency in the individual by attempting to provide for the students largely as individuals, without losing the social principle. The St. Louis and the Elizabeth plans both lay great stress on the matter of promotions. It is through promotions that they aim to give the individual special opportunities to advance as fast “”System of Grading Pupils in St. Louis,” Ed. Ucv.. Vol 8. pp. nS7-.189.

“”The Elizabeth Plan of Grading,” N. K. A., 18!>8, pp. 441-148. as ability permits. This they do by making a short step from class to class. Briefly told, their aim is to maintain plastic groups. This aim is good; yet when we realize that promotion has in itself no educational value whatever, and that under these plans promotion can hardly be accomplished without loss in the “jump”, we must concede that both these schemes fall short of an ideal system of grading. Just what this lack is, may best be indicated later, in the treatment of the homogeneous group.

The Double Tillage System.

The double tillage system is a New England product. It was in operation in the grammar grades of 25Woburn, Mass., for a number of years (1894-190-i), and since this city has given us a typical form of the system, it will serve our purpose here. (The plan has been named the “double promotion” system, but this name is not used here for the reason that it is now misleading.) By way of introduction, it may be stated that the primary department in Woburn followed the plastic group scheme, thus enabling many students to complete the three years’ work in less than the usual time. Beginning with the fourth grade, the “essential features of each year’s work were covered during the first semester of each year. Students who “successfully” accomplish this Vr01 k, especially in language and in arithmetic, were advanced to the next higher grade at the semi-annual promotion. Bright students could thus pass through two grades in one year. During the second semester, the students who were not advanced (this meant the main body of the class), now joined by the influx from the next lower grade, again covered the ground (hence the term double tillage ) which they had hastily gone over during the first half of the year, but “in greater detail.”

Iheie is little to commend and much to condemn in this system. Clearly, its aim is to dismiss charges mentioned in indictments III, IV, V, and XII, against the lockstep. This it does, lit only by going to a fearful extreme that puts the sin on the ot er side. It may be noted that, carried to its logical conclusion, this system would present the child to the high school at ten years of age. It may be advanced as all but proven that this pace must carry the child beyond the point of diminishing returns. The aspect of superficiality of the work makes one tremble; the teaching can surety not be other than mechanical, and the rush under the burden of the gouty modem curriculum is anything but cortia Grading and Promotion of Pupils,” Ed. Rev., Vol. 18, pp. 231-245. mendable. Then, too, the second time over the ground, in spite of any theory to the contrary, is bound to mean pure repetition in the main, rather than work in “greater detail”; for it is to be noted that this work is new to the considerable number of “bright students recently promoted to the classes. The system is interesting in that it shows what a desperate attempt has been seriously made to cure lockstep evils. We can admire the motive, if not the means and the end.

The Review Bach System.

leather closely related to the double tillage scheme, is the review back system which seems to have found its most comfortable home in Iowa. LeMars, in this state, gives us a good type, as follows:

The class intervals are short, ranging from six to eight weeks in the primary grades, and from eight to twelve weeks in the grammar grades. At “’‘“suitable and varying intervals”, each class is reviewed back to meet the next lower class. At this point, all students deemed competent, as indicated by the recommendation of the teachers and not by examination, are excused from review and promoted to the class reviewing to meet them. The rate of progress between reviews is determined by the abilities of the stronger members of the class, since the others are soon to review. The aim of this system is strikingly similar to that of the double tillage scheme, though it may be far better worked out. ^ c may concede that it removes the evils mentioned in indictments 111, IV, Y, YIII? aiul XII, against the lockstep. The fact that the plan provides for reviews at ‘”””suitable and varying intervals”, &ives us a rather meager basis for the criticism of the system in general. What the suitable interval is, and how often it comes, are vital matters to be dealt with as specific instances arise. The fact that the intergrade intervals are short, may mean improvement over the double tillage scheme, though this is bv 110 means assured. (I will state here that T have not found an instance in which the reviews are so frequent as to virtually reproduce the weaknesses ?f the double tillage system.) We are hardly ready to condemn the system, however, until we note that “the rate of progress between reviews is determined by the abilities of the stronger members of the class”; but here we see the double tillage evils with the time limit removed. Experience shows that the less the individual abilities vary in the different classes under this system,

“”Prince, “Gradation and Promotion of Pupils,” Ed. Iter}., Nol. l.r>, p. -U. the less the attendant evils. In other words, we have the paradox, ?the less the review back scheme is called into nsc, the better.

The Concentric Work System.

The 27concentric work system has been well worked out in the schools of Santa Barbara, California. The plan follows the group system in dividing each grade into three groups, A, B, and C. These groups work concentrically, A doing the work more intensively than B, and B more intensively than C. In arithmetic, by way of illustration, the C section works on the more simple relations, perhaps holding rather closely to objective work; B increases the complexity and abstractness, and A works in a still more advanced way. Promotion is from section to section, the C becoming B, the B becoming A, and A in turn becoming 0 in the next higher grade. Promotion normally occurs three times a year. The system also permits individual promotions, under the usual group system facilities. Promotion is based on the teacher’s judgment. Individual promotion from section to section within the room, does not necessitate the usual “skipping” of work, but it merely places the student in a class where he may attack the work in a more comprehensive way, since he already knows the “compass points and the main highways” of the work. This system has one strong feature to distinguish it from the St. Louis plan, but in other respects it may well be considered identical with that plan, with the number of groups in each room reduced from four to three. The distinguishing feature referred to is to be seen in the fact that the concentric scheme of work is closely related to the spiral method of attacking subjects, and promotion within a grade, therefore, is not a jump into strange subject matter, but rather a shift to a point where a deeper view of familiar subject matter is possible. Since this is made possible without additional machinery, indeed must reduce the machinery or else cause the spiral to turn too often, this feature is clearly commendable.

The Ungraded Class, or Individual, System. In the so-called ungraded class, or individual, system, we again meet variety. We have the old familiar ungraded school, with its multifold classes; the modern ungraded class or ungraded room, which may be considered a refuge for the misfits under any svstem, and Mr. Search, in his “Ideal School”, has attempted to give us an individual system based 011 tlie laboratory plan. The Search scheme was given a short trial in 28Pueblo, Colorado. In this scheme, the school room takes on the laboratory, rather than the class room, aspect. The social principle is not lost, but the class recitation reaches almost to the vanishing point. “Always busy with advance work”, is the watchword Mr. Search sets up. Batavia, New York, gives us the best type of the individual system for critical purposes, for the reason that its plan has been worked out in quite definite detail.

Tlic Batavia System.

The 29Batavia plan aims to give definite place to individual instruction. This is the keynote. In each of the larger class rooms, this plan puts 1111 additional teacher, whose function it is to take any student the moment he begins to lose ground, and bring him up through individual assistance. It is assumed that this requires the development of a technique different from that needed in class instruction, for two reasons:

1. The students are not allowed to ask for aid, but the teacher must discover their weaknesses and take the initiative.

2. All individual instruction must be given by the development method, thus avoiding too much help.

While the “extra teacher” is the ideal plan in this scheme, this is not demanded in the smaller rooms; indeed, more than onehalf of the Batavia class rooms have but a single teacher. It is noteworthy that the distinctive demand is that definite place be given to individual instruction. This is made possible in the oneteacher rooms by what is called a “doubly alternating” program. In this prpgram, each alternate recitation period is given over to the individual instruction of the weaker members of the class. The individual period and the class period thus alternate in each subject of the program. (First alternation.) Similarly, the individual period in one subject alternates with the class period in the next subject of the program. (Second alternation.) Under normal conditions, therefore, two individual periods never come together. During the individual period, the students assisted are called to the teacher’s desk one at a time, while others work independently at their desks. Tests, prepared by the superintendent, are given at the close of each term, and all promotions are made on the basis of these tests.

This system strives to escape the charges against the lockstep !sNenroli, “Individual ‘JVnolilnir: T’ie pueblo P’m.” Ed. Ueiy, Vol. i, pp. 150 170. ?Bngli?y, “Class-room Management,” pp. 214-224. mentioned under indictments I and IX. It may be conceded that it quite escapes the ninth charge, since it devotes one-half the teaching effort toward avoiding the usual failures. It escapes the first indictment in so far as the students receive individual attention. It also meets successfully the tenth indictment. On the other hand, the third and the seventh indictments hold against this system with double force, and the fourth is lifted into bold relief. Double exertions are here put forth in the attempt to cast students?weak, mediocre, and strong?in the same mold. No one could criticise this plan for its attempt to help the poor weak student; but it would be interesting to hear the argument for placing this increased stress upon the weak, rather than upon the strong; and doubly interesting to hear the alleged reasons for reducing to one-half, in the one-teacher rooms, the time of the teacher to which the bright students are entitled. This is clearly in violation of the principle of economy, for the time and expense devoted to the more gifted students would yield far greater returns. We are altogether too easily deceived by the time-worn argument that the gifted student, “the genius” perhaps, will “get along somehow without much teaching.” The fact is, the gifted Maud S. and the brilliant Dan Patch are the ones who need the closest attention of the skilful mechanic. It is this plug that economy first abandons. Then, when it comes to reducing the number of recitation periods in the smaller rooms to one-half, by the “doublyalternating” program scheme, and giving to the weaker students the time and attention thus wrested from the brightest members we wonder if the next step will be to rule the bright minds out of school privileges entirely in so far as the guidance of the teacher is concerned. Here is a system which has evidently gone to extremes in the matter of favoring the dull student. It clearly violates the principle of economy.

It may bo noted that the one-teacher room reveals another weakness in this scheme. During the individual periods, the teacher is engaged with one student while all the others in the room are supposed to be “working independently at their seats”. It is commonly conceded that the study period is one of the most serious problems confronting us. The teacher who has tried the plan of spending a half hour instructing students singly at her desk, with forty others to be kept “engaged at their seats,” will readily conceive the difficulty of supplying independent work, under such conditions, for forty students of widely varying abilities, to say nothing of the problem of discipline. Finally, the Batavia plan expressly states that all tests are prepared by the superintendent, that they are given at the close of each term, and that all promotions are made on the basis of these tests. The stated reasons for these tests are (1) to check the tendency toward “coaching”, and (2) to avoid the pernicious influence of “soft pedagogy”. Now, were these tests aimed alone at the teacher’s work, they would still be unjustifiable as a means of protecting the students against poor teaching. It would be putting the “burden” upon the innocent. The tests are conceded to be used, however, as a basis for promotion. Now I believe we have reached the time when we are ready to admit that the teacher who comes into intimate daily contact with pupils, is far more favorably situated than the superintendent, to pass sound judgment on the matter of promotion. We have followed a bad tradition too long already. A few examination questions can best give but a poor insight. It is to be hoped that our educative processes produce real living effects, emotional, volitional, and intellectual, that cannot be measured in any such simple and formal way. Furthermore, the test, at the end of the term gives us not only the familiar pernicious cramming, but it puts too great strain upon the child when he is least able to bear it.

The Minimum Work System.

The minimum work system has been worked out on a broad basis in Denver, Colorado. The Denver plan30 maintains the half year interval in the grammar and the high school grades, but shorter intervals below the grammar grades. Promotion periods are not fixed in the primary grades, but in the grammar grades the semi-annual scheme is followed. By the time the grammar grades are reached, all students are held for definite minimum requirements. Each room is provided with supplementary sets of books and a carefully selected reference library of from fifty to seventy-five volumes. While those students who can hardly accomplish more than the minimum requirement in a given subject arc mastering a given assignment in that subject, other students who are capable of doing more work, yet not quite suitable for promotion, are, “by a process of natural selection, detaching themselves temporarily from the class” in order to work on studies in which they are weak, or “for broader or deeper study of topics by means of reference books, or for gathering illustrative material, or for following some line of interest approved by the teacher.’ T iose ,0I*roc. of N. E. A., 1808, pp. 434-441. 92 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC.

who are thus excused are liable at any time to be required to rejoin the class “in order to assist others.” The privilege is cancelled promptly when a satisfactory degree of proficiency is not reached. A few experiences of this kind make the students cautious, and the earlier they occur, the better. “The central thought in the system is individual responsibility”.

It may be fairly said that this system, more than any other, must look to the teacher for its value. The experienced teacher readily sees what this “personal responsibility” means. We have all seen teachers who could make a beautiful showing with this system; we have seen many more who would make a beautiful failure out of it. The system is commendable on the whole, for it reveals an admirable attempt to rescue the individual from the mass; yet withal, it is dangerous, more constantly so than the oneteacher Batavia scheme, since every student will be excused in at least one study, some of the time. A student who could not be, would be unhappy indeed.

Beyond the fact that this system may give a good account of its efforts to remove the charges mentioned in indictments I and VII, it is claimed that under this plan the students are definitely trained in the use of reference materials; that there is no hurrying through the grades; that it evens up the various studies, and that it enables the teachers to devote time to the less able students without robbing others. The claim that the system definitely plans to train the students in the use of reference materials, is to be conceded unequally true, and decreasing in proportion to the scholarship. The “no hurrying through the grades” claim is to be granted, but this not only may become a negative weakness, but it certainly tightens the grip of indictment XII. The claim that it “evens up the various studies” is clearly true, and this lifts into beautiful prominence the law of multiple subjects which is given later in the treatment of the homogeneous group system. The claim that it enables the teacher to devote more time to the less able students without robbing others, is a doubtful half-truth. The principle of economy is more than likely to creep in here as in the Batavia scheme. For the sake of emphasis, it may be repeated in part that the strong feature of this system is the definite aim to reach the individual, and the best means of working out this aim is to be seen in the privilege offered the student to follow out “some line of interest approved by the teacher”. Under skilful management this may become an invaluable means of cultivating the spirit of “selfSTUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 93 direction, self-initiative, self-realization, self-perfcction, and selfassertion , which Miinsterberg finds at the basis of American success.’

The Homogeneous Group System. There are two principles which must underlie the ideal system of grading and promotion, whatever that system may be:

1. J lie individuals of the grade are to be socialized.

2. The instruction of the grade is to be individualized.

How now are these apparently contradictory requirements to be realized ? Were it possible to bring together a group of children exactly alike from the educational standpoint, it would seem that our problem had found a solution; for we could then realize our social principle and yet have the instruction individualized, since method and material adapted to one would be likewise adapted to all. Such a group, however, is not at hand. It could afford a very poor training if it were. Nowhere in society do we find people exactly alike, and if we could find such similarity it would be a poor, monotonous society, lacking the wholesome stimulus which comes from diversity. J t is the diversified society in which the individual should be trained; and fortunately, nature has given us nothing else for our schools. The best training is possible only in a society made up of persons sufficiently alike to enable them to understand and to sympathize one with another and to work together for their common good, yet sufficiently unlike to reveal the advantages and the needs of so working together. Our problem of grading and promotion, then, is that of selecting from a highly diversified society, groups of children sufficiently alike to be similarly treated. We want them just as much alike as we can get them, since natural conditions are such that there is not even remote danger of overdoing this selective process. Stated in other words, the school grades are to be homogeneous groups. Since human beings are so specialized in abilities, it becomes a far more different process to select a group of children sufficiently alike in abilities in all the usual school subjects. This means that in the best system of grading, the group in one subject is not at all likely to be individually identical with the group in another subject ; hence the large school, with the larger field of selection, will continue to have its advantages in grading over the smaller school.

Apropos of the point brought out in the last paragraph, there is a working principle, not uncommon in experience, which is 94 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. worth formulation and definite statement. It may be expressed as follows:

The Law of Multiple Subjects. An increase in the number of subjects in the school curriculum, tends to move the average standing of an individual toward the class average. Stated in other words, student abilities commonly vary more in one subject than in the average of all subjects. This means some relief for the system using the one class for all subjects; since with many subjects under this system, the student’s average ability is likely to deviate less from the class average than if there were but one subject.

Furthermore, this variation has an intrinsic basis, with reference both to the individual and to the subjects; therefore, whether the problem of multiple studies is viewed as a matter of correlation or of differentiation, the law of multiple subjects remains valid. Again, it is to be noted that we may have a group of students equally prepared to attack any given subject matter, say long division. Such a group we may say is statically homogeneous. Some of them, however, may be competent to master the processes far more rapidly than others; that is, the group may not be dynamically homogeneous. Now it is dynamic homogeneity for which we are to look, rather than static; though it is the latter which we have so long sought. With something like static equality to begin with, the dynamically equal group will in itself take care of the question of static homogeneity, while such a group makes it possible to work each student up to the measure of his ability; and the problem of individual promotion disappears in the degree in which this condition is reached. All this serves to show (1) that the matter of grading is far less simple and formal than is indicated by most of our systems; (2) that personal acquaintance, with adequate insight into our students, is a matter of far more vital consequence in the problem of grading and promotion than any machine can be, and (3) that the familiar “ten examination questions” sink to wretched assumption in view of such a standard.

Ono of the most serious obstacles in the way of effective grading and promotion is found in the ever ready belief that there is “a system” which will fit all conditions. The fact is, there must be about as many variations in a system as there arc schools to use that system. We need to free ourselves from the notion that there is a ready-made form of anything that can fit two different things. It is a matter of common observation that no two schools move under identical conditions. We must follow the example of the tailor in first taking a general view, then making definite measurements, but not forgetting that the skill is shown in the fact that a little is allowed for here, and a trifle is taken up there, in order to make the final fit; that is, in order to make the best adjustment.

The school with an enrolment of eight hundred students in the eight grades, and the usual teaching force, may effectively classify its students into homogeneous groups in each subject; while the school with three hundred students may find its best adjustment in groups as nearly homogeneous as possible with reference to all the major subjects. Any system of grading is bound to grow less effective as the enrolment becomes small; and in the small school the only permanent rule is to realize the homonegeous group aim as far as possible with the means at hand. Perhaps Germany has outdone us in the matter of realizing a system of grading on the basis of dynamic homogeneity. Dr Sickinger devised and introduced (1899) at Mannheim31 a system that has since become known as the Mannheim system. It is now used in Berlin, Leipsic, and other important cities of Germany. The system is essentially as follows:

The Mannheim System. Proceeding squarely on the principle that the school must deal with the child according to his ability and development, four (or five) parallel courses are offered; namely,? A, an eight year course for normal pupils to cover in eight years. B, a five or six year course for retarded or dull pupils to cover in eight years. C, a four year course for sickly and abnormal students to cover in eight years. D, an eight year course for very bright students to cover in three or four years. To these four courses is added a fifth, E, which is the preparatory school course (for students planning to enter the Gymnasium, Heal Gymnasium, or Realschule, and who have completed course D). Such is the external aspect of the system. When we come to the inner aspect, we find that in order to carry out the p|an_ 0 *ie organization, the number of students per teacher is limite as follows: “Moses, “Die Ncuorcnnlsntlon der Volksscliule In Mannheim, Zoitsclir. fur Sclmlgosundlicltspflcpe, XII, 1899. 96 TEE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Under Course A, 40 students. Under Course B, 15 students. Under Course C, no limit. Under Course D, 40 students (smaller number usually found).

The treatment is modified to suit the needs of the groups, especial care being taken not to overtax students of groups B and C. The most experienced teachers are appointed to group C. It may be noted that the Mannheim system resembles the double track system, though it offers four distinct tracks (D and E combine in one), with less shifting back and forth. It undoubtedly represents the most advanced scheme yet operated on the basis of dynamic homogeneity. It has its defects, to be sure. Classification is by grade, not by subject; hence the child has to spend most time on the subject in which he is least competent, and he gives tho least time to the subject in which he is most gifted. He must serve his time in each subject. Indeed he may spend more time, but there is no way to shorten the time of a given subject for a given individual in a given group. The gap between groups A and D is far too great; and so here and there we see lockstep symptom? creeping in. The most that may be said for it is that it is an advanced step in the right direction.

Summary.

By way of summary it may be said (1) that we have reached a point in school administration where the lockstep system of grading and promotion is no longer tenable; (2) that the numerous systems which have arisen in the hope of curing lockstep evils have accomplished much; yet with full recognition that there are good factors in all of these systems, it is still very evident that not only do most of them tend toward machine-like administration, but that none of them gives us an adequate basis for conserving both the socialistic and individualistic principles which the present educational movement demands; (3) that these demands cannot be met in any simple, ready-made way; but (4) that they should be met by the classification of students into groups just as nearly homogeneous, both statically and dynamically, as the teaching force of any school can judiciously permit; and (5) that promotion and demotion should be based neither wholly nor mainly on the set examination, but rather on the deliberative judgment of those who come into daily living touch with the students. ?To be Continued,

Disclaimer

The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:

1. Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.

2. Material that is in the public domain

3. Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/scanning/