4. PROVISION FOR THE DIRECTION OF THE PUPILS' STUDY
The forms of treatment suggested in the first three sections of this chapter for the diminution of failures will find their natural culmination of effectiveness in a plan for helping the pupils to help themselves. This has been notably lacking in most school practice. Every improvement of the school adaptation still assumes that the pupils are to apply themselves to honest, thorough study. But the high school must bear in mind that good studying implies good teaching. It cannot be trusted to intuition or to individual discovery. Real, earnest studying is hard work. The teachers have usually presupposed habits of study on the part of the pupils, but one of the important lessons for the school to teach the pupil is how to use his mind and his books effectively and efficiently. Even the simplest kinds of apprenticeship instruct the novice in the use of each device and in the handling of each tool to a degree which the school most often disregards when requiring the pupil to use even highly abstract and complex instrumentalities. The practice of the school almost glorifies drudgery as a genuine virtue. E.R. Breslich refers to this fact,[61] saying, "so it happens that the preparation for the classwork, not the classwork itself burdens the lives of the pupils." The indefensibleness of the indiscriminate lesson giving consists in the fact that it is not the load but the harness that is too heavy. The harness is more exhausting and burdensome than the load appointed. The destination sought and the course to be followed in the lesson preparation are very many times not clearly indicated, lest the discipline, negative and repressive though it be, should be extracted from the struggle. The fact is that discouragement and failure are too often the best of testimony that teachers are not much concerned about how the pupil employs his time or books in studying a lesson. The point is illustrated admirably by the report in the Ladies Home Journal, for January, 1913, of a request from a hardworking widow that the teacher of one of her children in school try teaching the child instead of just hearing the lessons which the mother had taught.
Directing the pupils' study is sometimes regarded as a more or less formalized scheme of organization and procedure, which requires extra time, extra teachers, and a lesser degree of independence on the part of the pupils. But here too the important things are differentiation and specific direction as adapted to the needs of the subject, the topic or the pupils. It must be insisted that supervised study is not the same thing in all schools, in all subjects, or for all pupils. In other words, its very purpose is defeated if it is overformalized. An experiment is reported by J.H. Minnick with two classes in plane geometry,[62] of practically the same size, ability, and time allowance for study, which indicated that the supervised pupils were the less dependent as judged by their success in tests consisting of new problems. The pupils also liked the method, in spite of their early opposition, and no one failed, while two of the unsupervised class failed. William Wiener also speaks of the wonderful self-control which springs from the supervised study program.[63] As to the need of extra teachers for the purpose there is not much real agreement, since the plans of adaptation are so different in themselves. Increased labor for the same teachers will rightly imply greater renumeration. Colvin makes mention of the additional expense imposed by the larger force of teachers required.[64] But J.S. Brown finds that the failures are so largely reduced that with fewer repeaters there is a consequent saving in the teaching force.[65] With a faculty of 66 teachers, he reports 38 classes in which there was no failure, and a marked reduction of failures in general by the use of supervised study. It is interesting and significant to note here that by allowing 100 daily pupil recitations to the teacher the repeated subjects reported in this study would require 87 teachers for one semester or 11 teachers for the full four years. This fact represents more than $50,000 in salaries alone. Buildings, equipment, heat, and other expenses will more than double the amount. But such expense is incomparable with what the pupils pay in time, in struggles, and in disappointment in order to succeed later in only 66.7 per cent of the subjects repeated. As none of the eight schools provided anything more definite than a general after school hour for offering help, and which often has a punitive suggestion to it, the possibility of saving many of these pupils from failure and repetition by the wise and helpful direction of their study is simply unmeasured. A conclusion that is particularly encouraging is reported by W.C. Reavis to the effect that the poorer pupils—the ones who most need the direction—are the ones that supervised study helps the most.[66] There is nothing novel in saying that good teaching and good studying are but different aspects of the same process, but it would be an innovation to find this conception generally realized in the school practice.