I noticed in schedules which had been thus filled up by students that the notes supplied under the heading of “Method” consisted entirely of proposed questions of the teacher, and assumed answers by the children. Such an item in the prepared plan of a lesson seemed to me unadvisable, and in many cases useless. Even if the prepared questions were asked by the teacher, the answers would not always be the ones assumed, and the lesson would be stiff, unnatural, and wanting in spontaneity. Broad lines of questioning might be indicated in the schedule, rather than the actual questions to be given. This would result in much more natural methods of questioning. The outline for criticism given to other students is according to the following plan:
| Purpose | What. Whether accomplished. Why. Cause of failure or success. |
| Matter | Amount—accuracy. Adaptation, to purpose and to class. Order of presentation. |
| Plan | Completeness. Order of parts. Manner of presentation. |
| Method | Questions—number—order—kind. |
| Language | Relative amounts used by teachers and pupils. Correctness. Accuracy. Clearness. Completeness. Adaptation. |
| Illustrations | What amount. Adaptation. Use. |
| Manner | |
| Voice | Of teacher and pupils. |
| Mechanical details | Directions for work. Distribution of material. |
| Control | |
| Results | Training in mental power; accuracy; neatness; promptitude; expression. Moral Training. Knowledge gained. |
The suggestion of these points for criticism indicates a very complete and thorough analysis of a lesson. Such an elaborate form of criticism, if employed occasionally, seems to me good in encouraging a habit of mental analysis in those who hear the lesson. It may be useful, too, as a guide to those unaccustomed to criticising exercises, and may be helpful in impressing the fact that a lesson is a very complex thing, difficult to give, and far reaching in its results. The constant use of rigid forms, however, either for preparation of lessons, or for their criticism, is to be deprecated as stultifying, and as not adapted to all lessons and all occasions. It is probable that in many cases valuable criticisms might be given which would not come under any of the formal headings, even though the schedule were as complete as possible. For the last five months the students work entirely under the direction of teachers of the practising school. Plans of work and lesson-subjects are discussed with the teacher, and when the lessons are over, private criticisms only are given. Each student learns to make her own maps, charts and pictures, which she takes with her when she leaves the school.
At the end of the course of training, an elaborate report of the student’s work and standing is issued as regards her standards; enthusiasm; force; manner; language; writing; questioning; power of illustration; originality; interest; thoroughness; control.
A certificate qualifying to teach in the schools of the city is given to those who complete the training course satisfactorily, and who gain an average of 70 per cent. on examinations at the end of the year.
At Pawtucket, I saw a training school of from seven to nine students, with an excellent model and practising school attached. The course lasts for one and a half years. For a whole year, the class has instruction in theoretical subjects in the mornings, with observation of children and some lesson-giving in the afternoon. The last six months are spent by the students in the actual charge of children. Each student works under a Model School teacher, and for one week during the half-year has sole charge and responsibility of the class.
City Training Classes.
Closely allied to the work of the Training Schools is that done by City Training Classes. These are usually found in the smaller towns or cities of the various States. The general features of the Training Classes are the same as those of the City Training Schools. The differences are mainly:
(1) No special model or practising school is attached, but the students gain their experience by teaching classes in city or town schools.
(2) The work of training is carried out, not by a specially appointed person, as in the Training Schools, but by the Superintendent of Schools of the district, who holds classes in professional subjects, and arranges and criticises the work of the students.