Work and Play in Girls' Schools / By Three Head Mistresses

by Dorothea Beale; J. F. Dove; Lucy Helen Muriel Soulsby

In [Part IV.] I have a number of short papers by members of our teaching staff.

[Section II.] has been assigned by the publishers to another hand, and for that I am not responsible. Upon the basis of this classification, I have drawn up a [table] showing how the methods of teaching these subjects will vary with the age of the pupil, and what is, I consider, the best order of subjects. I have also added some chapters on various subjects—as Spelling Reform and the Relation of School to Home.

Time available.Before proceeding further it will be best to consider what is the amount of time at our disposal for school teaching. The division of the year into three terms of about twelve weeks, consisting of five or six days each, is so generally adopted that we may take that for granted. The years of school life are at the utmost about ten—in the case of most girls far less.

For day schools in large towns, attended by pupils from considerable distances, two attendances are impossible, and the morning has to last from about 9 or 9·30 to 1 or 1·30. Of the four hours about three and a half are available for lessons, the remaining half-hour being taken up with the general assembly for prayers and a brief interval for recreation; but these twenty-one or twenty-four hours are not spent, as parents are apt to imagine, in poring over books, but are varied by lessons in gymnastics, drawing, singing. Some pupils in large towns remain to dine at the school, and have afternoon teaching in accomplishments. In small towns they return. Thirty hours a week should, I think, be the limit of time given to study for girls of school age. Students fully grown may study six hours a day. Eight should, I think, not be exceeded by any.

Length of lesson.In arranging the time-table, several things have to be considered. (1) A, the youngest children, would have no lessons of more than half an hour, and not more than two hours of definite instruction, the remainder being occupied with games, drill, singing and various hand occupations. Those under eight would have a larger proportion of these last, and perhaps attend for a shorter time. The elder children can have a reading lesson before the general assembly, and the little ones might leave half an hour before the morning closes. If they wait for elder sisters, amusements may be devised. (2) In the case of all, an endeavour should be made to place those studies which make the heaviest demands on the attention as far as possible in the early morning hours. (3) The lessons for Sections B and C would average about fifty minutes, some being thirty minutes, others an hour, the drawing lesson being perhaps longer, whilst religious instruction following upon prayers would occupy half an hour, as would drill and singing. (4) Care should be taken to vary the subjects, so that if possible two lecture lessons should not follow one another, nor two on language, nor two mathematical lessons.

Order of study.We have next to consider the order of study, what subjects are best adapted to the state of development of the child, or in what different ways the same subject may be treated to make it suitable at different ages. In this matter fatal mistakes are still made.[3] Happily the teachings of educational reformers have brought before us the evils of the neglect of psychological principles. Dietary.We are shocked when we hear of mothers ignorant of physiology, feeding infants on bread and tea, and giving soothing syrups; we recognise the danger of too many sweets, and of cigars for growing boys—these have their parallels in the mental dietary. But it is not so much giving wrong things as the deprivation of right things at the right time that is fatal. It is wonderful how much unwholesome food can be disposed of by a vigorous child—there is a fit of sickness and it is gone; but we see in the adult bodily framework, the stunted skeleton, the decaying teeth, etc., the effect of starvation during years of growth. To deprive the child of the mental food and exercise necessary for his development at each period of his growth is a fatal error, the consequences of which are irreparable. This has been forcibly put by Dr. Harris, Chief Commissioner of Education, U.S.A. Speaking of the prolongation for man of the period of infancy required for his development, that he may be adapted to the spiritual environment of the social community into which he is born, he writes: “Is it not evident that if the child is at any epoch inured into any habit or fixed form of activity belonging to a lower stage of development, the tendency will be to arrest growth at that point, and make it difficult or next to impossible to continue the growth of the child into higher and more civilised forms of soul-activity? A severe drill in mechanical habits of memorising, any overcultivation of sense-perception in tender years, may arrest the development of the soul, form a mechanical method of thinking, and prevent the further growth into spiritual insight—especially on the second plane of thought, that which follows sense-perception, namely, the stage of classifying or even the search for causal relations, there is most danger of this arrested development. The absorption of the gaze upon the adjustments within the machine, prevents us from seeing it as a whole. The attention to details of colouring or drawing may prevent one from seeing the significance of the great works of art.... To keep the intellect out of the abyss of habit, and to make the ethical behaviour more and more a matter of unquestioning habit, seems to be the desideratum.”

[3] “The logical order of a good course of instruction,” writes Compayré (Psychology Applied to Education), “must correspond to the chronological order of development of the mental powers.” “If,” writes Herbert Spencer, “the higher faculties are taxed by presenting an order of knowledge more complex and abstract than can be readily assimilated, the abnormal result so produced will be accompanied by equivalent evil.”

Tradition furnishes those who have made no formal study of the subject of mental growth with some empirical rules for a healthy dietary,—as Mr. Barnett has shown,[4] or our children would fare badly; but the evils of misplacing subjects in the order of study, of neglecting to teach the right subjects at the right time, and of partial starvation, are too apparent. Let me conclude with an illustrative anecdote—an object lesson. At school I always kept caterpillars; they were regularly fed, and seldom failed to come out in perfect condition. Once some “woolly bears” escaped; they were found after a few days, and again provided with ample food; but it was too late, they came out with only rudimentary wings.

[4] Teaching and Organisation, p. 5.

But not only have we to provide the right subjects at the right time, we have to consider how the manner of teaching the same subject may be adapted to the age of the pupil. In an excellent Report on the Schools of St. Louis some years ago, Dr. Harris expounded the spiral system. In studying say botany in the lowest class, the children would learn to observe the forms of plant life, and become familiar with the main facts of classificatory botany, the observing power being chiefly called into action. Then the subject would be dropped, and taken up years after from the physiological point of view, when the learners would be able to understand the chemical changes, the process of development, etc., as they could not in earlier years. Similarly all Herbartians know how the teaching of history proceeds from the mythological story, through biography to history, and some of us have seen the bad results of giving little children formularies which have no meaning for them, instead of seeking to develop in them through the discipline of home, and Bible teaching regarding the lives of the good, feelings of filial trust and reverence and obedience. For examples of this I may refer to Miss Bremner’s book on the Education of Girls.