Editor History Teacher’s Magazine:
The article in the September issue of The History Teacher’s Magazine entitled “One Use of Sources in the Teaching of History” is interesting both in its point of view and in the concrete illustration of the method presented by Professor Fling. The “methods” pursued by different teachers of history will vary largely and chiefly in consonance with the respectively dissimilar aims held in mind by the teachers. I must own that an experience of ten years in teaching history in the high schools of New York City has engendered a more modest purpose than that avowed by Professor Fling; my own aim is less ambitious than his and at the same time, perhaps, more comprehensive; it may not be, like his, based upon “my conception of educational theory and of the logic of historical science”; it is, however, based upon a first-hand knowledge of the intellectual attainments and limitations of girls and boys of high school age.
There is, of course, a great difference in mental power between pupils during the time devoted to Greek history and during that in which they are studying American history and civics; there are, too, great disparities in the children of the same grades and in different schools, and yet I think it is a safe generalization to declare that broadly speaking, our pupils are surprisingly immature and undeveloped mentally, even when, as “sweet girl graduates,” or their brothers, they leave us for the struggle of life, or for college.
The public high school, supported as it is by the money of the people, must necessarily adapt itself to the needs of the children sent to it; the vast majority of our pupils receive from us the “finishing touches” of their formal education, as they do not go to college, but plunge at once into “the world.” Such being the fact, what then should be the aim of the history teacher? Should it be to inculcate “the methodical search for truth,” using the phrase in the sense evidently intended by both M. Lanson and Professor Fling?
Remembering the specific task set before us, viz.: insofar as we are able, to fit our charges to grapple with the practical problems of life, I am compelled to say that such a training in the study of history as Professor Fling thinks desirable for high school pupils would be woefully one-sided and inadequate.
We are not expected to train historians nor historical specialists; we leave to the colleges to discover unusual natural aptitudes for investigation and research, and we consider that in the universities the post-graduate school finds its sphere in the training of the historical expert; on the other hand, to the high school is given the privilege of introducing these younger minds into the domain of history. And while enforcing the importance of accuracy and exactness in thinking and in forming judgments of men and of events, it is not only our task to inculcate “the methodical search for truth,” but to throw open to the pupils the literature of the subject, to show them how to use books to arouse their interest in scenes and countries removed by time and space from themselves, to create, too, an interest in the social life of times present and past, and to inspire a sane spirit of pride in our country and loyalty to it.
The proper use of “Sources” for the accomplishment of these results is not, then, as I have come to think, in setting such lessons as Professor Fling suggests in the instance of the Battle of Salamis; personally I rarely place in the hands of pupils any sources. I have had few classes of sufficient maturity of mind to profit by such a course. I do, however, read and explain to them such sources as I think will serve to add reality, freshness and life to the text. Contrary to Professor Fling, I think that the only place for the “Sources” is in the hands of the teacher and not in those of the pupils; I do not believe in the so-called “Source Method” of history teaching in secondary schools; it is unsuited to the mental capacity of the pupils and contributes only indirectly to what I consider the aims that should control our teaching of history.
One remark made by Professor Fling is almost naïve. He says: “Two exercises a week would be enough for intensive critical work.” Yes, it probably would be; especially in Greek and Roman history, which in our New York high schools is taught but three times a week; it certainly would be sufficient in English history in those of our schools in which it is taught but twice a week; and probably it would be sufficient in American history and civics, which is taught four times a week!
Charles R. Fay,
Erasmus Hall High School,
Borough of Brooklyn,
New York City.
Editor History Teacher’s Magazine: