no town school has the right to accept funds from the State for the maintenance of rural teachers' training courses unless it is willing to make those courses as efficient as they can be made. Furthermore, most of the schools find it possible to use other than backward pupils as practice material, and to give the full amount of practice teaching required under the rules of the High School Board; and many find it also possible to maintain an ungraded practice room or to furnish practice in actual rural schools. Few of these schools report that these features interfere in the least degree with the giving of their best service to their own constit uents. CONCERNING THE STUDY OF RURAL SOCIAL PROBLEMS Problem. If actual experience with rural life is generally lacking among the students, and our data indicate that it is, just what are the departments doing to furnish a substitute? To turn a town-bred girl into a rural community without some preparation for the many strange things that she must encounter is to assure her early discouragement and ultimate failure in many cases. What preparation for these things do the departments offer? Data from the questionnaire.--Three schools out of the ninetyfive consulted report what seems to be a formal study of rural social problems. Forty-one schools state that these matters are taken up informally and occasionally, but apparently without system. In twenty-four of these schools reading assignments are made to recent literature on rural life,19 and supplemented in many cases by reports of visits to country schools, rural meetings, and entertainments. Such a method, if consistently pursued, would seem to be effective. Talks by the county superintendent, the training supervisor, the teacher of agriculture, and others, are mentioned. One teacher reports the use of a question-box once a week. As a rule these informal discussions occur during the period devoted to general exercises. Forty schools report an incidental discussion of these ques 19 The books most frequently used are the following, here given in the order of preference indicated by the numbers of teachers mentioning each: Carney, Country Life and the Country School; Wray, Jean Mitchell's School; McKeever, Farm Boys and Girls; Kern, Among Country Schools; Borass, Getting Along in Country Schools; Foght, The American Rural School; Fields, The Corn Lady. tions in connection with the regular subjects, at opportune times, or whenever such questions are raised by the class. This method is even less systematic than the one described above. A great variety of subjects is named, in connection with which this incidental instruction is given. Among them are agriculture, hygiene and sanitation, nature study, civics, composition, management, reading, arithmetic, and geography. Some seem very remote from "social problems." But is a course in the study of rural social problems regarded by the training teachers as desirable, as one promising to perform a practical service? Three teachers state their belief that it would not be practical; eighty teachers declare more or less emphatically that it would; seven give a conditional affirmative. Among the different replies are these: "decidedly so"; "of prime importance"; "a course that should be introduced systematically." On the other hand, several of those favoring the work in itself believe that it should be made an incidental part of a course of study that is already overcrowded. Discussion. The study of rural life and social matters in the departments seems to be very meager, in consideration of the great lack of country experience among the students. In practically every school the work is informal or incidental. The informal procedure described by many of the schools is commendable if enough is made of it, but the incidental method has little to recommend it. Incidental teaching is too likely to be no teaching at all. Again, many of the subjects mentioned as being the vehicles of this incidental teaching are so remote from social problems as to raise a doubt whether the teacher making the reply really got the meaning of the question. It is safe to say that only a small proportion of the departments offer work of real value along this line. A natural and apparently reasonable objection to including a study of modern rural social problems in the course of study is that the average student in these departments is too young to profit by it. But what then? Are the rural schools of Minnesota to drop out of the movement to meet more closely the needs of rural life? Or shall the rural teaching force of the State be recruited from outside the high-school departments? Such a dilemma confronts the advocates of this objection. CONCERNING THE TRAINING SUPERVISORS Problem.-"As is the teacher, so is the school." It is a frequent remark among the school men of the State that these departments are "just what the training teachers make them." Such is the latitude granted by the High School Board that the training teacher has a large part in determining nearly every feature of the work. Subject matter, program, method—these are largely at her discretion, with the result that there is much variety in all three. This liberty is excellent if the supervisor is thoroughly experienced and properly prepared. Let us examine in detail this experience and preparation. The rules of the High School Board are, in effect, that certificates shall be granted only to teachers of approved experience, who seem to have special fitness, who have a knowledge of ruralschool conditions, and who furnish a satisfactory certificate or diploma. Data from the questionnaire.—(a) Experience as pupils in country schools: Data were received for ninety-two teachers, who were distributed as follows: It thus appears that fully 40 per cent of the teachers who reply have had no such experience, and that only 41 per cent can be described as "country-bred." (b) Experience as teachers in rural schools: Again ninetytwo teachers report as follows: 20 20 Of these, fifty-two teachers had all and six had part of this experience in Minnesota, while thirty-one had part or all of it outside of the State. (c) Total rural experience: Found by adding together the years spent as pupil and as teacher, by each supervisor, in the rural schools. Years' experience None Less than a year One year Two years Three years Four years Five years Eleven years Twelve years Thirteen years Fourteen years Fifteen years Number 2 3 11 10 8 7755 5 5 7 1 4 4 3 0 1 2 From these tables it appears that the great majority of the training supervisors have had sufficient rural experience to be acquainted with rural conditions as they are, or were. Let us now see to what extent this experience has been supplemented by proper training. (d) Amount of normal school, college, or university training received by the supervisors above a four-year high-school course. In making these compilations half years were not counted. Returns were received from ninety-four teachers. It will be observed that eighteen teachers (19 per cent) have had less than the equivalent of a two-year normal-school course, and that sixty-seven teachers (71 per cent) have had less than the equivalent of a four-year college course. (e) Sources of this advanced training: It is worth while to know what institutions in the State have had a part in furnishing this preparation. In the table below the numbers in the columns headed "all," "most," and "part" indicate the numbers of teachers who have received all, most, or part of their preparation in the institutions named. Normal schools thus seem to be the chief factor in the preparation of those teachers who have received their training in this State. The same statement holds for those who were trained elsewhere. The situation may be summarized by saying that nine teachers (9 per cent) have had all or most of their training in a standard university, seventy-four teachers (79 per cent) in normal schools, and ten teachers (10 per cent) in small colleges. (f) Date of this advanced training: It is important, as will appear in the discussion, to know when this training was re |