APPENDIX V SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS ADAPTED from an article in the School Review, February and March, 1905. The argument was written to illustrate the method of analysis. The formal processes are too evident for rhetorical excellence; but for that very reason the argument is more useful to beginners than a masterpiece which has the art to conceal its methods. The technical terms of argumentation are used to aid the student: they are usually avoided in well-written arguments. "Should the elective system be adopted in the public high schools of the United States?" INTRODUCTION The contemporary discussion concerning the elective system for public high schools suggests the exhortation of a negro cab-driver. Glad of the lightning which showed him the road, but Introductory terrified by repeated peals of thunder, he cried, "O Paragraph. Lord, if it's all the same to you, send us more light and less noise." It is only with the hope of revealing some light on this problem that one is warranted in making more noise. HISTORY OF THE QUESTION For nearly a century the elective system has been pushing its way into our colleges and schools. In 1825 elective courses were offered to the upper classes of Harvard College. Since then the elective principle has been working down to the lower grades; in 1846 to the Senior and Junior classes of Harvard College, in 1867 to the Sophomore class, in 1884 to the Freshman class. The influence of this action by Harvard College was inevitably to send the elective system down to the upper classes of secondary schools; within a few years it has reached all classes in the public high schools of Boston and other cities. Down, down it has gone, through college, high school, and grammar school, until, as Dean Briggs says, "not even the alphabet can stop it." ORIGIN OF THE QUESTION The growth of this free-choice principle-fixed quantity and quality of work with variable topic has no doubt been due largely to the growing diversity of knowledge, to Definition. the breaking down of the old ideal of the scholar, to the need of specialization, and to the opening of educational opportunities to all the people. Whatever the causes may be, the elective principle is established, its benefits are recognized, and all are agreed that at some place in our educational system the studies should be wholly elective. But at what point? The question is pertinent whether in escaping the Scylla of total prescription we are not in danger of being wrecked upon the Charybdis of total election. Whether free choice should begin in the first year of the public high school course is a question concerning which there has been much writing, some thinking, and a little scientific investigation. Many individual opinions have been given; the arguments on each side have been partly stated, some evidence has been presented, usually without consideration of its full bearing on all phases of the question; but has any one sought to discover the truth through bringing together all the arguments on both sides and viewing them in the light of facts? I have found no such attempt. My present purpose is to make that attempt, first of all through reducing the arguScope of ments of both sides to their lowest terms, in order Forensic. to see in brief compass just what are the vital differences of opinion; and, second, through considering those issues one by one in connection with investigations concerning the working of the elective system in the United States. THE NEGATIVE CONTENTIONS First, then, what is said against the elective system for public high schools. The arguments may be considered conveniently in four main divisions: the first concerning the ability of high school pupils to choose; the second concerning possible compromises between complete election and complete prescription; the third concerning the effect of each system on teachers and principals; the fourth concerning the relative moral worth of the old system of prescription and the new system of election. The first of these arguments is that those in charge of the schools can choose better for all than can each individual pupil for himself. This is held to be true for three reasons: (1) there are certain studies which are essential for all pupils, of which A First Latin, algebra, geometry, and English are often urged; Negative (2) pupils will not of their own choice elect these necessary studies; (3) pupils will choose foolishly, for they will elect easy courses, or those for which they are not prepared, or those taught by favorite teachers, or those of little value, or disconnected courses. Contention. A Second Contention. As a second main argument, two compromises are proposed, either of which is held to be superior to the elective system in its entirety. Since there are certain studies which constitute an essential foundation, and since pupils, left Negative to their own choice, will neglect these studies, (1) a group system or (2) a programme of partial prescription seems to many people far better than "a frolic of unbridled fancy." Such is the name applied to the elective idea by an extreme opponent who refuses to call it a "system." Of those who favor partial prescription, some would have the greater part of school work required and allow the pupil to choose only the "fringe." Others would establish a system of restricted choice, requiring the pupil to take at least one study from each of the great divisions of human knowledge, say language, history, mathematics, and science. The other suggested compromise, called the group system, offers several complete programmes of studies, one of which the pupil must elect; but the studies within each group are wholly prescribed. The argument in favor of this system is that each pupil, whether preparing for college, for technical school, or for business - whether wishing a classical, scientific, or commercial course can elect one well-planned group of related studies. Many believe that thus the benefits of the elective system are obtained and its evils eliminated. A third argument opposed to the elective system concerns teachers and principals. It is held that this system requires abler, more enthusiastic teachers, more competent and sympathetic A Third Contention. principals, stronger men and women; that, further, Negative the system demands of them more work. On this point, other friends of prescribed study urge that the free-choice system is a device to evade the most difficult work of teaching, a lazy, laissez-faire policy; for it tends to relieve teachers of the very pupils whom they have most difficulty in forcing through a pre scribed curriculum. A Fourth A fourth main argument is that the prescribed system is of greater moral worth. "What a boy likes," it is said, “is not always best for him," and "backwardness in any subject shows the desirability of more training at just that point." The drudgery of enforced tasks and the discipline in conquering distasteful subjects is more valuable than any training in free choice, and only prescribed work cultivates habits of application, thoroughness, and accuracy. A Fifth Group of Negative Contentions. These four objections do not by any means comprise all that has been said against the elective system. The arguments have been too intricate and numerous, have wandered along too many divergent paths, to be gathered into four folds. The friends of the fixed curriculum have also urged (1) that most public high schools are too limited in resources - in teachers and equipment to make possible a programme of free choice; (2) that there are dangers of superficiality in the so-called "enriching" and "broadening" of lower-school programmes; (3) that absolutely unrestricted choice is impossible, since there are so many hindrances to its free play; (4) that the elective system throws upon busy parents an added responsibility, one wholly assumed by school authorities under the old fixed plan; (5) that the elctive system cannot put a stop to all educational wastes. THE AFFIRMATIVE CONTENTIONS The arguments adduced in support of the elective system may be considered in five groups, the first four of which will be seen to correspond with the first four opposing arguments stated above: (1) those concerning the relative ability of the individual to choose for himself and the ability of the school authorities to choose for all; (2) concerning the proposed substitutes for complete election; (3) concerning the effect of each system on teachers and principals; (4) concerning the relative moral worth of the two systems; (5) concerning several particular needs of public high school education in the United States. The first argument is that throughout the United States each high school pupil is better able to choose for himself than are school A First authorities for all alike. This is held true for three reasons: (1) there are no studies which are essential for all pupils; (2) few students omit the subjects most commonly defended by advocates of fixed courses; (3) there are many natural safeguards which together inhibit most of the mistakes of choice feared by the opponents of the elective system. Contention. The second argument is that no other plan is so satisfactory as complete election. (1) The group system (when its only distinct feature is preserved) is too rigid to provide for indi- A Second vidual needs, and is an attempt to enforce specializa- Affirmative tion; (2) nor is any system of partial choice so satisfactory as complete election. A few options will not give the necessary advantages. Furthermore, elective and prescribed work side by side are incompatible. Finally, a partially elective plan will not do, for free choice should be given in the first year of high school, that the opportunities may attract grammar school graduates who are deciding whether to enter the high school; free choice should come at this time, when the inevitable errors of training in choice are least harmful. A third argument is that, under the elective system, teachers and principals are relieved of the most disheartening kind of work, and inspired with a more sympathetic and enthusiastic attitude toward their work and their pupils. A Third Contention. A fourth is the moral argument. The elective principle is considered strongest for building character, because it honors the will, trains in choice, removes the dangers of habitual de- A Fourth pendence, decreases the amount of cheating, helps to Affirmative break the demoralizing educational "lock-step," and aids in developing good citizens. Furthermore, in reply to a common objection, the friends of election say that there are two kinds of drudgery, and the only kind which has moral strength is as surely found where all studies are elective as where all are prescribed. A fifth group of arguments in favor of the new system deals with several present needs of public high schools in the United States, which, it is held, only the elective system can satisfy. A Fifth Group One of these is the need of arousing the interest of of Affirmative parents, and thus securing more sympathetic coöperation of home and school. Another is the need of a system by which our school buildings can be used more hours of each day, and thus be made to accommodate more pupils. A third is the necessity in a democratic community of recognizing the wide diversity in the needs of pupils, and thus providing for all classes of society. A fourth is the need of increasing the percentage of the population that secures a high school education, both by attracting more pupils and by keeping them longer in school. Such present demands, which the people rightfully make of their schools, no prescribed curricula can so nearly satisfy as the plan of complete free choice. Contentions. |