|
The government and discipline in early schools
depended much, of course, upon the teachers, but did not differ materially from
that in vogue now, except, perhaps, as was the custom of the times; there was
more corporal punishment for serious misdemeanors, and there were certainly
times when flagrant offenders were made to realize in more than a moral sense
that “the way of the transgressor is hard;” but the “moral suasion” idea was the
prevailing one. As most of the teachers were Christian men and women, educated
in the best Eastern and Western schools, they conducted themselves as gentlemen
and ladies in their intercourse with their pupils.
Appeals were made with reference to the right and wrong
of actions, rather than to the mere sense of honor and justice, though
application of these naturally followed.
In most of the schools the Bible was read and received
as the “only infallible rule of faith and practice,” and its teachings were
understood to be the supreme authority by which all conduct was to be regulated.
From “thus saith the Lord” there was no appeal, and
pupils were not left to the differing views which different teachers might
otherwise have felt at liberty to promulgate. Neither patrons of the schools nor
teachers were afraid, as a Wisconsin judge recently declared of the danger of
reading the Bible in schools, “of awakening in some child’s mind feelings of
reverence and adoration which might amount to an impulse to worship the Supreme
Being.” As if such a state of mind would be injurious to any one!
No sectarian views, as such, were taught, but the
endeavor was to impress upon young minds and hearts the duty of the present hour
with its opportunities and privileges, not so much with reference to gaining
wealth and honor the world, as to the formation of right character in the sight
of God and of final accountability to Him.
Religious exercises, lasting only from five to eight
minutes, usually took place in the morning, when a few suitable verses of the
Scriptures were read, perhaps with a word of comment, after which followed a
brief extemporaneous prayer by the teacher, or the repetition of the Lord’s
prayer in concert. Did this method of training moral character result
disastrously to any individual, or to the best interests of the community? Let
the results following such teachings, in the dominant moral sentiment, which for
so many years maintained in the town a decent respect for social order, answer.
Indeed, during those years, though there were some
rough characters, as in every new settlement, Canton was a model town in its
freedom from the lawlessness and crime usually prevalent in the first settlement
of a place, and its good order was further promoted by voting out, and keeping
out, with a few exceptions, until recently, the saloon business, so demoralizing
to a community.
These statements are by no means intended to intimate
that the kind of teaching spoken of has become obsolete in all later or present
schools. Such intimation would not be true, but it cannot be denied that at
least in many of our Public Schools, it has been measurably discarded or
confined to very narrow limits.
As to methods of teaching, to some the old way seems
better than the new, while others consider it quite in place to disparage the
methods of forty, fifty and sixty years ago, claiming this as the age of supreme
wisdom in teaching and of perfection in the application of methods. The claim
may be a just one, and there can be no question as to the more thorough
preparation of teachers for their work, and it would be a severe reflection on
them and their opportunities if no progress had been made. But it must not be
forgotten that well educated men and women lived then, and some of them taught
in the Canton schools, nor did their methods of teaching differ greatly from the
present. Perhaps the most striking difference is in the course now pursued with
little children. The “word method” of teaching them to read was then little
known or practiced, and children were first taught the names and forms of the
alphabet, learning more by the sound of the letters than by sight, how to
pronounce words. Spelling classes, of which there were usually two each day,
stood in long rows, the members being called to their places by number, and the
strife was to start at the foot and gain the head of the class as often as
possible during a term. When the teacher gave a word to be spelled, the scholar
repeated it, pronouncing the syllables distinctly. Then if the word was of more
than one syllable, the first was spelled and pronounced, the second spelled and
pronounced, then the two were pronounced together and so on through as many
syllables as the word contained. In this way, forty-five years ago, the writer
heard a class of thirty-five or forty spell in concert and without a break, the
meaningless word: “Ho-no-ri-fi-ca-bi-li-tu-di-ni-ta-te-bus-que,” going back
after spelling a syllable to pronounce together all that had preceded it through
the whole fourteen. The method had its advantages, but the later method of
combining oral and written spelling lessons, especially if in the oral, the
syllables are separately pronounced, is better.
Other branches were taught as well as circumstances
would permit, and many educated in these early schools give ample testimony of
the value of the teaching received, though few were able from lack of time and
means to take a systematic course of study, as is now done, but pursued only the
branches which their intended occupations made necessary to success.
One very serious detriment to the success of these
schools was the frequent change of teachers. Teaching was not pursued as a
business to be followed year after year, but was most frequently engaged in
frequent change of teachers. Teaching was not pursued as a business to be
followed year after year, but was most frequently engaged in merely as a
stepping stone to some other employment, and for this reason the best results
were not always secured.
|