Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

IV. STATE NORMAL SCHOOL.

Under the appropriation of $3,000, by the Legislature of 1861-2, Ahira Holmes was appointed as Principal by a Board of Trustees, consisting of Superintendent Moulder, George Tait, Superintendent of San Francisco, and Dr. Taylor, Superintendent of Sacramento.

The school was opened in one of the vacant rooms of the San Francisco High School, July 21st, 1862, with 34 pupils, during the first term. The school was soon removed to rented rooms on Post Street. Henry P. Carlton was elected VicePrincipal, and Miss Helen M. Clark and Miss Kate Sullivan teachers in the Training School.

The first graduating class, December, 1863, consisted of Bertha Comstock, Augusta P. Fink, Nellie Hart, and Louisa Mails.

In July, 1864, Miss E. W. Houghton was elected as an Assistant, and in July, 1865, George W. Minns succeeded Ahira Holmes as Principal. The school was removed to the rear of the Lincoln Grammar School, and Mrs. C. H. Stout was appointed Principal of the Training School.

The number of pupils, October, 1865, was 86. The School Law of 1865-5 made the State Board of Education ex officio a Board of Normal School Trustees.

At the first meeting, April 13, 1866, Professor Minns was granted a year's leave of absence, and H. P. Carlton elected Acting Principal. In 1867, Mr. Minns, concluding not to return from the East, resigned. Mr. Carlton continued Principal until July, 1867, when George Tait was elected Principal. Mr. Tait resigned in 1868, and was succeeded by W. T. Luckey.

Under the Act of April 4, 1870, Gov. Haight appointed a Board of Trustees, consisting of James Denman, J. H. Braly, C. T. Ryland, H. O. Weller, and A. J. Moulder, the Governor and State Superintendent being ex officio members.

This Board proceeded to erect a building at San Jose, completed in 1872, at a cost of $250,000.

In June, 1873, Charles H. Allen was elected Principal, vice W. T. Luckey, and J. H. Braly, Vice-Principal, vice H. P.. Carlton.

At present, the school is filled to its utmost capacity—350 students-and is, in fact as well as in name, a Normal School.

The Board of Instruction, June, 1876, is as follows:

[blocks in formation]

By the School Law of 1852, the State Board of Education was made to consist of the Governor, State Superintendent, and the Surveyor-General. The Surveyor-General was included because the law originally proposed to entrust the Board with the sales of school lands. This, however, was not done; and the State Board remained, up to 1864, without powers or duties,

except to apportion, annually, the State school moneys. In 1864, the State Board was made to consist of the Governor, the State Superintendent, and the County Superintendents of San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Joaquin. The Board was empowered to adopt a uniform series of text-books, for all schools except in incorporated cities; to require a uniform course of study, and to make rules and regulations for the schools. In 1865, the Board was enlarged by the addition of the Principal of the State Normal School, and of two members appointed by the State Superintendent. In 1872, the two appointive members were cut off. In 1864, the State Board was made, ex officio, the Board of Normal School Trustees; repealed, 1870.

VI. TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES AND BOARDS OF EXAMINATION.

From 1850 to 1860, the power of examining teachers for certificates was vested in District School Trustees and City Boards of Education. These Boards were authorized to grant certificates" of good moral character and fitness to teach a common school one year.”

In 1860, Superintendent Moulder secured the passage of a law providing for a State Board of Examination, appointed by the State Superintendent, with power to grant certificates, valid for two years, and for County Boards, appointed by County Superintendents, with power to issue county certificates, valid for one year.

The power of examining teachers was still vested in City Boards of Education, which were not required to recognize State certificates.

At the State Institute, Sacramento, 1862, the first State examination was held by Superintendent Moulder and a Board made up of County Superintendents. The examination was somewhat informal, and mostly oral. The Board granted five Grammar School certificates and twelve "Mixed School" certificates.

From 1851 to 1863, teachers in San Francisco were examined every year. At first, these examinations were oral; but, in 1856, the Board introduced written examinations.

Concerning this annual re-examination of experienced teachers, Superintendent Swett, in his first Report, said:

No one cause has done so much to render the occupation of a public school teacher distasteful as the old system of annual examinations. Teachers were condemned to be tried, not by a jury of their peers, but too often by men who knew little or nothing of practical teaching, and who not unfrequently made the annual examination a guillotine for decapitating any unlucky pedagogue who had fallen under ban of their petty displeasure. A teacher in the public schools, though he might have, added to the finest natural abilities for teaching, a complete professional training in the best normal schools in the United States; though he might be crowned with honors, won by many years of successful experience; though he might be esteemed by the community, and revered by thousands of grateful pupils-at the end of each year, forsooth, he must be "examined' by a committee of lawyers, doctors, dentists, book-binders, contractors, and non-professional men, to ascertain if he were "fit to teach a Common School!" After having passed through the examination mill annually, nine years in succession, turned out each time with a "bran new" certificate of "fitness to teach a Common School one year," I can speak feelingly on this subject. These annual examinations of experienced teachers offered an annual insult to intelligence, by lumping character, aptness to teach, moral and social culture, in tabular statements of "percentage" on arithmetic and spelling, in which infinitesimal details counted everything, character and success nothing at all. Actual trial in the school-room is the best test of fitness to teach; and when a teacher has once passed examination, and proved successful in school, subsequent examinations are uncalled for and unnecessary.

I remember more than one successful teacher, arraigned before the Examination Star Chamber, who was decapitated by the official guillotine of "percentage," because he happened to fail" on the best route from Novogorod to Kilimandijaro," or from "Red Dog to You Bet;' or forgot the population of Brandy Gulch, Humbug Canon, or Pompeii; or could not remember the names of all the rivers of the world, from the Amazon down to the brook where he caught "minnows" with pin hooks when a boy; or blundered on some arithmetical shell, hard enough to pierce the hide of a monitor; or chanced to spell traveler with two l's; or happened, finally, to fall one tenth of one credit below nine hundred and ninety-nine, the standard which exactly gauged the moral character and intellectual ability of a man "fit to teach a Common School one year." The new State law, by granting diplomas for six years, relieves. teachers from the annoyance of such examinations, and is the first step towards recognizing teaching as a profession. It was my firm

conviction from the first, that the end sought would be best attained by vesting the authority to examine candidates in a board of practical teachers, selected for that specific purpose. The future success of this important movement will depend upon retaining this principle as a foundation. Teachers have a right to demand an examination by their peers.

In the State Institute circular, 1863, the subject of teachers' certificates was noticed as follows:

The State Board of Examiners will hold an examination of all applicants who desire to obtain State certificates during the Institute Session. By an amendment to the school law, these certificates remain in force during the term of four years-relieving the holders from all further examination by County Boards. It would be difficult to adduce any reason whatever for the annual examination of teachers, except the natural desire which some seem to entertain for tormenting unlucky applicants for district schools. There are many able teachers in the State whose pride revolts at the humiliation. Under the old law, a teacher in the public schools, though he might have added to the finest natural abilities for teaching, a complete professional training in the best Normal schools in the United States

though he might have grown gray in the service, might be crowned with the well-earned honors of many successful schools, be revered by thousands of grateful pupils though he had graduated from a university-yet he could not apply for the smallest district school in the remotest corner of the State, without "passing an examination;" and, if he wished to teach another year, he had to travel twenty or thirty miles to pass examination, to satisfy the State that he was "fit to keep a common school!" And further, if he wished to remove to another county, he must be examined by another Board, to ascertain his fitness to teach a common school! If examination imparts fitness to teach, some of the teachers in this State ought to be well fitted for their occupation.

In 1862-3, Superintendent Swett secured important amendments to the law relating to certificates and examining boards; and in 1865-6, the Revised School Law made elaborate provisions for the whole subject.

This law authorized the State Board of Education to issue State Life Diplomas to teachers of at least 10 years' experience, holders of State Educational Diplomas; provided for City Boards of Examination, consisting exclusively of professional teachers; required City Boards of Education to recognize the validity of State certificates; required the percentages obtained in the different studies to be indorsed on the back of the certificate; required the State Board to issue certificates to the holders of State Normal School diplomas, and of State life cer

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »