some sheets to give one to each pupil; Davis and Curtis models; fragments of models for contour drawing; maps of different projections; a few English hachure maps; photographs and pictures; stereopticon and views; several atlases; collection of rock and mineral specimens, enough for each pupil if possible. For illustration of the structures and processes concerned in the development of land forms there should be specimens of the common rock-forming minerals, and of such rocks and structures as are important in determining topographic forms, or have economic value. Thus there should be sandstones, conglomerates, shales and limestones, lavas, specimens showing faults on a small scale, slickensides, crumpled laminations, ripple marks, raindrop impressions and sun cracks, glacial bowlders and glaciated surfaces, stalactites and stalagmites. If an advanced course in geology is given, the amount of such material as has been indicated above should be considerably increased, and some fossils should be added. In all cases care should be taken to avoid such jumbles of miscellaneous minerals and fossils as often make up collections so-called. 9. An annotated list of text and reference books has been prepared by Miss Mary I. Platt, recently of Radcliffe College, now teacher of geography, High School, Holyoke, Mass. The list, including fifty titles, has been examined and criticised by W. M. Davis and R. E. Dodge, and is published in the Journal of School Geography for May, 1898. This list is by no means intended to be exhaustive of useful books, but outlines a useful beginning of a school library which might to advantage be greatly increased. It is further suggested that the Journal of School Geography is the most important help with which teachers of the subject in the grades and high schools can provide themselves. • PREPARATION OF THE TEACHER 10. It is not to be expected that notable success, in this or any other subject, will, be attained if attention is so far turned to the outline of the course or the equipment of the schoolroom that the preparation of the teacher is forgotten. The committee, therefore, wishes to emphasize three points that are of prime importance in this connection. The training of the teacher should have reached a distinctly higher grade in physical geography than that of the course to be given. It should include laboratory courses in physics, chemistry, botany, zoölogy, and geology, and it should have developed ability to take advantage of the local phenomena in the neighborhood of the school in the conduct of field work. These considerations should weigh in the selection of new teachers. Teachers already employed and of good experience in their work should be urged. to supplement their preparation, if deficient in any of the lines above indicated, by attending serious courses in teachers' classes and summer schools, as far as practicable with due regard to rest and health. A primary object of this report has been to attempt a rational definition of physical geography and to offer to teachers and school authorities a line of suggestion in organizing geographic instruction, especially to secure a sound elementary course in the early years of the high school. Minute and specific directions are undesirable, because a great variety of conditions must be met and the new must be built upon the old. A further object here sought is to set forth practicable views of the co-ordination of geography with the other sciences in the high-school curriculum, and of geography as a factor in satisfying college-admission requirements. The results, of course, are tentative. It is not thought that this committee and the other committees with which it is associated can formulate a rigid or final plan for all schools, but an approximation toward unity can be made, with advance upon the chaotic conditions of secondaryscience instruction in the past. The committee would be glad to be continued for another year, in order that, profiting by the discussions of its conference already held, and by such criticisms as the publication of the present report may evoke, it may embody the results of further consideration in a subsequent report. ALBERT PERRY BRIGHAM, Chairman. W. M. DAVIS. WILLIAM NORTH RICE. W. H. SNYDER. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARY'S MINUTES FIRST SESSION.-FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1898 The meeting was called to order at 3 P. M., at the Columbian University, by President John E. Brandegee, member of board of education, Utica, N. Y. Mr. Jesse H. Wilson, of Washington, extended a welcome to the department, which was responded to by the president. Mr. Harvey H. Hubbert, member of board of education, Philadelphia, then read a paper on "What Kind of Centralization, if Any, will Strengthen Our Local School System?" The discussion was opened by Dr. William Clarence Webster, Columbia College, New York city, and continued by William George Bruce, editor American School Board Journal, Milwaukee, Wis.; Dr. C. M. Woodward, St. Louis, Mo.; John T. Prince, of Massachusetts; Charles Bulkely Hubbell, president of board of education, New York city. Mr. Job Barnard, member of board of education, Washington, D. C., then read a paper on "Manual Training-Its Purpose and Value." The discussion was opened by C. M. Woodward, of St. Louis, Mo., and continued by P. N. Sigler, of Dayton, O. Mr. B. W. Wright, of Ishpeming, Mich., then read a paper on "The Tenure of Office of the Teachers." The chairman appointed the following committee on nominations: B. W. Wright, Ishpeming, Mich.; Harlan P. French, Albany, N. Y.; P. N. Sigler, Dayton, O. Adjourned. SECOND SESSION.-SATURDAY, JULY 9 The second session opened with President Brandegee in the chair. The Committee on Nominations reported the following-named officers for the ensuing year: President- E. F. Bradt, Ishpeming, Mich. Executive Committee P. N. Sigler, Chairman, Dayton, O. First Vice-President - Charles Bulkely Hubbell, New Harvey H. Hubbert, Philadelphia, Pa. Second Vice-President - John F. Hughes, Utica, N. Y. Edward Welden, Bethlehem, Pa. The report was adopted, and the nominees were declared elected. Mr. A. Lawrence Lowell, member of board of education, Boston, Mass., then read a paper on "The Professional and Non-Professional Bodies in Our School System, and the Proper Function of Each." A discussion followed, by P. N. Sigler, of Dayton, O.; C. M. Woodward, of St. Louis, Mo.; Edwin P. Seaver, of Boston, Mass.; S. M. Kelten, of Anderson, Ind.; Job Barnard, Washington, D. C.; John E. Brandegee, Utica, N. Y., and Harlan P. French, Albany, N. Y. John F. Hughes recommended that the department take up the subject of heating and ventilation next year. A paper by Edward Welden, of Bethlehem, Pa., on "The Selection, Appointment, and Removal of Teachers' and the Grading of Salaries," was not read, owing to the writer's absence. A general discussion followed, in which the subject of heating and ventilation received attention, Messrs. E. A. Gastman, of Illinois; Edwin P. Seaver, of Massachusetts, and P. N. Sigler, of Ohio, taking part. After a few remarks by the newly elected president, E. F. Bradt, of Ishpeming, Mich., the department adjourned sine die. WILLIAM GEORGE BRUCE, Secretary. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS WHAT KIND OF CENTRALIZATION, IF ANY, WILL BY HARVEY H. HUBBERT, MEMBER OF BOARD OF EDUCATION, This is a time when prodigious efforts are being exerted to concentrate interests managed by many under a system whereby they can be controlled by one corporate authority. Commercial and industrial enterprises are being consolidated on every hand, in order that the commercial interests involved may be the more economically and effectually administered, and this is also true, in the social life of our days. Religious and moral movements are being combined in vast organizations, under one executive head, whose power and influence and numerical strength extend into all continents, comprise all races, and fellowship with all tongues. It should, therefore, occasion no surprise to find this same spirit and impulse pervading educational circles. A strong sentiment is widely expressed in favor of centralization of executive authority in school government, and it is the settled conviction in the minds of the most thoughtful and earnest friends of our public-school system that some concentration in this respect should be secured among all the states, to overcome the evils which spring from the district system of control and the multiplied methods of administration which prevail in so many states. We admit that the problem is not easy of solution, and the efforts to secure such a result have not thus far been entirely satisfactory. Much of the school legislation of recent years has been enacted in order to bring about a form of government in this direction, but the only result obtained in most instances, thus far, has been to institute conflicting elements by retaining the powers, in a limited form, of the local boards or trustees, and at the same time conferring controlling powers upon a newly created board or authority operating within the same jurisdiction. This condition prevails in a number of states, and has in every case seriously hampered all efforts to secure the most efficient and practical local supervision. Centralization of authority which would be acceptable must come from state legislation. National control upon the plan which prevails in continental Europe, which confers all authority upon one man, the minister of public education, as in France and Germany, is so utterly opposed to the American idea of self-government and home rule as not to be entertained even as a proposition in this discussion. It is our conviction that any plan of administration that would meet with general adoption must be one which recognizes the right of the people to govern thru delegated representative school officials, and therefore local control and supervision should be preserved, but in such a way as not to conflict with authority vested in some central corporate body. Dual or rival school authorities should be abolished wherever they exist, and no further legislation should be permitted that would tend to recreate a system which has worked so much mischief wherever it has been in operation. The idea has prevailed in the United States, from the very origin of our school system, that the states, individually, should make provision for the education of the young, and it would seem to be consistent with this principle that the states should have control over the schools within their borders. A state board of education, similar to that which has been in existence in Massachusetts for so many years, is the best method yet tried in securing state supervision and organization. Such a board could very properly be authorized to have general executive authority, to see that the school laws are properly executed, that the state school funds are equitably distributed, and to provide for a uniform basis upon which the school tax shall be assessed; also to establish uniform courses of study for the schools of all grades thruout the commonwealth, to fix the qualifications of teachers, and to provide. for their proper selection and examination. Local authority could be exercised by school directors or committees appointed or elected for every town in the state, and boards of education for the larger cities, such as now exist in many of the states. The functions of these local school authorities should consist of executive and administrative authority, and should be limited in their exercise to their respective town or city jurisdiction. They should appoint the teachers, locate the schoolhouses, and expend all moneys and appropriations for the maintenance and support of the schools, and should have such general supervision as would insure absolute control over all matters pertaining to the management and direction of the public-school system. The school boards or committees should be composed entirely of representative citizens, and no person should hold ex-officio relations to the |