so as to eliminate the enormous waste that commonly results from the brightest students being idle a large part of the time and the poorest students being dragged along so rapidly that they fail to profit by the instruction. People in cities are so familiar with the system of class instruction with little or no variation for individual needs that they fail to appreciate the fact that for many years nearly all instruction was given to individuals, and that the present class methods can be greatly

A FRENCH SCHOOL BEFORE 1789
Note the method of individual instruction. After Cubberly

improved by introducing some modifications that would vary the subject matter and the pace to suit the varying needs of different students. We shall take up briefly the historical development of the present method of class instruction and the movement for its modification, and shall describe some of the practical innovations that have been tried.

Historically, individual instruction prevailed for centuries. - Up to the nineteenth century the common method of instruction in schools was individual instruction. As a rule, each

re

pupil advanced to the teacher's desk when his turn came, cited upon the work which he had prepared, received a new assignment in the form of directions or questions, and returned to his seat, presumably to continue his studying. When there were only a few students (as often happens even at the present time in some rural schools), and no two at the same stage of advancement, this would seem to be the natural method to follow. But it was used not only under these circumstances but also when schools were quite large and contained many students doing the same work. For example, it was used in the dame schools, where there were only beginners learning to read. Even if there were twenty pupils, the teacher would call up each one in turn and, pointing at the alphabet, would say, That is A; that is B; that is C." Then, pointing at "A," she would ask the child, "What's that?" and so on. Similar methods were used in advanced classes in the elementary school (for example, in arithmetic) and also in the Latin grammar schools. The picture given on page 363 illustrates this practice.

९९

Exceptions in schools of La Salle and Lancaster. — Exceptions to the dominant individual method down to the first part of the nineteenth century are commonly given in the histories of education as forerunners of a significant educational reform. These exceptions are few and notable. On the theoretical side, Comenius (1592-1670), the great educational innovator of the seventeenth century, proposed to substitute class instruction for the individual method. On the practical side, La Salle (1651–1719), who organized the Brethren of the Christian Schools in 1684, introduced simultaneous class instruction on a large scale in the schools of this organization, which provided very efficient instruction throughout France. The Lancasterian monitorial system, which was popular in large American cities from 1805 to 1830, also organized class or group instruction very effectively. In this system the groups were very carefully graded so as to contain about ten pupils

of almost equal rank. Each group was taught by a bright, capable student known as a monitor.

Simultaneous instruction. Adopted during the nineteenth century. These successful innovations contrasted very strongly with the poor instruction that prevailed in the ordinary schools which were using the method of individual instruction. During the nineteenth century, however, fairly careful grading of the large numbers of students attending city schools became the dominant practice, and along with this there developed the almost universal use of the simultaneous method of class instruction in all cities. Naturally, since the results accomplished under this system were so superior (partially owing to simultaneous instruction but also partially caused by other innovations), it seldom occurred to a school-teacher or administrator that any improvement could be introduced as a modification of the simultaneous method. "Had n't it supplanted the individual method with greatly improved results?" they thought. "What else could be desired?"

Criticized by W. T. Harris.—This feeling of thorough satisfaction with pure simultaneous instruction was not shared by all school authorities, however. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a few of the more progressive leaders began to call attention to the defects in this method and to suggest modifications which would make some provision for varying class instruction so as to meet the needs of students of different degrees of ability. Perhaps the greatest practical public-school administrator of this period was William T. Harris (1835-1908), Commissioner of Education of the United States from 1889 to 1906. As superintendent of the schools of St. Louis from 1867 to 1880 Mr. Harris introduced many remarkable reforms which were adopted by other cities much later. He appreciated the advantages as well as the defects of the method of simultaneous instruction and called attention to both in an article published in 1872. The advantages, he said, are:

(a) a great increase in the length of recitation [for each pupil, since each had as much time as his group]; (b) far more thoroughness in the discussion of the lesson, sifting the different statements and probing the meaning of the same; (c) great stimulation of the mental activity of the pupil through trial and competition with other members of his class. These three advantages can scarcely be overestimated. They multiply the teacher's power just as organization improves the strength of the army. (1: 266)

On the other hand, Mr. Harris described the disadvantages of simultaneous instruction in the following words :

It is this very system that is so organized as to prove the very greatest of all causes for the early withdrawal from school. . . . The tendency of all classification is to unite pupils of widely different attainments. . . . The consequence is that the lesson is too short for some and too long for others. The best pupils in class are not tried to the extent of their ability. . . . The poorest pupils of the class are strained to their utmost. They are dragged, as it were, over the ground. . . . This develops the result that the overworked pupils are frequently discouraged and drop out of the class and likely enough out of the school altogether. (1: 266)

Lock-step in education condemned by P. W. Search. - Perhaps the most vehement critic of the simultaneous method during the latter part of the nineteenth century was P. W. Search, who wrote a book called "An Ideal School" (1901), in which he described experiments to provide for individual differences in capacity, that were undertaken in school systems of which he had been superintendent. These experiments will be described below (p. 379). Mr. Search was typical of a small group of schoolmen who were vigorous in their condemnation of what they called "the lock step in American education," thus tending to attach to the simultaneous method the odium of a prison practice. These men had relatively little effect upon educational practices, and it was not until after 1900 that there developed any strong tendency to provide for individual differences in capacity in instruction in public schools.

Recent enthusiastic interest in individual differences. Since 1900 there has been a very radical change in the general attitude toward provisions for individual differences. In fact, in contrast with the general indifference which preceded, the present period is marked by enthusiastic endeavor not only to modify or supplement the simultaneous method but also to provide for individual differences by the organization of special schools and classes for students of different types of ability and interest.

Stimulated by statistical demonstrations of differences and waste. One of the most important influences in bringing about this change of sentiment has been the statistical investigations of the amount of difference in capacity which prevails in the ordinary graded classes, supplemented by statistical studies of the retardation of students and of the amount of time wasted through students getting behind grade. The work of Professor E. L. Thorndike and Dr. Leonard Ayers has been particularly influential in this connection. Thorndike's "Educational Psychology," published in 1903 (revised, 1910 and 1913), and his "Principles of Teaching" (1906), contained chapters which demonstrated clearly, on a statistical basis, just how great the amount of difference in capacity between the fast and the slow members of an ordinary class really is. The general statement of this amount of difference is made in his "Principles of Teaching" in the following words:

Roughly speaking, the teacher of a class, even in a school graded as closely as is possible in large cities, where two classes are provided in each building for each grade and where promotion occurs every six months, will find in the case of any kind of work some pupil who can do from two to five times as much in the same time, or do the same amount from two to five times as well, as some other pupil. The highest tenth of her class will in any one trait have an average ability from one and three-fourths to four times that of the lowest tenth. (10: 73)