good which he has done will thus spread throughout the whole region in which his pupils are scattered.

It has to be admitted that the teacher has not always had the position in society which he ought to have from the important nature of his office and work. In ancient times the work of educating the children of a family was often committed to slaves. In modern times the teacher has not always so high a status allowed him as the other learned professions. But I am sure that the status of the instructor of youth will advance with the advance of civilization. In this, as in so many other cases, he who would mount up must climb; he cannot be lifted up by another. I am persuaded that the time is not distant when teachers of youth, lower and higher, will rank with the lower and higher grades of ministers and lawyers. The teachers should remember that their success in this commendable enterprise will depend on their gentlemanlike and ladylike bearing.

My readers would feel it to be an omission if, in speaking so fully of pedagogues, I did not mention that most of them are apt to have characters of their own-some of them eccentricities and oddities. Their peculiarities are apt to be produced by the nature of their work. They are rulers in their domains. The Queen of England and the President of the United States have no such absolute power. The teacher questions all his subjects and is questioned of none. The consequence is that he is commonly independent and is apt to show his independence. We have all known teachers who have been noted for their opinionativeness--that is, they had opinions of their own and were sure to obtrude them in season and out of season. Our men and women of sense take pains to restrain this tendency. As they rise in the scale of society their sharp points will be rubbed off, and we shall have fewer of those Dominie Sampsons who have so amused us.-ExPresident JAMES M'COSH, D.D., LL.D., in The Independent.

REFRACTORY PUPILS.

Any honest teacher who feels that he has made mistakes in the management of refractory pupils (and who has not made mistakes), .must approach the subject with some misgiving. It lies not in the lot of the average teacher to be just the ideal teacher he would like to be or is striving to be. Consequently friction will develop in the school-room, for which the teacher is theoretically responsible; but the prevention of which lies not within his power. Yet he is a teacher

that is honestly striving to do his duty. With such teachers the writer, as a fellow workman, offering his mite and seeking suggestive help in return, desires to hold converse.

Of course, the proportion of refractory pupils in a school depends almost wholly upon the teacher's management and tact. Many teachers have repeated infractions of their regulations and frequent resistance to authority, solely because they allow it-because it is bred in the pupil by the very manner of the teacher. A teacher who allows his pupils to see that their misconduct annoys him, adds to his own confusion and to their encouragement in mischief. Rather let the teacher show to the pupils by judicious talks and by his management that their misconduct reacts upon themselves, at least in the loss of time and in the formation of bad habits if not in deserved punishment. They should be led to see that in reality the loss of time and the formation of bad habits is a worse punishment than the mere infliction of punishment; for, indeed, a judicious infliction of penalties is a true kindness in so far as it prevents the pupil from indulgence in evil habits. Younger pupils, not able to perceive this truth, will naturally not appreciate it. But their control is more easily effected by other means. While a teacher may feel strongly indignant at misconduct, he has no business to be fretted by it. A person of an irritable disposition has no business teaching. In determining upon means and methods of discipline, the good of the pupil is of paramount consideration. But all these statements are generally known and accepted, and they are here repeated only that they may be understood in all that follows.

Refractory pupils may be roughly divided into two general

classes:

Those who are refractory through a thoughtless disposition for fun or through idleness. The principal means of prevention which immediately suggests itself to any teacher is the assignment of special work to keep them busy. The work should be such as they can fairly perform and such as should reasonably arouse an interest. Thoughtless mischief may usually thus be prevented, but idleness may require a deeper probing to uproot it. A spirit of downright indolence on the part of a pupil is the most trying to a teacher, and the teacher who has such a pupil needs much watchfulness and patience. Yet the indolence of pupils in many school-rooms is directly traceable to the teacher, either through a like disposition on the part of the teacher or through a total incompetence to stimulate the pupil to activity. The con

sciences of such teachers should arouse them to more effective effort or constrain them to resign their positions.

But the really indolent or mischievous pupil-the one who persists in mischief or indolence or both in spite of general requirements governing the whole school and of specific ones given him-what of this problem? In his Principles and Practice of Teaching, Johonnot reports DeFillenberg as saying, "Experience has taught me that indolence in young persons is so directly opposite to their natural disposition to activity, that, unless it is the consequence of a bad education, it is almost immediately connected with some constitutional defect." This is as much as to say that no boy of good constitution is naturally lazy; that he will be found to have his natural activities directed into some channel, though probably sadly misdirected. The problem is to turn the current of his activities into right channels.

If, as writers on pedagogy insist, an education is to be carried on along the line of the pupil's activities, how with such a misdirected use? Perhaps the peculiarity of his misdirected activities may indicate the general nature of the current into which his activities should be turned. For instance, a boy who indulges in catching flies in school may be led to a systematic observation of insects and animals, and thus to the study of natural history. A pupil given to drawing pictures to create laughter may be led to attempt the drawing of exact but simple forms. From these beginnings such pupils may be led to apply their minds to other approved lines of observation and thought. As a matter of course all this depends upon the teacher's ability to instruct his pupil. It will be urged by many that they have no time for such "side issues" and "extra touches;" that the law does not require natural history and drawing, and that it is only coddling the boy to a useless effort that ends with the novelty. The writer himself has been guilty of some of these excuses. But shall we continue to present to our pupils mental food for which no taste has been developed and which is consequently poorly digested, if digested at all, or shall we try simply to educate, leaving the acquirement of classified knowledge to be an incidental result? Shall we say, then, that it is the perverse nature of the pupil alone that causes neglect of his duty in school or is it partly, if not wholly, the lack of ability on the part of the teacher to arouse the pupil to appropriate activity? Whatever the theory one may entertain, if he cannot secure fair application from such a pupil, that pupil's father had better be advised to withdraw his son from school and set him to work.

Indulgence in mischief through a mere spirit of fun requires only

a little prompt and judicious action which any teacher should have the tact to perform. Perhaps this class of misdemeanors should not be so lightly brushed aside. Yet it seems that the mischievous act itself should suggest the remedy; namely, have the culprit perform the same act or a similar one, if practicable, under circumstances which remove all possibility of fun for him, and have him repeat it until he is disgusted with it. As is quite evident this plan can not be used in all cases. Frequently a little quiet, friendly talk with the wrong-doer will prove effective. The trouble will be to say just what ought to be said and no more.

2. Those who are refractory because the teacher misunderstands them. This lack of understanding motive is one of the main causes of failure in properly managing a pupil. While a teacher may err on the side of charity in judging a pupil, he is more apt to err on the side of severity imputing to the fractious pupil certain evil motives he does not possess. It is natural for any one to bear resentment when he feels he is misjudged, and he is apt, just because he is misjudged, to do those deeds that seem to spring from the motives ascribed to him, thus aggravating the difficulty by confirming the teacher in his judgment, and arousing still more the teacher's indignation, if not anger again-t him. It is evident, then, that misjudgment of a pupil usually produces mismanagement of him.

If the pupil be of such a frank nature as to make full explanations and show a willingness to make all reparations required by the circumstances of the case, the teacher can meet him half way and settle the whole difficulty. But it is the one of dogged resentment and of persistent tendency to break over restraint that gives the trouble. "redress of grievances" is to be sought first in the teacher. Let him study that pupil as he would a knotty problem in mathematics, meantime, of course, holding him in proper reins so far as he knows best. Let him inquire of himself if there be reasonable grounds for changing his opinion of the pupil. If the subject of his study has not broken over all restraint ere a definite course is decided upon, it is an indication in the pupil's favor, and the teacher can now come to a complete understanding with him. Finding himself unjust either in his treatment or his judgment of the pupil, it is the teacher's duty to make acknowledgments in a manly way, at the same time giving the pupil to understand by act as well as word that he is expected to confirm willingly to every regulation and requirement made. This talk should be given in private, and the teacher can then judge by the manner in which it is received whether the pupil feels that his grievances have been redressed

and whether he purposes improvement in his conduct. Should he, on the contrary, rebelliously persist in his evil way, proving too much of an evil influence upon the school, it were better to have him removed than to have the whole school affected by his influence. This would be acknowledging that, to that teacher, the problem of this boy's nature is unsolvable or that the tact to manage him is wanting-likely both. But better this than to allow that boy to ruin the power of the teacher over that school.

While this by no means covers the ground, the article will have accomplished its purpose if it induces other teachers to express their thoughts and relate their experiences.-S. F. BRADING in Southwestern Journal of Education.

LESSON IN A GERMAN TRAINING SCHOOL.

In the course of a two day's visit to the Teachers' Seminary in Munich many things worthy of note were observed. It is my purpose at present to describe particularly only one; namely, a lesson given in the school of practice. This department consists of seven classes of small children, each class in charge of a regularly employed teacher. The Normal, or Seminary course, covers two years, and is preceded by a three years' preparatory course, making five years in all.

Pupils enter this preparatory course quite young, however; for the average age of the graduating classes in this school is not higher than in our Pennsylvania Normal Schools.

Bavaria has as many normal schools as Pennsylvania less one. Eight of these are for male teachers and the other three for female. The school visited is one of the three, and is the only teachers' seminary in Munich.

In the last year of the course, students in this school are assigned hours for observing the work of the teachers in the school of practice. Later, they are required to teach under the direction and supervision of the teachers in charge. Once a week a member of the Senior class is appointed to teach a lesson in the presence of her entire class and of the director, or, as we would say, principal of the school.

So much for the general plan and character of the school. The lesson, which impressed me so favorably that I have wanted to speak of it to other teachers, was given by a lady in charge of one of the practice rooms. It was a very simple one, on what we might call home knowledge; but beneath the simplicity of it there were plan and