of government, have been calling attention for a good many years to the ridiculous situation of electing six governors of the state in the person of a governor," a secretary of state, a treasurer, a comptroller, an attorney general, a state engineer and surveyor-none of them being responsible for the conduct of the administration, none of them having power enough to really carry out the platform on which he was elected.

In addition to this weakness, there are numerous departments and commissions entirely outside of the governor's control, some of them having terms more than twice as long as that of the governor, which is only two years. It is proposed by many of the best students of the situation that an organization similar to that outlined by Professor Beard in his "American Politics," pp. 499 to 506, be authorized in the constitution. Here again the reformers do not altogether agree, however. If the governor is to appoint the heads of ten great departments, and possibly also their immediate assistants, shall the senate have the right to confirm the appointments, as is the case in the Federal government, or not? The most advanced students say not, but very careful and thoughtful students hesitate to trust the governor thus far and ask for the preservation of this "check." To add to the power and responsibility of the governor, it is advocated in many highly respectable quarters that the governor be given the right to initiate all financial legislation, permitting the legislature only the right to reject or reduce the appropriations. Such a method of budgetary practice was outlined in the proposals of Mr. Taft for the United States, and is of course the ideal of theoretical students of government. When the practical politician can be brought to see its advantage, it will be hard to say. As a still further step in this direction, that is in strengthening the power, and therefore the responsibility of the governor, it is proposed by a somewhat smaller number that the governor and his cabinet be given seats in the legislature and be permitted to speak and answer questions, but not to vote. On the desirability of going as far as this in the direction of planting the cabinet system in our soil, there is considerable difference of opinion, but support of the proposition seems to be growing steadily.

Many of the most advanced advocates of social legislation are banded together in an effort to safcguard legislation in that field from destruction by the "due process of law" clause. It is a remarkable indication of one tendency in our constitutionmaking that instead of moving to omit this perfectly superfluous and useless expression from the state constitution, some of these reformers-among them being many of the most respected citizens of the state -propose to write into the constitution a list of fields of legislation in which recourse to the process of law clause shall not be had. For example, it is proposed to protect a minimum wage law from being declared unconstitutional by saying that the constitution shall not be construed to forbid legislation for this purpose. It is easy to see to what

due

length this method of constitution-making might lead us. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal constitution, the "due process of law" clause is of no use in the state constitutions except to cause confused judicial decisions, as it has done in New York and many other states. The Federal courts supply ample protection to property. It may be answered that to omit the cause would not accomplish the purpose aimed at since an appeal could not be taken to the Federal courts from a decision by a state court adverse to the validity of a state statute; but under a Federal statute of last winter such a case can be taken up to the Federal courts, and this objection is met.

It almost seems a pity that the convention is not meeting in a larger city where more spectators could attend this great school of government. On the other hand, even as it is, their work will be interrupted enough by the busybody and the enthusiast, not to say the crank. What would be said if this convention followed the example of that of 1787 when the Federal constitution was drawn and refused to give out any information whatever until the work was done? It is not certain that the work would be any less effective. Surely there would be less temptation to make a patchwork quilt out of a thousand and separate proposals, instead of laying down a systematic and coherent fundamental law.

In co-operation with a number of civic and educational organizations, the Bureau of Education is seeking information in regard to education for citizenship in the schools of the country. It is the aim of the Bureau not to merely co-operate with the various organizations that are seeking to render service in a common field, but especially to co-ordinate their efforts so that, instead of numerous inquiries conducted independently of each other, there may be one inquiry covering all the essential information required, the results of the inquiry to be made available to all. It is hoped that this will be a distinct service, not only to the several agencies seeking information, but also to school authorities and teachers, by reducing the number of inquiries, official and unofficial, undertaken in this field. One important line of inquiry in this field is that relating to direct instruction in government in secondary schools. In this study the Bureau is co-operating especially with the Committee on Instruction in Government appointed by the American Political Science Association. This committee has already made a somewhat exhaustive study of instruction in political science in colleges and universities, the results of which are now in. The committee consists of Charles G. Haines, chairman, University of Texas; J. Lynn Barnard, School of Pedagogy, Philadelphia; Edgar Dawson, Hunter College, New York City; W. L. Fleming, Louisiana State University; Mabel Hill, Dean Post-Graduate Department, Dana Hall School, Wellesley; F. E. Horack, State University of Iowa; J. A. James, Northwestern University. A schedule has been prepared by this committee, and has been repeatedly revised in the light of conferences with representatives of the Bureau and others, and put in a form to render response as complete and as easy as possible. It is expected that the results of the inquiry will be published by the Bureau and made available, not only to all seeking the information, but to all who co-operate in furnishing it. A copy of the questionnaire may be obtained on application to the Bureau of Education, Washington, D. C.

At the present time an attempt to discuss unity and continuity in our high school history courses might seem like a cry of peace when there is no peace. At no time in the last fifteen years has there been so much actual change and talk of change in these courses as there is to-day. During those fifteen years there has been a considerable degree of uniformity in history courses throughout the United States. This has been due to the great influence of the admirable report of the Committee of Seven in 1899. To many the Committee of Seven brought order out of chaos. To some the new courses seem to be bringing chaos again.

That this is not the case I wish to show, if possible, in this paper. I shall give attention as much as possible to the effect of the new courses, especially the proposed course in two years of European history divided into early European and later European history. In order to do this, it is necessary to mention, but not to discuss, one or two other questions connected with the subject of unity in high school history work. In the first place, we must not confuse unity in the history work of any school with uniformity in history courses throughout the country. Uniform courses are desirable to a great extent, especially if the high schools are alike, as they were fifteen years ago. But how are we to get the unity that we desire, and the courses that we need, in high schools as diverse as those named respectively classical, English, scientific, commercial and polytechnic? It cannot be done through nation-wide uniformity of history courses, unless we agree to the dictum, "In In essentials, uniformity; in non-essentials, charity; in all things UNITY." Surely the lesson of this great nation of ours, which became a nation not through a uniform, centralized system, but through a union of autonomous states, proves that more unity may be attained through diversity than through uniformity.

SOME PHASES OF THE PRESENT HISTORY PROBLEM First of all, we find on every side, especially since the beginning of the great European war, a demand for more teaching of modern history. How many of our graduates who are quite familiar with Rameses II, and Themistocles, and Sulla, knew anything, before the outbreak of this war, about the international policy that was followed by Bismarck after the formation of the German Empire? How many who are fairly well informed about the social and political reforms of Julius Cæsar understood the social and political reforms brought about by the Liberal party in England during the last seven years?

Second, we find not only a demand for more teaching of modern history, but for more modern teaching of older history. Whereas we were formerly content to study the past in the past, some are now insisting that we teach chiefly the past in the present.

We find that there are many varieties of opinions between the two extremes, between the extrémist on the one side who declares that the ancient world is more important than the modern world because it is classical and the extremist on the other who states that only that part of ancient history should be taught that is related directly to the present.

66

A third evidence of change is the reaction against political history. A generation ago the military side of history overshadowed any other. In order to show the continuity and unity of history, which military events tended to obscure, our writers and teachers intentionally or unconsciously borrowed Freeman's idea that "history is past politics." We of to-day must not forget that, even when the facts regarding government were not worth study in themselves, this study of political evolution was of the highest value, first, in showing the continuity of history; second, in emphasizing the development of nations and their institutions, and third, in training the pupils to see the relation of cause to effect. If we cannot do those three things in our newer courses which are devoted especially to the study of economic and social history, we shall lose almost as much as we may gain by shifting the emphasis in our courses from government to industry, commerce or social progress.

Many

A fourth element to be considered is the attitude of the colleges. At the present time our colleges demand, for instance, a full year of ancient history. rather than a year or more of anything else. of them also refuse to give full credit for any other history. One of our oldest and best known universities gives but one year's credit for work to which all schools in California devote two years. I do not know why the colleges should prefer ancient history to any other, but I can see why they prefer a student who has been trained thoroughly in Latin or mathematics to one who has specialized in history. Our courses in history may seem continuous; really they are not. If we carried the same set of students through three years of continuous history, using, throughout those years, the same general methods, made more difficult and advanced each year, I can see that we should be in a position not only to demand equal credit with Latin and mathematics, but to receive it. If we applied to history the same solid, thorough, searching methods that must be used in Latin and mathematics, we could get both result in the achievement of our pupils and reward in fuller recognition by the colleges. You resent that "if." but I assure you that I consider it the largest "if" in the list here in California, where our generous University of California accredits both the old courses and the new, and all of our teachers are college graduates with some university training.

2

This brings me to the fifth problem; that of teachers and teaching. We teachers on the Pacific coast

are more or less isolated from the eastern high school world. Do you realize that in one of our oldest states, with a population nearly as large as that of Southern California, there are but two college graduates in all of the high schools who devote their attention exclusively to the teaching of history? Twenty years ago a similar situation was to be found in a great many states. Even in the last five years a radical change has taken place. Our colleges are furnishing us trained history scholars who are devoting their attention, and let us hope their lives rather than a few years, to the teaching of history in the high school. Two years ago, in this school, we had forty applicants apply for a single vacancy. Last year, for a position as assistant in civics and economics, three college teachers and ten Doctors of Philosophy applied. While this does not necessarily mean that these scholars can teach better than less scholarly teachers taught in the past, there is every reason to believe that we can do in the future what we have not been able to do in the past. Please do not take offense if I say that we high school history teachers of America must improve our teaching. That is another phase of the problem, of course, from the one that I am considering, but we must not allow impartial outside observers to say that Latin and mathematic students are better scholars and better trained than our own history students.

My last introductory statement is this: We must get real continuity instead of apparent continuity in our courses. It is hardly too much to say that in the past history has been in the high school curriculum but not of it. Students take three or four years of some subject, of which I have taken Latin and mathematics as typical. Occasionally students take three or four years of continuous history, but notice the difference. More than four-fifths of the students who take the first year of history fail to go on with the second year. Then in the second year classes we find that more than one-half of the students are new students who did not take the first year's work. Instead of beginning work where the first year left off (I mean in methods, development, etc., not in time periods), the teachers begin to build from the ground up again, this time to be sure with older pupils and some trained pupils. The third year the situation is likely to be even worse, but I will spare you. The question is this, how are we to remedy this evil? If we lived in the East, I should certainly be in despair, for the eastern colleges are very conservative about giving admission credits in history, and the high schools cannot easily change their courses, methods and work unless they can get the reward of college admission for the students who are properly prepared certainly a "vicious circle!" Our problem in California is much simpler, and, through the generosity of our state university, lies with us. By us I mean each separate school and community, not necessarily the history teacher. We can prepare all of the fine history courses that we please, and per

haps our school authorities will let us try them, but we cannot necessarily persuade, and it will do us no good to force, our students to take the courses that we have prepared.

TWO OR THREE YEARS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY?

In comparing the courses in history in American high schools at present we find that there is a fair degree of uniformity in regard to American history, which is usually given five times a week in the senior year. A little civics, usually very little, is a part of this course. We find that most high schools give also courses in ancient history. . Probably more than one-half, with perhaps nine-tenths of the pupils, have devoted a year, five days a week, to this subject. The others have had it three times a week as a separate course, or about one half year, every day, as a part of general history or early European history. In the modern period there is so much diversity that I need not particularize.

Is it possible to unify courses as diverse as these? I think that it may be possible, if it is desirable. In other words, I believe that it is much better for each school to make its own courses a unit, designed to meet its own needs, than it would be to make these diverse courses more alike. In each school I believe that the courses can be unified, and should be unified, by making them continuous for the average literary student. If he can take but two years, make those two years a unit. As far as possible, even if he takes only ancient or early European history in the first year and American history in the last year, let the courses be planned for that type of student so that in both years he uses the same definitions and follows the same general plan of work. It is a very difficult gap to bridge, but it can be done, for those that take early European history if not for ancient history students.

In order to learn to what extent pupils in the different high schools of the United States take two years rather than three years of European history I sent out some months ago a set of eight questions. A copy of the questionnaire was given in the March number of the HISTORY TEACHER'S MAGAZINE, p. 91. I have summarized the results in the following table:

A study of the table that is given above shows that apparently less than twenty per cent. of our high schools give three years of European history to as many as ten per cent. of their pupils. On the other hand, fifty-two per cent. of the schools from which replies were received had twenty-five per cent. more of their students taking two years of European history. If it is our object, then, to gain unity and continuity in history work, it would seem wise to arrange our courses for the regular student rather than for the irregular history pupil, making a twoyear course in European history the regular course, with an additional course or courses for those that wish three years on the history of Europe. In other words, unity and continuity must be obtained through the continuous work of the pupil, and not through the apparent continuity of the courses. If we can keep a set of students for two years in European history and then carry those students through a year of American history and civics, we should be able to get results worth having. They would have not only a clear idea of the continuity of history, but the use of continuous, progressive methods should have given them as good a training as they could have obtained in either of the subjects that I have taken for comparison, Latin or mathematics.

If we place the emphasis upon two years of European history in order to obtain more continuity, the further question arises, where shall the division be

1 These dates were intended to represent the beginning

or end of movements.

made between the two years of work. Since the publication of the Report of the Committee of Five, much more attention has been given in many schools to the last century or two. I tried to learn by the questionnaire how many teachers preferred a division of European history different from the old arrangement of ancient history to 800 A. D. and medieval and modern for the second year. Of course, many who did not favor the division of a two year course into early European history and later European history did not reply to the questionnaire at all. Yet the fact that so many teachers to whom copies of the questionnaire were sent did reply shows that a large proportion of our teachers, probably more than half, wish to give less attention to ancient history and more to modern European. Furthermore, a great many made it clear that, although they wished to carry the students of a one year ancient history course to 800 A. D., they insisted on going back to the fourth century for the beginnings of medieval history.

Only a few replies indicated a preference for a separate full year of English history, most of the teachers apparently feeling that English history can be made a considerable part of the work of the second term of early European history and of the whole year on later European history.

Although a great many favored a date about 1450 as the point of division between early and later European history, a still larger number, as you notice, preferred 1648. It is interesting to notice that this date coincides with the date selected sixteen years ago by the Committee of Seven as the end of the medieval period. According to that report the period from 1450 to 1648 'marks the end of the Middle Ages and "also forms the basis for modern European history," the sixteenth century being “a Westphalia (1648) seems well within the sphere of century of transition." "Although the treaty of modern history, it may not improperly be selected as the end of this era of transition.' As a point of division between early European history and later European history 1100 A. D., 1250 A. D., 1715 A. D., 1750 and 1760 had a few advocates. Personally I believe that the point of division will be 1648 for the present, except in those schools or cities in which the industrial side of history seems to the teachers and the community to be most important. To an industrial student or teacher, ancient and medieval history has little to offer compared with the century and a half since the great industrial revolution. On the contrary, to the student of social changes, of culture and of civilization, the division of 1648 is rather late. To such a student the marvellous changes since the culmination of the Renaissance in the last half of the fifteenth century are no more marvellous than the wonderful contributions of the Middle Ages, of the early Germans and of early Christianity, of Rome, of Greece, of the ancient Near East, nay even of the long neglected prehistoric periods. I am inclined to believe that for special students such as these and for the general student as well a point of division in the fifteenth

ferd

the old

D. and

two par

Bov

ire st

copies

ws the

more the

century will ultimately be found better than one in the seventeenth century.

I was particularly interested in the answers regarding what may be called the transitional periods, that is, the period of transition from ancient to medieval history and the period of transition from medieval to modern history. A great many teachers favored a brief summary of the transitional period in connection with the course on the preceding period, yet wished to leave the careful study of the transitional period until the later period is considered. For example, many who were anxious to include a summary of the barbarian invasions and kingdoms to 843 A. D., insisted that medieval history should begin with changes in the fourth century. Perhaps you have forgotten that the Committee of Seven recommended just such a plan. I am interested to notice that our newer text-books onl the medieval period begin with the fourth century instead of the ninth century. Many teachers also favor a similar study of the transitional period from 1450 to 1648 or 1760, making a survey of the period , most with the students who take early European history lish it and a careful study of that period with the students work of who go on with a second year of later European ddhistory.

more 1

they

ancient

going

gs of

of

arly and

ber, as

to m

Selected

as the

Coming now to the last point in the questiontenaire, I find a very interesting situation. You will notice that seventy-three per cent. of the replies favor a one year course in European history, most of these making clear the fact that such a course should be offered to certain students who can take only one year of history. More enthusiasm was exhibited over this subject by many of the teachers is it who replied affirmatively than over any other question. It is certain then that many schools do feel the great need of such a course, although most of the them do not see such a need.

the

that rea

e end

survey

This brings up the interesting problem of what history under the new courses will be offered to the student who can give but one year to European history. It seems to me that the later European history is not a good one year course. I should certainly prefer to have our students take the old medieval and modern history course, especially if a brief of the contributions of the ancient world and the Germans precedes the events of the feudal age. I believe, however, that unity and continuity may be obtained, for those students who take American history and government, with any one of the three different one year courses, viz.: Early European, which I have already considered briefly, general European, which I have just discussed, and medieval and modern, from the time of the Germanic invasions.

For the "two year" student who takes medieval and modern history, followed by American history and government, the problem of unifying the course is comparatively simple. In the Pasadena High

Unfortunately, with us in Pasadena High School, the two year student has been the regular history student, the three year student being exceptional, and the one who takes four years of history almost unknown. In spite of that I believe that we should plan our work primarily for the three year course, for I believe that, if we offer more work on modern history and less on ancient, we shall attract our students and hold them through three years. As far as I can discover, our present attempt to give to our students three years of continuous work instead of two years, more or less irregular, will be a sucIt is being made a success by the emphasis placed upon modern history in Europe, and by incivics," including current teresting them more in political, economic and social problems.

cess.

C Early Modern, or Eng. lish Modern

C" Recent European

D' Early American

D" Later American

E'

American Government

E" Civic Problems, or Polit