VOL. VI, NO. 2 JANUARY, 1927 BULLETIN OF THE Department of Elementary School Principals One Day With Fifty-Three Principals—Morrison The Misuse of Educational Measurements—Herron The Problem of Rating Compositions—Gainsburg The Transition From Elementary to Junior Highschool— Some Professional Programs of the Dallas Principals and Supervisors Association—Pinkston The Changing Conception of the School Office as a Factor in Good Management—Day : Dallas and Health Supervision in the Schools—Morris What the Henry Clay School is Doing in Training for Citizen- ship—Marx The Teacher-Clerk’s Opportunity—White Hallowe’en As “ Examination Day” in the Chicago Schools— Witcraft Standards and Training for the Elementary School Principal- ship—Longshore Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee on Standards, at Philadelphia, June, 1926 Report of Enrolment Committee—Fink Program of the Texas Convention Editorial Notes from the Field PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS of the National Education Association of the United States 1201 SIXTEENTH STREET NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON. D. C. Entered as secondclass matter November 20, 1922, at the postoffice at Washington, D. C., under act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized December 18, 1922. eee BULLETIN of the DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Published quarterly in October, January, April, and July by the Depart- ment of Elementary School Principals of thé National Education Asso- ciation of the United States. The payment of $3.00 active membership dues entitles a member to attend all meetings of the Department, to hold office, and to receive the Bulletin quarterly. peat Two dollars of each membership fee is for a year’s subscription to the Bulletin. Subscription to non-members is $3.00 per year; single copies, 50 cents; Yearbook, $1.50. ‘ Members are requested to report at once any change of address, giving old as well as new address, Entered as secondclass matter November 20, 1922, at the postoffice at Washington, D. C., under act: of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized December 18, 1922. Executive and Editorial Offices, 1201 Sixteenth Street Northwest, Washington, D. C. OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1926-27 President, E. RUTH PyrTLE McKinley School, Lincoln, Nebraska First Vicepresident, HERBERT C. HANSEN Talcott School, Chicago, Illinois Second Vicepresident, Jutta M. Wuite Steele School, Denver, Colorado Third Vicepresident, Eva G. PINKsTON Cumberland School, Dallas, Texas Secretary and Editor, Department Bulletins, WARREN A. ROE Belmont Avenue School, Newark, New Jersey Treasurer, COURTLAND V. Davis Franklin School, Plainfield, New Jersey Executive Committee M. E. PETERSON Supervising Principal, Los Angeles, California W. T: LoNGSHORE : Greenwood School, Kansas City, Missouri Jessie M. FINK Palmer School, Grand Rapids, Michigan IpE G. SARGEANT School No. 10, Paterson, New Jersey Editor Sixth Yearbook, ARTHUR S. GIST B. F. Day School, Seattle, Washington ONE DAY WITH FIFTY-THREE PRINCIPALS J. Cayce Morrison Assistant Commissioner of Elementary Education, Albany, N. Y. HEN RODIN carved “ The Thinker” he paid a lasting tribute to the philosopher—whose end from age to age has been the gleaning, sifting, and interpretation of those ideas, ideals, and attitudes that elevate the creative potentialities of mankind. Since it is a function of the pubic school to transmit such ideas, ideals, and attitudes from generation to generation, adapting them to an ever changing environment, any consideration of standards and training for the elementary school principalship calls for the reflective thinking of the educational philosopher to determine to what extent the principal can direct the school toward the realization of the great aims passed on by thinkers of the centuries. But since the days when the monastic philosophers spent their time debating the question as to the number of angels that could be encompassed on the point of a needle, there has been a more or less serious conflict of opinion between the philosopher and the individual actually confronted with a task to be done. Thus the maxim, “It is easier to. teach twenty what were good to be done than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching,” is verified. “The practical minded man would start with the job in hand and make in it whatever changes or improvements would best shape it to his ends. The philosopher would think out his pattern in terms of the good he would achieve and then shape the job to fit his previously formed conception. Both viewpoints are fundamental. Both are essential to a fair determination of the standards and training that should be required for the elementary school principalship. Most of the studies thus far made of the elementary school principalship have been fact-finding studies. It is the concern of this paper not so much to review what has been learned as to point out the larger meaning of the studies already achieved. In the Ohio study’ the average elementary principal claimed that he spent eight hours a day, exclusive of the lunch period, at his school building. Of this 8-hour day he devoted 12 percent to clerical duties, 16 percent to administrative and organizing duties, 52 percent to teaching, 15 percent to classroom supervision and 5 percent to the duties pertaining to the school system as a whole. It will be pointed out later that this division of duties is largely influenced by a number of factors, chief of which is the size of building. Last year the Department of School Administration of the State Uni- versity secured from some 380 Ohio elementary school principals a state- ment of the administrative duties which they found most time consuming. Altogether 51 different administrative duties were named; they were: “Morrison, J. Cayce. The School Principalship in Ohio Cities and Exempted Villages. Contributions in School Administration, Vol. I], May 15, 1926. [67] Z NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION . Discipline, including corporal punishment . Preparation of reports . Playground supervision . The details of attendance . Supervision of janitor service and building conditions . Carrying out superintendent’s instructions . Mediator between teachers and parents . Carrying messages ‘ . Care of children in basement . Health work . Preparing a Sunday school census . Doing janitorial work . Promoting professional study among teachers . Organizing activities of the school . Overseeing the lunch period . Securing the cooperation of parents . Welfare work, e. g., procuring clothes for the needy, etc. . Helping and conferring with teachers . Supervision of corridors (regulating traffic) . Ordering and distributing supplies . Answering telephone 22. Preparing for and presiding over meetings with teachers 23. Assisting in work of parent-teachers’ associations 24. Directing the school banking and handling school funds 25. Care of equipment 26. Supervision of physical education work 27. Administering standard tests (including clerical work in tests) 28. Directing extra-curricular activities (school paper, club work) 29. Regulation of routine matters, e. g., period bells, etc. 30. Registration and enroling pupils, withdrawals, etc. 31. Directing the distribution of milk to pupils 32. Conducting fire drills 33. Conferences with parents 34. Conferences with superintendent and supervisor 35. Committee work 36. Preparing and distributing notices to teachers 37. Schedule making 38. Personal interviews with pupils 39. Receiving callers 40. Revision of curriculum 41. Attending various meetings 42. Civic duties 43. Visiting rooms (not included in classroom supervision) 44. Making plans and programs for special days 45. Settling misunderstandings between pupils and teachers 46. Securing data for research and health departments 47. Library work 48. Directing assembly periods 49. Following the progress of individual pupils 50. Working on moral problems of individuals and groups of pupils 51. Planning work for the school on nAM + WN N DN meet =O] CN ANEW N He OW Attempting to classify these duties is a most interesting pastime. For instance, answering the telephone, carrying messages, receiving callers, mediating between teachers and parents, preparing Sunday school census, regulating traffic in corridors, directing school banking, and working on moral problems, all these suggest something of the variety of experiences eRe. 4 % Te 8. aE pe 69 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS that are uppermost in a principal’s mind. Nor it is without significance to note that the administrative duty first in the mind of most principals, from the standpoint of time consumed, is that of discipline. What the implications of this statement are, we have yet to learn. Recently 53 elementary school principals in Ohio cities kept a detailed diary * of all their activities for one day. The average enrolment of these schools was approximately 700 pupils and the average time spent at school by the principal was a few minutes over seven hours. The work as listed by the 53 principals was analyzed in detail and was roughly classified under the following heads; instructional, clerical, administrative duties pertaining to the community or the school system as a whole, and professional study. Thirty-three and one-third percent of the total time expended was devoted to the instructional group of duties. Classroom observation which consumed 18 percent of the total day ranked first of all the duties in the instructional list. Classroom teaching was second in the list with 8.5 per- cent of the day; it included both regular teaching duties and substitute teaching. Other items in this list were: Conference with teachers con- cerning instruction; demonstration teaching, both before groups and indi- viduals; meetings with teachers and preparation for the same; preparation, giving, and rating of standard tests and examinations; examining pupils’ work; coaching pupils both individually and in groups; and studying notes on observation. Under the classification of clerical duties, the most time consuming factors was the telephone. This included making calls, taking messages, delivering messages and conversation with parents, school officials, and teachers. It is true of course that the telephone might be listed as an administrative duty. It was arbitrarily placed in the clerical column because it is assumed that a great deal of the time consumed by the tele- phone can be cared for by an office clerk quite as well as by the principal himself. Other clerical duties ranked in order of time devoted to them were: preparation of reports for the central office; care of the correspondence, including dictation; keeping of school records; care of the mail; and ordi- nary clerical work, types not specified. Administrative duties consumed 53 percent of the total time expended by the 53 principals during the day. By far the largest item of time in this division was given to conferences, that is, a total of 16 percent or the total day. One third of this conference time was spent with teachers in consideration of matters which had little if any direct bearing upon the process of teaching. This heading included such items as discipline, com- mittee work on curricula, community affairs, health of children, special programs, special pupil problems, textbooks and supplies. Under con- ferences with pupils were mentioned most frequently such subjects as athletics, failure in class, group projects, and special pupil problems. The *The form used in keeping this diary was prepared by M. R. Trabue, Director of Educational Research, Univ. of N. C. for a much more extensive study of the same problem. 70 NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION remainder of the time spent in conference was with the architect, assistant principal, book men or salesmen, the janitor on questions not pertaining to building, parents, school nurse and other health officials, P. T. A. workers; superintendent, supervisors, and visitors. Also the bus driver, and school workmen came in for a share of the principal’s time. Attendance took nearly 6 percent of the principal’s working day. This included the checking of daily attendance, conference with pupils who had been late or absent, conferences with parents either in person or by tele- phone, and reports to board of health and the attendance department either written or telephoned, to say nothing of searching the streets for truants. Playground supervision furnishes a school principal with an excuse for recreation. In one or two Cases it seemed to be a specialty. On the average, it consumed nearly 5 percent of the principal’s working day. Work directly with pupils, exclusive of conferences mentioned and coach- ing listed under “ instructional activity,” occupied 4 percent of the prin- cipal’s time. Specified under this caption was the time spent for discipline, enroling new pupils, first aid, guidance, and health inspection and super- vision. Any one of these items can be broken up into any number of subdivisions. For instance health supervision included such items as exam- ining children who had been absent because of contagious disease and inspecting children’s heads for none too welcome tenants. The elementary school principal has as yet little to do with extracur- ricular activities outside of special programs. The items mentioned most frequently were scouting, both for girls and boys, and the school assembly. The principal’s first job for the day invariably is a general inspection of the building and grounds. Occasionally he becomes so enamoured with this special phase of his vocation that he repeats the process at least three or four times a day. His responsibility for buildings and grounds does not end with inspection, but occasionally the principal is called upon to exercise highly specialized judgment concerning the school buildings. Among these functions listed were the supervision of landscape gardening, studying of plans for new buildings, listing of repairs needed, and inspection of troubles in the system of heating and ventilating. So much for the larger items under general administration. Were you to look in upon the principal you might find him preparing bulletins and placing them upon the bulletin boards; planning or supervising fire drills; inspecting the library or arranging its material or furniture; helping in the lunchroom either as cash girl, as chief police, or what not; busily absorbed in his office following the routine of the job or in day dreaming that defies classification ; sometimes working on a plan of organi- zation for the next term, preparing plans, working over his own plans or reviewing plans submitted by teachers; distributing, inventoring or requisitioning supplies. At almost every recess or dismissal period he would be found in the corridor supervising the passing of lines. When he is tired of work he walks through the corridor to see that everything is all right. Occasionally he is to be found in conference with a substitute teacher or making arrangements to care for the work of an absent teacher. a aileron aR! apa Bi tet ets Sea Samilitys ee ae a 71 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS He still considers administrative details a suitable reason for teachers’ meeting. Directing and supervising schemes designed to make financiers of his pupils is not foreign to his program. In some respects he is a social welfare worker; he supervises the collection of clothing and old shoes; now and then he goes into juvenile court; at any time he may be called from the classroom, lunch or office to talk with indigent parents or children concerning their problems of want or misfortune. a In a miscellaneous grouping of duties performed we find the principal attending funeral services of deceased pupils, calling on parents, enter- taining school guests, making announcements through the building, dis- tributing milk to pupils, preparing publicity items, supervising the taking of class pictures, traveling back and forth between his schools or his own school and the central office, trying to find stolen articles, finding and punishing authors of immoral notes, collecting funds for N.E. A. dele- gates, promoting the work of the Teachers Retirement Association, fur- thering the community chest drive and attending fectures with pupils. Preparation for and attendance at principals’ meetings constituted, on the day in question, his chief responsibility to the general system. Com- mittee organization came second, with the most important committees being, in order, textbooks and supplies, courses of study, and buildings. Work in the interest of the P. T. A. and the lyceum course, found a place in the record. Three principals listed time spent in professional study; one of these was working on a study of school banking that would be of direct concern to his own school, while the two others were devoting themselves to an assignment obtained through an extension course. Of all the functions listed it was interesting to note that only two were mentioned by more than 50 percent of the principals. These func- tions and the number of principals performing each on the day recorded were, classroom observation 46 and general supervision of playground 47. Other items performed by one-quarter or more of the principals on the day in question were conferences with parents, 25¢@demonstration teaching 24, general inspection of*building 24, pupil discipline 23, office routine 23, - checking attendance 22, correspondence 18, regular teaching 18,:enroling or assigning new pupils 17, supervigggn of passing of lines 16, conference with attendance officers 16, answering telephone 15, extracurricular duties of some kind 15. rs “One day with 53 principals” is but a prelude to the study being made by M. R. Trabue at the University of North Carolina. T'rabue is obtaining such a daily record from scores of principals in different states. That principals, by taking thought as to their schedules, can reshape their program so as to give play to more desirable activities is evinced by Kuenny who found that over a six months’ period, a group of principals succeeded in increasing the allotment of their time to improve- ment of “ learning activities” from 24 to 32 percent. One cannot study the principal’s job very long without realizing that there are many factors outside himself that shape the course of his daily 72 NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION ee work. Some of the factors, isolated by Conners’ are: size of city, size of building, sex of principal, kind of building, equipment, office facilities, and clerical help. Size of city and size of school building are closely interlated factors which have a distinct bearing upon the principal’s daily job. In Ohio the average elementaxy school principal of cities with 5 to 10 thousand inhabitants, see teachers and 290 pupils, whereas the principal in cities over 100,000 supervises 20 teachers and over 700 pupils. This difference in the size of buildings is reflected in the fact that the average principal of the larger school gives 13 percent of the working day to teaching, as con- trasted to 65 percent by the principal in the smaller cities. The latter group gives 7 percent to classroom supervision and 11 percent to admin- istrative and organizing duties in contrast to 27 and 30 percent respec- tively, devoted to those two functions by the group in the larger schools. Further, the principals _in the larger schools exercise a greater responsi- bility for coordinating the work of the general grade supervisors, for the direct control of custodial service, and in the amount of time given to general supervision. “In cities above 100,000 the principal has more responsibility for assignment of pupils to‘classes, for determining the class schedules and for rating teachers under his direction.” A second factor influencing the principal’s work is sex. Women are usually inclined to give less time to clerical routine and prefer to do more classroom teaching. Frequently they assume less responsibility than do men for supervising janitorial service. The kind of building leaves its mark upon the principal’s job. A principal in a building without an auditorium or an assembly hall, without gymnasium, without a modern lunchroom, or with meager playground facilities is not apt to feel called upon to promote civic organization and responsibility amongst his pupils. The school principal with only a shabby office room containing no bookcase, no typewriter, no mimeograph machine, is not Apt to feel for long the thrill of professional leadership within his building. When we stop to consider that less than 10 percent of the eamentary school principals have any clerical assistance, it is not surprising that a frincipal should report that he spends a considerable part of his day, answering telephone calls, recording. school marks, doin®other clerical work, and distributing supplies. e As one searches the field of educational literature for help in under- standing the school principalship, one is soon confronted with the fact that the chief available information is confined to the publications of the Department of Elementary School Principals. It is reasonable to expect that during the next few years this body will produce an exhaustive literature covering every detail of the work of its membership. One limitation ‘of such studies of which cognizamce should be taken, is the fact that the membership of this Department represents the elementary school principal- *Conners, F. Herrick. The Status of the Ohio Elementary School Principal. Unpublished Masters ‘Thesis, Dept. of Sch. Administration Ohio State University. e be be fr th sh fu of pr th Vi de tv ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 73 ship at its best. One of the most important studies in this field, namely, that of Mr. Crouch in the Fifth Yearbook, is misleading because its data was obtained entirely from members of this Department. To illustrate; the median number of teachers supervised by elementary school principals in the Crouch study was 17, while the median number in the Ohio study was 12. Similar differences may be found throughout the two reports. This may be accounted for in large measure by the fact that the Ohio study is based upon data from, 45 percent of the elementary school principals in cities and villages above 3000 population, whereas the Crouch study was based upon the membership of this Department which is drawn largely from cities of considerable size. Another study which promises to throw considerable light upon the activities of the elementary school principal is that now in process by W. P. Dyer who has analyzed at great length the possible duties of the school principal under the general headings, Improving the Technic ot Teaching; Improving Teachers in Service; Improving the Classification and Promotion of Pupils; Improving the Curricula; Improving the Selec- tion and Use of School Supplies; and Improving the General School Conditions. His analysis of the principal’s work into 148 specific duties is suggestive of a type of analyses that will eventuate in a thorough under- standing of the principal’s work which we do not now have. When we have found what the principal’s job really is, we shall still be confronted with determining what is good and what further should be done. Two types of investigations are still needed. First, to secure from a small group of men and women who have given long and fruitful thought to the skills, attitudes, ideals, and ideas the elementary school should transmit to each oncoming generation of childhood their judgment as to what the elementary school principal may do toward realizing the function of the school. We need a new statement of the cardinal principles of the elementary school. Second, to secure from) superintendents and others a list of the most successful principals and then learn from them the procedures underlying their success. By taking the best procedures from the most successful, we shall ultimately find a method or technic for attaining every principle that the first group may establish. No other position in American education is due for such rebirth of its vision and practice as is the elementary school principalship. THE MISUSE OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENTS Joun S. HERRON Principal, Lafayette Street School, Newark, N. J. T IS a trite saying among members of the sales craft that, for high- powered gullibility, the ranks of ready prospects are led by widows, doctors, and teachers. Perhaps the statement is overdrawn and slanders two leading professions. Judging from observations covering the past 20 years, the writer has a faint suspicion, however, that a respectable 74 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION number of school administrators, principals, and teachers must admit an overpowering faith in any and all “ new thought ” within the professional field of education, even though excessive gullibility in a business way cannot be proved. ‘The ease with which so many of the teaching profession will accept, without question, educational dicta, especially if the latter come from educators of reputation, is quite amazing. That school administrator, who lives and works by the principles and practices of “the good old days” alone is due for a fall. The children, the taxpayers and the profession have the right to demand professional leadership that shall be characterized by wholesome progress and growth toward the achievement of a higher civic ideal. The live school admin- istrator is one who is constantly seeking and employing the new to im- prove his results. It is his business to make his school reflect the best thought of an advancing profession; to make his classrooms an experience of living rather than a preparation for it. Yet, with this goal firmly fixed in mind, he should make it his duty to study, scrutinize and analyze all educational innovations, as he searches for the truth, lending a sym- pathetic attitude but withholding final judgment until each thing tried has proved its worth. Professionally, it is the business and duty of all school administrators to challenge every step in the advance of education. Such is the practice of science. No new theory or discovery is accepted by scientists until the discoverer or promulgator has proved his case beyond the shadow of a doubt. If teaching is ever to rank as a science, then it must conform to the rules and usages of science. Truth cannot die. The good will live and the false will perish. A changed acceptance of standard tests—Fifteen years ago, the advent of standard tests opened a new vista in school administration. Surveys became the vogue and the coming of the scientific era was hailed on all sides. Today, standard tests are applied with great value within certain limits, but many of the original claims made for them have been discarded because, in the light of truth, the claims could not be substantiated. Never- theless, during the period of their broad and unfettered application, many a splendid teacher experienced heartaches as she saw her efforts belittled by the cold facts of standard test results, perhaps when her pupil material at the time of the test was a dull group lacking intelligence. More than one principal, working under a school handicap of trying social conditions, has been censured and condemned simply because his school did not “ mea- sure up.” In commenting upon the results of standard testing as em- ployed in the Cleveland Survey, R. Pintner* of Teachers College, Colum- bia University, observes: In many cases the educational work in schools below average is as good as we have a right to expect in view of the ability of the pupil material... . . Praise or blame, therefore, cannot be apportioned on the basis of educational tests alone. To * Twenty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. P. 293. “VS all in er- ny led jan ns, ea- m- im- ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 75 judge justly of the work of a school, we must have a measure of the mental ability of the children. As eminent a leader as Courtis, in his “ Manual of Instruction for Giving and Scoring the Courtis Tests,” made originally—among others— the following claims for the tests: 1. That the tests will make evident the actual conditions existing in the school- room. 2. That the tests will scientifically determine the efficiency of different methods. 3. That the tests will enable the comparison of school with school, or teacher with teacher for the purpose of supervision to be made upon a scientific objective basis. In the light of the advance made in the fields of experimental pedagogy and psychology within the past ten years, even Courtis would not today be bold enough to make such claims. Yet the Courtis tests are valuable in the classroom and the leadership and initiative of Courtis has stimulated other investigators to new and worthwhile efforts. Speaking before the Harvard Teachers’ Association in 1912 on “ Mea- suring Educational Processes Through Educational Results,” Leonard P. Ayres said: As school executives make practical application of the newer scientific tests, no fact stands out with more impressive distinctiveness than that teachers whose classes make the best records are the teachers who are most successful in shaping character. ' Would any intelligent school principal of today accept such a statement even though it came from a distinguished educational leader? We know today that classes and schools vary in mental ability; that social conditions vitally affect school progress and accomplishment; that a most capable teacher, doing a splendid job in character training, may nevertheless have a group of pupils who would do poorly with the standard tests. Pintner,’ in the article previously quoted, says: From the results of combined educational-mental tests that we are now getting, we have reason to believe that poor teaching is more likely to be found in schools possessing good mental material than those possessing poor mental material, because in the latter there is constant pressure being brought to bear upon the teacher to cover the regular course of study made out for the school system as a whole. Haggerty, writing in School and Society (November, 1916) said: A city survey will show at once the efficient and the inefficient classes and teach- ers and define the superintendent’s problem of supervision in a way that weeks of travel about the city and personal observation in the several schools will hardly equal. This, it must be admitted, was a rather broad statement even for ten years ago. Professional surveyors, superintendents and principals used standard measurements in exactly the way and to the degree Haggerty claimed for them, very often in ruthless fashion without studying the * Twenty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. P. 153. 76 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION underlying conditions or recognizing the great handicaps which produced apparently poor results. No educator today would accept Haggerty’s statement. The experience of the past fifteen years has shown that educational leaders and investigators may be honestly mistaken in their claims and con- clusions. Progressive school principals and teachers should gladly cooperate and work hand in hand with investigators for advancement, but, at the same time, they must be ready to challenge all claims that cannot be proved. Too often they sit back and accept statements of great educational moment on the say-so of a man of reputation. Truth is no respector of either per- sons or reputations. Pitfalls in the use of group psychological tests—With the mustering of 4,000,000 soldiers in 1917 and 1918, American psychologists were called upon to adapt the findings of their investigators to the work, of adjusting the members of the draft army to spheres of most effective service. “The psycho- logical tests, constructed and administered at the time, made available a vast amount of material for study and progress in the field of psychology and gave an impetus to its advance that has placed the United States today as the world leader in the field of mental measurements. Professional edu- cators were the first to make broad use of Binet’s original contribution to applied psychology. What could be more natural, therefore, than for edu- cational psychologists to carry the army psychological tests into the schools, which was done on a large scale. Opportunity was at hand and the stimulus of war days brought about from professional sources a multitude of splendid psychological tests. The application of these tests for the past seven years is a matter of gen- eral knowledge. The progress which has been made marks a great step forward in solving the problems of education and reflects America’s con- tribution to educational advance. However, there are unmistakable signs that, by many, the psychological group tests are being erroneously inter- preted and, as a result, wrongfully used. Psychological tests today are not perfected, except in certain limited fields. The tests are relatively new. In the hands of experts who know their limi- tations and proper uses, they are serving splendidly, as for instance when applied to locate subnormal and superior pupils. In the hands of many ad- ministrators, they are being used to the detriment of the pupils tested. ‘Vo anyone conversant with some of the reports of such applications which have appeared in pedagogical magazines of the past five years, this fact must be readily apparent. School administrators have been employing group intelligence tests in the following ways: (1) to determine fitness of gram- mar school graduates to do high school work; (2) to lend vocational guidance in high and vocational schools; (3) to steer pupils to particular high school courses. If administrators employed a number of group tests, together with a study of the educational achievement and social conditions of individual pupils for guiding them in the ways mentioned, no one would complain. But, in many instances, administrators have arrived at their conclusions 77 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS solely from the application of one group intelligence test. It is in this con- nection that the writer feels that a note of warning will not be amiss on the promiscuous use of psychological group tests by untrained educators. No two tests will produce the same identical results with all pupils. Bagley has spoken most strongly on their application because they are undemocratic. In view of the conclusions so often drawn by inexperienced school people, Bagley may have good grounds for his views. : Comparative study of two group tests—In order to show some of the dangers which exist in drawing conclusions from the common use of psycho- logical group tests, the writer reports herein a summary of his findings secured from applying two recognized intelligence tests to two eighth grade classes of graduates in two different schools of Newark, N. J. The inves- tigation was privately conducted by the writer who was principal of the South Market Street School and later was made principal of the Lafayette Street School. The following facts will explain the conditions of the inves- tigation: 1. The two tests used for comparison were the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability and the Illinois General Intelligence Test (Form I). 2. In both schools the tests were administered by experienced testers. 3. The Terman test was applied first in each school and the Illinois test was given two weeks later. 4. Both schools, whose graduates were tested, had a school population of whom approximately 70 percent came from homes in which a foreign language was spoken. TABLE I—GENERAL COMPARISON SOUTH MARKET STREET, GRADE 8A No. tested | Median I. Q. Pg ci) eee ere pee 36 89 12 yr. 9 mo. PEE NOE Sssccinc.onsnceaeows 35 | 104 14 yr. 6 mo. | It will be noted that, for the entire class, there was a general difference in I. Q. of 15 points and a general difference in mental age of 1 year 9 months as deter- mined by the two tests. TABLE II—GeENERAL COMPARISON LAFAYETTE STREET SCHOOL, GRADE 8A | Mo tnated | Median I. Q. | ey EE Ss isa 'e arinrnsiadenoes 52 | 91 | 12 yr. 2 mo. PN ONE 4 dic. Gie hnisinetnnses 55 | IOI | 13 yr. § mo. | In this school, the general difference in I. Q. on the entire group was 1o points and the general difference in mental age 1 year 3 months as determined by the two tests, 738 NATIONAL EpuUCATION ASSOCIATION TABLE III.—STANDINGS AND RATINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PupILs AS JUDGED BY THE TERMAN AND ILLINOIS TESTS SOUTH MARKET STREET SCHOOL, GRADE SA Comparative standing I. @. Mental age Pupils —————— = - Terman Illinois Terman Illinois Terman Illinois ee ae 1 5 III 122 15-1 16-6 2. J. M. ..... 2 4 108 123 14-4 16-O q. BM. RB. .s:.. 3 7 104 116 13-2 14-6 4,6. L. .«...- 3 2 104 126 13-8 16-6 5s. M. I. ..... 3 8 104 III 13-11 14-6 6.B. E. ..... 6 6 100 119 13-5 15-6 qo S. J. ee. 6 I 100 127 12-9 16-0 oe Seer 8 22 97 100 14-1 14-6 9. H. F. ....-- 9 16 96 104 13-2 14-0 so. W. D. ....- 9 12 97 107 13-2 14-6 oe ae, eee 11 ab. 93 ab. 13-8 ab. 12. M. R. ..... II 12 93 107 13-5 15-0 13. P. A. ....-- II 20 93 103 13-8 15-0 14. R. D. ...... II 8 93 II 13-2 15-6 1s. S. H. ...... II 12 93 107 12-11 14-6 ee 6 K.P. .«.... 16 8 2 III 12-3 14-6 . 17. G. E. .....- 17 16 89 104 12-9 14-6 1%. H. D. ..... 17 16 89 104 11-9 13-6 19. R.A. ....-- 17 8 89 III 12-0 15-0 a0. S. E. ....-- 17 23 89 100 12-0 13-6 21. F. M. ....- 21 33 88 82 13-2 12-6 22. M. R. ....- 22 8 87 104 13-5 15-6 23. M. H. ..... 23 2 86 93 12-3 13-0 24. S. R. ....-- 2 26 86 97 12-9 14-0 25. M. H. ....- 2 2 86 93 12-6 13-6 26. H. G. ..... 26 30 85 92 12-6 13-6 ag. S. De noses. 26 21 85 102 12-9 15-0 a8. G. E. ..... 28 30 84 g2 12-6 13-6 29. M. E. .....- 2 2 83 86 12-0 12-6 go. S. E. ....-- 30 29 83 96 12-0 13-6 31. F. H. . 31 12 82 107 11-6 15-0 32. M. G. ..... 31 33 82 82 12-0 12-0 33. W. D. ...-- 31 33 82 82 12-0 12-0 34. W. H. ...-- 31 24 82 99 12-3 14-6 35s. H. F. ...-- 35 25 80 97 12-0 14-6 36. H. M. ...-- 36 ab. 76 ab. I1-9 ab. 37- D. M. ..--- ab. 3 ab. 124 ab. 15-6 Median | .....-- | seseeee: 89 104 12-9 14-6 *The reader’s attention is called particularly to relative standings of pupils indicated by asterisks. OpsERVATIONS ON TaBLe III A. Comparative standings—lf used roughly for purposes of classification by groups, the findings are satisfactory. As a matter of fact, there is a high degree of correlation between the two tests. Summarizing the correlation by quartiles, we find that 23 out of 35 pupils maintained the same group standing in both tests. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 79 Coming down to the individual, we note outstanding differences. Pupil No. 8 is ranked eighth by the Terman test and twenty-second by the IIlinois test. Pupil No. 19 was ranked seventeenth by Terman and eighth by Illinois. Pupil No. 31 was ranked thirty-first by Terman and twelfth by Illinois. B. Intelligence Quotients 1. The median difference in I. Q. between the two tests was 15 points. 2. Difference in determined bE. Q:....0...005cc0s%eceess o—1I0 11 pupils Difference in determined I. @..........06.0666 000000000 10—20 20 pupils Ditierence mn. desermaned: [D. Qav. 06s sicaivccsas ta 20—27 4 pupils The greatest difference in I. Q. for any one pupil was 27 points (pupil No. 27). 3. The Terman test ranked seven pupils with an I. Q. above 100; the IIlinois test ranked twenty-three pupils with I. Q. above 100. The Illinois test rated the class as follows: Normal, 32; superior, 4; the Terman test rated them as follows: Superior, 1; normal, 15; dull, 19; borderline, 1. 4. Outstanding differences in I. Q. may be noted in the cases of pupils No. 4, 6, 7, 16, 19, 22, 27. 31. Pupil No. 31 was ranked dull by the Terman test and normal by the IIlinois. C. Mental ages 1. The median difference in mental age between the two tests was 1 vear 9 months. 2. In the cases of two pupils, the mental age was the same in both tests. 3. Difference in mental age............... o yr. tor yr. 8 pupils Difference in mental age............... I yr. to 2 yrs. 16 pupils Difference in mental age............... 2 yrs. to 3 yrs. 8 pupils Difference in mental age............... 3 yrs. to 3 yrs. 6 mos. 3 pupils 4. Outstanding differences noted were in the cases of pupil No. 31 (3 yrs. 6 mos.), pupil No. 7 (3 yrs. 3 mos.) and pupil No. 19 (3 yrs.). TABLE IV—STANDING3 AND RaTINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PuPILS AS JUDGED BY THE TERMAN AND ILLINOIS TESTS LAFAYETTE STREET SCHOOL, GRADE 8A Number of Pupils Tested—53 (Note: Only particular records of selected individual pupils are listed below, in order to show the dangers of drawing wrong conclusions in applying group test results to individuals.) 1. Mental age Pupils c a Terman Illinois Illinois Terman Re ie ho ct cle ain aie Renee xia eo ae 84 99 12-11 14-8 OS Pee WKS ene ca elle Re ee Rees 85 103 12-0 14-11 TRUE, parma aicietgbes wonand Sabet a es Sia atid 80 99 11-9 13-5 SS eee eer er er ror ee 86 103 II-I 13-5 OU ts seas Rod ark ake) cle SRN Slat Ree aE ‘ 83 100 II-9 I4-1 es MN Stok Go ain ce asin rain eee aan 86 100 12-6 14-7 ee Me sec R apa eiGde Rel aeiterae ghee 78 93 II-I 13-1 Oe, CE eee Per re rrr ea fore Sr 94 11-6 12-5 Me Re odio cas a an) Lc i ark ye espe arcu cima 89 69 12-0 9-3 a Amar ren re wer ter eran rice 82 92 12-3 14-0 Bi Me Re Rie inte ain wai oiara eta Ia ORR araio nara 76 gI II-I 13-1 i Sha ee ane aaa ota keds 92 114 12-0 15-0 80 NATIONAL EpuCATION ASSOCIATION OBSERVATIONS ON TABLE IV This table contains only the records of those pupils in whose results large differ- ences were apparent. The reason for selecting these outstanding instances was to show more strikingly how two group tests will produce surprising reactions in the cases of many individuals tested. A. Intelligence Quotients 1. The median difference in I. Q. for the entire group (52 pupils) was 10 points. 2. Pupils No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 would be rated dull by the Terman test and normal by the Illinois. 3- Pupils No. 7 and 11 would be borderline cases as rated by Terman and normal by the IIlinois. Points 4. Differences in determined I. Q.............--00ee0e- O— 5 16 pupils Differences in determined I. Q..............-00e000: 5—I10 19 pupils Differences in determined I. Q..............-02e000: 10O—15 9 pupils Differences in determined I. Q...............-e0000- 15—20 8 pupils B. Mental Ages 1. The median difference in mental age for the two tests was 1 year 3 months. 2. Greatest difference in determined mental age for any one pupil was 3 years (pupil No. 12). 3. Differences in mental age................0e8- Oo —I2 mos. 26 pupils Differences in mental age...............22005 1 — 1% yrs. 8 pupils Differences in mental age................005. 13— 2 yrs. Ir pupils Differences in mental age.................0. 2 — 2¢ yrs. 3 pupils Differences in mental age...............00005 24— 3 yrs. 4 pupils Conclusion—A careful consideration of the tables of this study, together with the observations made, clearly shows that applying group test results to individuals is beset with grave dangers. School administrators must be on their guard to make sure that they do not infer too much from the results. Three short quotations from an article on “ Intelligence Testing in Junior Highschools,” by M. R. Trabue* of Teachers College, Columbia University, will further serve to emphasize the points of this article: 1. The (intelligence) tests at present available are so inadequate and crude that one who uses a single test score as the sole basis for a vital decision in the life of an American youth is guilty of most unscientific practice and possible injury to the child advised. 2. One of the greatest dangers now facing those interested in intelligence tests is that they will be accepted and used with too little critical judgment on the part of the junior highschool principals and other school administrators. 3. Administrators must be constantly on the alert to find the best means possible for the classification of their pupils and should not be tempted into the acceptance and use of a scheme without scientific evidences of its superior value. * Twenty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. er- the nd ils ils ils ils Is Is Is it sf is f THE PROBLEM OF RATING COMPOSITIONS J. C. GAINsBuRG Principal Public School 35, Brooklyn, N. Y. T IS going to be of great interest to every student of methods of in- struction in English to note what new turn may be followed by the New York City committee on the revision of the course of study in com- position. Probably no subject has suffered from so many contradictory aims and varied standards. A survey by Hudelson, published in the Twenty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education reveals how divided are the opinions of teachers of English as to whether to emphasize content or form, reproduction or originality, fluency or sincerity, perfection or approximation. A formidable task awaits the committee, and an intent audience awaits the results. Whatever decisions are made will undoubtedly wield a wide influence on the teaching of composition for the next twenty years. Of particular interest, however, is the recent organization of a committee on standards and measurements, whose duty, so far as composition is con- cerned, will be to relieve the composition committee of a portion of its burdens, and to determine the objectives, quantitative and otherwise, of composition for each grade. In view of the present general vagueness and lack of any agreement on this score, this is a most worthy move. However, in this one subject there are numerous precautions to be taken and grave dangers to be avoided, and the writer is wondering whether in its zeal the committee may not go too far and expect composition standards to be as reliable and definite as standards in spelling or penmanship. There is in some quarters a too ready acceptance of all tests and scales, a readiness based on their reliability in a few fields and carried over to all others—a readiness, even, that overlooks the limitations mentioned by the very authors of the tests. Such an attitude would tend to nullify all the advantage that might accrue from the use of composition scales as a means of defining grade standards. A principle which may be accepted without much opposition is that the more complex and difficult of analysis, the less reliable is the measure of a subject. By complex is here meant the increasing importance of other fac- tors than knowledge, such factors as skills, attitudes, ideals and technic. In arithmetical fundamentals we have an example of one extreme, the simpler one, on our scale of complexity. Speed and accuracy are here the important aims; they are relatively simple and therefore comparatively easy of measurement. Reading represents a much more complex phase. We may be able to measure speed and comprehension of reading with ease, but these factors are by no means the most important aims of reading. Locating the central thought, subordinating contributing thoughts, apprehending and foreseeing the author’s organization, the speedy location of special infor- mation, the appreciation of style and content—all these and more, represent desirable and vital aims of reading that are not so susceptible of measure. [81] 82 NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION ——$—__. Reading tests cannot be relied upon then, as the sole means of standardizing objectives in reading, since they can be used for but two of the many objec- tives, namely, speed and comprehension. For the other more important aims of reading, either other tests must be devised, or some other means than tests must be discovered. At any rate, the complex elements of good reading make measurement of reading ability a much more difficult problem than was recently suspected. . In the measurement of composition we have perhaps the extreme of great- est complexity and therefore the least reliability of measure. There is even the added difficulty that it is impossible to use a test at all in this field, and we must resort to the doubtful procedure of a scale. There are some scales, such as the handwriting scale, in which the product to be measured is fairly uniform, and practically the only varying factor is a single quality such as speed, or alignment or spacing. A penmanship scale which attempts to set up a scale for each of these qualities can achieve fairly accurate re- sults. Composition, however, represents qualities that almost defy analysis and certainly provoke disagreement. Only in the formal elements is there any degree of concurrence. Spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, gram- matic correctness—these, it is agreed, are necessary to composition. But at this point harmony of opinion ceases. Are these the primary aims of composition, or the subordinate aims? May a composition be correct in all of these and still be worthless or ineffective? Such questions lead to the discussion of other composition elements—wealth of vocabulary, power of organization, appropriate use of variety in style, effective phrasing, use of de- vices to stimulate the readers’ curiosity, wide knowledge of the topic, obvious sincerity and many more. These are somewhat more complex than formal correctness. Even form in composition presents greater difficulty of measuring than form in pen- manship, for in the latter the same phrase, the same letters are repeated in each step of the scale. In composition, every step of the scale varies in a dozen ways at least from every other. But when we attempt to measure the more complex informal elements of composition, the task becomes, to say the least, a heroic one. In view of the complexity of composition, therefore, the author of a com- position scale sets out with a tremendous handicap. And the person who attempts to set up ratings on such a scale as standard, definite objectives, must bear in mind that handicap before accepting the scale. The objectives of this article should now be made clear. The author proposes to answer briefly, within the limits of a short article, these questions : 1. Are composition scales valid? 2. If not, are they more accurate instruments than the teachers’ judgment? 3. In any case, to what extent are they valuable or useful ? 4. Can these values be obtained through any better instrument? It is hoped that some such self-questioning will guide the committee on standards in its consideration of composition objectives, or that this article “ing jec- ims han ing han ~at- ven ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 83 may serve as a partial guide in the selection and use of measures of com- position. 1. Are composition scales valid—A scientific discussion of the validity of composition scales would involve valuable space. A briefer statement per- mits of only a few high-lights, without any supporting evidence. ‘Those, therefore, who feel that this section exhibits lack of proof, must be re- ferred to other sources. Briefly, then, the following points indicate that little validity can be attached to scales. They aim to measure something too vague and general and much beyond our present ability to measure. In order to determine “ the ability of chil- dren to write English composition” (to quote one scale-maker), we must know something of the mental background of each pupil, the preparation before he writes and his reaction to the topic assigned. If two boys write compositions of equal merit, and one of the pupils has had more training or was more interested, obviously the compositions are not evidence of equal ability. Many scales attempt to measure “ general merit.” Even Thorndike, who has insisted that there is no such thing as “ arithmetic ability,” and who has analyzed it into numerous specific abilities—even Thorndike rather inconsistently attempts to measure in composition only one general ability. As indicated earlier in this article, there is already a widespread disagree- ment as to just what is to be emphasized or included in composition ability. Therefore, each teacher using such a scale is likely to emphasize the same particular elements that he always used for guidance, and thus be in no better position than without the scale. To conceive the difficulty of either making or using a scale of such highly complex products as composition, one has but to picture the effort to lay out, in the order of “ general merit,’ a number of samples of colored paper in which there are only six colors or qualities, but combined in every conceivable mixture and shade. One unconsciously begins to select some basis for judgment, such as amount of black or actinic power, or softness, or the like. But there is little likelihood of any successful arrangement, even though the qualities are limited to six. In composition, however, we have an undetermined number of elements, all of them in varying proportions. Each sample contains elements of form, of structure content and of self- expression, and each of these in turn is really a group of contributing ele- ments. How can we judge form, for instance, if the sentence structure is poor, the grammar otherwise good, and the spelling fair? Even spelling must be differentiated into misspelling of easy words and misspelling of dificult words (as in the work of some more ambitious student). Some scales have a better scientific basis since the aim is narrower, or the scale is of narrower application. The products are more uniform in the Lewis form scales, and there are fewer qualities to be judged. Each of the four Harvard-Newton scales measures only one form of discourse, such as narration, description, etc. At least one varying quality is eliminated from the complex total. The Breed and Frostic scale is applied to the sixth year only, thus keeping somewhat uniform the extent of pupil preparation. 84 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Statistics was almost invariably the basis for judging and determining which ten compositions, out of thousands, were to be used as “ steps” on the scale. The value of each step was also determined by statistics. It is not the purpose here to attack statistics when used as the sole method of a scien- tific study. That has already been done by statisticians themselves who de- mand that trained observers, and correct observations, isolation of the quality to be studied and equalization of all other conditions must be in- cluded with statistics. It is the purpose at this place only to show that the results of a statistical study cannot always be accepted as accurate, that sometimes they may even yield absurd conclusions. This was the case in the “ 91 ” study, by Hudelson. Seven compositions, judged to be approximately equal in value, were carefully mutilated in 12 different and distinct ways. Each composition had 13 forms, the original and 12 forms of mutilation (one for clearness, one for unity, one for in- complete sentence, one for run-on sentence, one for grammar, one for spelling, one for ornate words, etc.). One of the 13 forms was an improve- ment over the original. These compositions were then distributed to 180 judges, all experts and trained in the use of the Hudelson scale. They were rated with the help of the scale. The statistical results of their ratings should have been a vindication of the scale and should have proven the general soundness of their judgments. The results actually reveal the most astounding incon- sistencies and absurd conclusions. The table below is garnered from several tables in the report: Version Rank Scale Rating UNE ac ardip acc detiairetneataulnusioeunms gee weeks I 66 OTC LET TCU CE ETC TET eT ET TC eT rere 2 55 PE WORE NOURI 6 cisiaie ccciiwacinseedndisn wooed’ 3 53 Se WER MUNI 3 co dines aicinnwaeapatabdiwa aeciows 4 50 I IND 6.6 60. s:0 dria n ti nis'e sine mea weaiees 5 46 RN SIN 5aa.cricy ys diarark,c baiain Ge ohne saan oieers 6 45 ee EEE OTE POE Oe TT Tee 7 42 ME BONEN evcarsrceudendonas cowasanenmaaewens 8 40 MED hoe bs wottetwdeAigeds