SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL-HOUSE LAW.

The only school law of a general nature passed by the General Assembly up this date (Feb. 22), is the following. All other other school laws which may be enacted this session, will appear in our April issue:

AN ACT

Supplementary to an act entitled "An act to amend and supplementary to an act to provide for the reorganization, supervision, and maintenance of common schools," passed March 14, 1852, and the acts amendatory thereto, passed March 18, 1864. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That the township board of education of any township in the state shall have power, during the years 1867 and 1868, when in their opinion justice and equity require it, to estimate separately the cost of purchasing a school-house site, and erecting or repairing a school-house thereon, in any particular sub-district or fractional sub-district of the township wherein the inhabitants have not heretofore borne a reasonable share of the burthen of taxation for such purposes, in comparison with other sub-districts in the township, and certify such portion as they may deem just and equitable of the amount of such estimate to the county auditor of the proper county, together with a map of the lands, and names of the tax-payers in any such sub-district, which amount so certified shall be assessed by the auditor on the property therein subject to taxation, and placed on the county duplicate specially, and be collected and paid over in the same manner as other school taxes, and be applied for the specific purpose of providing a school-house in such sub-district: Provided, that such tax shall not be assessed in any sub-district which may be hereafter created, unless the said sub-district shall be composed in whole of territory upon which such tax has not heretofore been levied.

SEC. 2. This act shall be in force from its passage.

Passed February 21, 1867.

P. HITCHCOCK,

Speaker (pro tem.) of House of Representatives.
ANDRREW S. McBURNEY,
President of the Senate.

This law, substantially a reenactment of a statute repealed in 1862, is full of mischief. Its object is two-fold: 1. To enable a few townships that have built all their school-houses thus far by a sub-district tax, to build school-houses in the remaining sub-districts in the same manner. 2. To enable boards of education to erect larger and better school-houses in some sub-districts than in others, by levying a portion of the tax on the sub-districts desiring such better houses. But why was not the law so framed as to secure these objects, if deemed important, without putting into the hands of boards of education the discretionary power to levy a school-house tax on any sub-district which a majority of the board may think has not heretofore "borne a reasonable share of the burthen of taxation for such purposes"? A condition so indefinite as this will give rise to ten cases of unjust taxation to one case which disinterested parties would pronounce just and equitable. Besides, all school-houses are the property of the township, and should be built, as the school-law of 1853 provided, by a township tax. School legislation must be carefully watched, or the school system will receive injury. When the passage of this law became probable, the bill should have been properly amended. The law was passed in spite of the opposition of the school committees of both branches of the General Assembly.

Boards of education should be careful not to subvert this law from its true design. It is to be in force for only two years, when, it is to be hoped, the township system will be enforced without exception.

Editorial Department

THIS number contains forty-four pages besides the advertisements. The contributed articles are of unusual excellence. Mr. Norton's article on "School Government," Prof. Newell's "On Learning the English Language," and Mr. Harvey's on Geography," may be read with profit by any teacher who is not in ruts two-feet deep. The same may be said of the other contributions; and we are happy to be able to state that our drawer is well filled with articles of like character, waiting for room.

We also take pleasure in announcing that our subscription list has never before been so large at this time in the year. The MONTHLY is receiving general commendation. The commendatory notices of the January and February numbers sent us, would, if printed, fill the half of this number. We thank all for their good words.

COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERVISION.

No one familiar with the condition of our country schools will question their need of more intelligent oversight and direction. They are largely in the hands of young and inexperienced teachers who are deprived of all needed counsel and sympathy, and left at the mercy of insubordinate pupils, ignorant parents, and indifferent or over-officious directors. As a consequence, the schools are broken into fragments of classes, and the instruction is haphazard and superficial. What is needed is some competent authority to introduce uniformity and system in their classification and management; to instruct teachers in methods of teaching and discipline; to test the results of their labors by vigorous and searching examinations-in short, to set up a higher and truer standard of effort, and inspire both teachers and school officers with a more earnest and progressive spirit. The value of such an agency reaching each school district in the state, can not well be over-stated. It would revolutionize school instruction.

But how can the schools of the several districts be provided with such efficient direction? There seems to be but one feasible mode, viz: by organizing an efficient system of county supervision. This is the only plan that has stood the test of experience. The number of schools entrusted to the oversight of a single officer, is sufficient to require all of his time, and, hence, the salary paid may be made sufficient to command the requisite qualifications. It is true that a county superintendent can devote but little time to the personal inspection of each school under his jurisdiction, but it is to be remembered, that it is the quality, and not the amount of supervision, which makes it effective.

This suggests that in our efforts to secure the creation of the office of county superintendent, we must not forget that the office will be valueless-nay, it may

be pernicious-unless filled by a competent officer. This is the essential condition. Our schools are carrying dead weight enough, and are in ruts sufficiently deep, without being subjected to the official peregrinations of fossilized teachers or self-inflated politicians. They need to be vivified by the touch of living educators-men possessing high scholastic and professional attainments and imbued with the spirit of educational progress.

To secure competent superintendents, three things are necessary: 1. Their appointment must be entrusted to the school authorities, and not to the political caucus. 2. Their competency, their general and special qualifications for the work entrusted to them, must be carefully inquired into by a competent examining board with power and nerve to reject all unqualified candidates. 3. The salary paid must be adequate to command the necessary talent and experience. These conditions seem to us essential, and a system of county supervision which meets them can but prove a valuable agency for the improvement of our common schools. A doubt may be entertained respecting the possibility of securing so many competent superintendents at the present time. The demand will, however, in time create the necessary supply, and, especially, if efficient normal agencies are provided.

We desire to add that the bill now pending in the Legislature, surrounds the office with these essential guards, and we hope that it may soon be the law of the state. Its passage will mark an important era in the history of our schools. We refer those who may wish to see our views presented more fully, to our official reports. Every year but deepens the convictions therein expressed respecting the importance of this measure.

INSTRUCTION IN THE CLEVELAND SCHOOLS.

Nothing can be more suggestive and instructive to teachers than a knowledge of the changes which have taken place in methods of teaching in leading cities and educational centres. These changes indicate the results of experiment on a wide scale, and thus assist in the avoidance of what practice has shown to be objectionable. Reading, for example, would be better taught in all our schools if the history of the methods of teaching this branch in Boston, was familiar to all our teachers. We have, for this reason, long cherished the purpose of attempting to give a brief account of the changes which have occurred in school instruction in a few of our leading cities-a purpose which has hitherto been thwarted by the importunity of other duties.

We commence this month with the schools of Cleveland, regretting that we can only sketch the more obvious changes which have occurred since our first connection with them in 1850. We can not often stop either to praise or to

condemn.

Primary Reading. The "Word Method" of teaching reading to beginners was early introduced into the Cleveland Schools, but was not generally adopted until 1852, when Mr. Freese, who is an earnest advocate of the method, became

superintendent. To facilitate its use, he prepared a primer and a set of charts. The method is still used exclusively, but spelling is begun considerably earlier than formerly. In some of the schools the classes are taught but a few words before they begin spelling. At one time the sounds of the letters and phonic spelling received considerable attention, but, for some reason, these exercises have been very generally dropped, not only in the primary, but also in the upper departments. In this respect the schools of Cleveland afford a marked contrast to those of Oswego, Boston, Cincinnati, and many other cities. We also notice a strong tendency to what may be termed the imitative method of teaching reading. The teachers read each paragraph or lesson as a model for the pupil to imitate, before permitting him to try his own feebler powers. The pupil's work is to reproduce the performance of his teacher. Formerly the teachers rarely read until the pupils had made a trial. There is also more concert reading than formerly-a natural consequence of the use of the method of teaching by imitation.

Spelling. The changes in teaching this branch are very suggestive. Fifteen years ago, spelling was taught orally in all the classes below the grammar schools, and, to a considerable extent, in them. The spelling-book was used by all classes, we believe, above the first reader, certainly by all above the second reader. Now spelling is taught by writing as low as the secondary schools, and a spelling-book (De Wolf's Speller) is used only by the two upper classes in the grammar schools. The lessons in all the lower classes are confined to the daggered (†) words in McGuffey's Readers, the number of which we are unable to give. Mr. Freese early introduced into the lower schools the excellent practice of requiring the pupils to print or write their spelling lessons as a part of their preparation. We notice in some of the primary schools a novel method of conducting recitations in oral spelling. The pupils are required to commit the words to memory, and to spell them in their proper order without their being pronounced by the teacher. Each pupil spells all the words in the lesson. The object of this method to relieve the teacher-is good, but the method seems to us objectionable. There is a waste of time and a want of interest and life.

Writing. The change in teaching this branch is not material. Printing is not continued so long as formerly, and writing is begun earlier. The second and third reader classes write on slates. The use of pen and ink is preceded by one term's practice with the lead pencil. A special teacher gives instruction in the grammar and high schools, and superintends the writing in the intermediate rooms.

Drawing. In attention to this important branch, Cleveland has long been in advance of other western cities. As early as 1852, a special teacher of the art was employed, and outline and perspective drawing regularly taught in all departments of the schools. In the lower grades, the pupils sketched, from nature, leaves, fruits, utensils, and other common objects, while in the grammar and high schools the sketching of buildings and landscapes also received attention. The pupils, especially in the lower schools, also had considerable practice in the copying of drawing-card models. For several years past, no special teacher of drawing has been employed, and, as a consequence, drawing from nature,

or original drawing, has been almost wholly superseded by the copying of models. The prescribed weekly programme of the schools sets apart a regular time for the exercise in all departments below the high schools, but the actual attention given to the subject depends much upon the taste and interest of the teacher in charge. The drawing books in many of the schools are still exceedingly creditable to both teacher and pupils.— -We can not leave this subject without dropping the remark that much of the neatness and taste which characterize the Cleveland schools, is due to the attention given to drawing. The beautiful crayon sketches and devices which adorn the black-boards, naturally call for engravings and paintings to adorn the walls, and each school-room comes to be regarded as a picture which teacher and pupils strive to make as beautiful as possible.

(To be Continued.)

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DECLARED UNLAWFUL.

We confess that we are puzzled by Judge Warren's decision in the Police Court of Cincinnati that any corporal punishment of a pupil by the teacher is unlawful. In the first place, we do not rightly understand the precise nature of the offense. The solving of a question by a method different from that required by the teacher, may be either a meritorious act, indicative of originality of mind, or deserving of rebuke as a manifestation of conceit and pertness. We have no means of deciding to which of these categories the act did belong. Again, the judge admitted the high character of the man and his reputation for kindness of disposition. He allows, besides, that the correction was moderate, and that, if any injurious effects resulted, they were to be accounted for on the ground of an abnormal irritability of the nervous system. It appears further that, on previous occasions, the boy had shown a spirit of disobedience, and that the parents had taken no notice of the teacher's complaints, thus shutting out, as far as in them lay, any other way of redress. But it appears, after all, that even if the offense had been of a more aggravated character, and the correction, I will not say more moderate, for that could hardly be, but, not followed by any injurious consequences, still the teacher must have been brought in "guilty of a mistake in law"; i. e., of an unlawful act; and yet no law is adduced to establish that position, for all the instances cited refer only to excessive or uncalled-for severity, or to the correction of apprentices or servants, and are clearly irrelevant.

The judge says that if corporal punishment be necessary to school discipline, it should be "regulated by positive law," which implies that there is, as yet, none enacted on the subject. The logical inference is then obvious, that not the act arraigned, but the judge's decision is illegal. He seems himself to have had a lurking consciousness that he was not quite right; for he hopes that his decision "will not be detrimental to the welfare of the schools." Nay, he almost recommends an appeal against himself to a superior court.