the learner bold physical maps, which picture to the eye the great physical features of the continents-their contour and relief, their mountain systems, plateaus, plains, etc. These grand physical conditions are first studied, and then the subjects of climate, vegetation, animals, races of men, and nations are severally taken up in the order of their natural dependence.

Is this order the true one? If it is, the common method of teaching this branch stands condemned as unphilosophical and radically erroneous. Let us look at this vital point.

This view taken by Guyot of the nature of Geography, removes it largely from the more elementary or common-school course of instruction. The bulk of the study, as he tells us in his preface, falls in the analytical stage of mental development, and much the larger portion of the remainder clearly belongs to the higher or scientific stage. In other words, the two steps of the preparatory course (mainly oral) and the perceptive phase of the scientific, consutetit about all that can be rationally undertaken by pupils under say thirteen or fourteen years of age. The scientific study of the globe as a magnificent mechanism, or as a grand physical organism, requires a development and activity of the analytic and reasoning powers which do not belong to childhood.

But may not many of the facts of political and ethnographical geography be properly included in an elementary course of instruction? Must the child be left wholly ignorant of the nations that exist on the earth till he is able to trace the physical conditions that determine their existence and character? We grant that the attempt to cram the minds of children with the hodge-podge of local, political, historical and statistical facts and details with which geographical text-books are usually crowded, is unphilosophical and stupid. But, as it seems to us, there are important facts in each of these departments of knowledge which children may profitably learn as a part of their preparatory geographical course. Indeed, we find this fact practically recognized in both of Guyot's elementary books. Even the primary work gives the more striking characteristics of nearly all the leading nations and cities on the globe, and more than half of the descriptive text in the "Common-School Geography" is devoted to the "People and Countries" of the different continents, and to other topics that clearly do not belong to the perceptive phase of the study. It is true these topics are discussed in proper subordination to the physical conditions on which they depend, but their introduction thus early in the course is confessedly because they are important as a preparation for future study. We also find the boundaries of the different countries traced on the maps, but in such a manner as not to divert the eye from the physical features which they are designed to represent. Whatever a philosophical order of study may require, these elementary works are not wanting in political and ethnographical information. Their error in theory, if there be an error, is corrected in practice.

The question that arises in our mind is this: Does this system, either in theory or in fact, sufficiently recognize the truth that political geography has its perceptive phase? If boldly-outlined physical maps are indispensable in the study of the physical conformation of the earth's surface (and they certainly are), are not bold political maps equally important in laying the foundation for

the study of political geography? It is only by the study of maps which present clearly to the eye the location, shape, and relative size of the different countries, that the image of these countries is engraved, so to speak, in the mind, there to remain as a permanent possession. This furnishing the child's mind with clearly-outlined pictures of the different countries, belongs, as it seems to us, to the perceptive stage of geographical teaching, and is of great value. To secure this result we would supplement the excellent physical maps of Guyot's series with equally excellent political maps, and accompany the same with wellarranged map exercises, embracing only important and outline facts.

We have thus passed under review the cardinal principles which underlie Guyot's method of geographical teaching, and the result is before the reader, Whether tested by the principles of pedagogy or science, the method stands approved. At every point, if we may except the last considered, it is found to rest on sound philosophy.

A want of space forbids a careful scrutiny of the details of the method. In the complete and harmonious development of the subject as a whole, in the arrangement and subordination of the several topics, and the careful tracing of their mutual dependence, the letter as well as the spirit of its theory is admirably maintained. Here and there too little is left for the pupil to find out for himself, and occasionally, as the size of the books indicates, the wordiness of the lecturer takes the place of the conciseness of the author. The maps and illustrations are strictly in harmony with the grade of teaching for which they are designed, and the former, both in projection and distinctness, possess great

excellence.

We add, in conclusion, that whatever the degree of merit these works may possess, their publication has happily initiated a radical and much-needed reform in geographical instruction. They now stand alone in conception and execution. They are sure to have company.

THE NORMAL MEASURES.

More than thirty years ago, Samuel Lewis, then State School Superintendent, made a special report to the General Assembly, in which he strongly advocated the establishment of schools for the professional training of teachers. This report presented to Ohio the enviable opportunity of leading her sister States in this important enterprise. But where does she stand to-day? We are ashamed to write the answer. This is the only Northern State-Vermont and New Hampshire excepted-that has not one or more Normal Schools, New York has two Normal Schools, and is organizing four more; Pennsylnia has four, and is soon to have seven in operation; Wisconsin is establishing five-and so the good work goes on. Meanwhile Ohio is not paying a dollar for normal or institute instruction. County institutes are supported by an

indirect tax upon teachers, and very rarely a small county appropriation is secured. This is all.

Let us glance at the history of this long continued professional disgrace. From 1837 to 1855, nearly every educational convention or meeting held in the State urged, in some form. the establishment of institutes and professional schools for teachers. The subject was also earnestly discussed in the "Ohio School Journal," (established by Dr. Lord in 1846,) and by other school papers. The only response to these appeals, which were heartily supported in the official reports, was the passage of an "act to encourage teachers' institutes," in 1847, which, in 1849, was so amended as to authorize county commissioners to appropriate annually a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, on the petition of forty teachers, who have raised at least one-half of the sum appropriated—an act which has proved a poor encouragement!

In 1855 the State Teachers' Association, despairing of legislative action, undertook the work of est ablishing a Normal School. After a full discussion of the subject, the proposition of Mr. McNeely to donate buildings and grounds, provided the Association would maintain the institution, was accepted, and scores of zealous teachers contributed most generously to the endowment of the McNeely Normal School. This action certainly indicated an earnest belief that normal training was an indispensable agency for the due advancement of public instruction. The convictions of Lorin Andrews on this subject were very strong, and he threw his whole soul into the movement. Bad financial management, which some feared from the first, and which should have been expected by all, made it necessary for the Association to give up the enterprise. This dearly-bought experience greatly checked the zeal of the leading teachers of the State on the subject of Normal Schools, and no further action was taken by the Association until the Toledo meeting in 1864. At this meeting Hon. Rufus King, President of the Cincinnati School Board, presented an able paper, in which the wisdom and necessity of providing by law for the establishment and support of Normal Schools, were strongly urged. The paper, which was in the form of a memorial to the General Assembly, was unanimously approved by the Association, and a committee appointed to secure, if possible, the necessary legislation.

Early in the next session of the General Assembly, Mr. King generously supplied the committee with several hundred printed copies of his memorial to distribute among the members. The memorial was most favorably received by the General Assembly, and a joint resolution was promptly passed, instructing the Commissioner of Common Schools to investigate the subject, and report to the next General Assembly "the best plan of organizing one or more efficient Normal Schools in this State." In the discharge of this duty, the Commissioner spent several weeks in visiting the Normal Schools of other States; and a special report, recommending a plan of organizing a system of normal instruction in Ohio, was submitted to the General Assembly the following January (1866). The fact that a resolution was passed ordering the printing of fifteen hundred copies of the report for general distribution, indicated the general favor with which the movement was regarded.

Thus, after repeated disappointments, the educators of Ohio were encour

aged to look for the speedy organization of an efficient system of normal training. The General Assembly had at last taken favorable action, and as

"There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune,"

an earnest united effort promised easy and complete success.

Under these circumstances the Teachers' Association met at Zanesville. The normal measures recommended by the late Commissioner were cordially approved, the Executive Committee was instructed to circulate petitions, and a special committee was appointed to secure the necessary legislation. All this indicated that the policy which had been inaugurated, was to be continued, that while the importance of county school supervision was to be zealously urged, in order to prepare the public mind for this great measure, the normal measures would take precedence as a subject of legislation. Our course in the institutes and as editor was governed by this understanding, and it was not until the appearance of the Governor's message that we received an intimation that this policy was to be abandoned. We regarded the change a mistake, under the circumstances. We felt that the normal system was, if zealously urged, a sure thing, and we believed that one year more of discussion was really needed to prepare the way for county supervision. We feared that the tide of public sentiment on this subject was not yet "at the flood"—a fear which proved too well founded. But those who had the direction of affairs decided to give county supervision the precedence; so we fell into line to help carry, if possible, this great measure, the importance of which we had been urging for several years. The result is known. The educators of the State have been defeated, but we retire in good order, and are ready for the next campaign.

What shall it be? This, as it seems to us, is one of the important questions to be decided at the next meeting of the State Association. Let us agree upon some definite policy, and then stick to it. We do not wish to fight on a given line for six months, and then learn that there has been a change of base. We have little powder to waste in this sort of campaigning.

NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

The movement to secure the recognition of education as a national interest, began as early as 1840, when an association to carry out the project was organized, with Henry Barnard, of Connecticut, as president and treasurer. The minds of many educators were thus turned to the subject, and its importance began to be discovered in educational meetings and journals. Ineffectual efforts were made by Dr. Barnard and others to enlist the Smithsonian Institution in the collection and publication of educational statistics; to secure the recognition of education in the census of 1850, and 1860; and, finally, to get the Secretary of the Interior to assign a clerk to this work. At the meeting of the National Teachers' Association at Washington in 1859, the establishment

of a bureau of education in the Department of the Interior was urged by the President, Mr. Rickoff, of Ohio, and a committee was appointed to confer with the Secretary of the Interior, and to memorialize Congress. The movement met with little favor. At the meeting of the Association in 1864, the subject was again presented in a paper read by S. H. White, of Chicago, and another committee to memorialize Congress was appointed. In 1865 the measure was urged by President Greene in his inaugural address, by Prof. Wickersham in a paper on "Education and Reconstruction," and by Mr. Rickoff in a paper devoted exclusively to the discussion of this subject. Resolutions favoring the movement were passed, and a committee again appointed to bring the subject before Congress. Similar action was also taken by several of the State Associations.

But the decisive action was taken by the National Association of School Superintendents at their first annual meeting, held at Washington in February, 1866. A paper read on the subject was strongly indorsed by the Association, and a committee, with the author of the paper as chairman, was appointed to secure, if possible, immediate action by Congress. A memorial and also a bill were drawn up by the committee and placed in the hands of Gen. Garfield, of Ohio, who was wisely selected to take charge of the measure. Members of the Cabinet and many leading Congressmen were visited and personally interested in its success. Nor did the committee relax their efforts until the coöperation of educators throughout the country had carried the bill safely through Congress, and it had received the signature of the President.

Such is a brief history of the movement which has at length triumphed in the organization of a National Department of Education. The credit of its inception is largely due to Commissioner Barnard, and we take pleasure in adding that no one put forth more zealous and untiring efforts than he to secure its final success. The educators of the country need no assurance that he brings to the management of the new department the highest zeal and devotion. Henceforth, education assumes national importance. Let us thank God and take courage.

MISCELLANY.

THE delay in issuing this number is due to a visit to Tennessee, which caused us to be absent from home during most of the month of April. We trust the excellence of the number will atone for its late appearance.

OHIO TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION.-The next annual meeting of this body will be held in Springfield, commencing on Monday evening, July 1. Governor Cox has consented to deliver the Annual Address. An address will be delivered by Prof. James E. Murdoch, of Cincinnati, and a lecture on "Methods of Teaching Geography" by Mrs. Mary Howe Smith, of Oswego, New York. Time will be set apart for the discussion of important professional topics, and the great issues now before the people will receive due consideration. These announcements, which we make at the request