It will be remembered that some months since an article appeared in the Journal under this heading, from one of our best and most experienced teachers, in which, to the author's mind, undoubtedly, it was proved conclusively that a system doing such injustice and working results so injurious to our schools, ought to be abandoned at once." The first impression made by this article was not very marked, but after hearing a gentleman state at a Teachers' Convention that the article above referred to was worth the subscription price of the Journal, and that gentleman from a city whose schools are noted for their perfected marking and other systems, which have a tendency to facilitate and render more effectual the efforts of both teacher and pupils, we again considered the article. In every number of the Journal since that time we have hoped to find an article either to sustain or refute the ideas therein contained, but we have been disappointed. Not one of all our teachers, who have practiced the system much longer than we, has attempted to show that the charges made against it were not "well grounded and sustained." VOL. IX.

12

Feeling that a cloud has thus been made to hang over the system, and that the evils "briefly summed up" are not connected with it to the extent they were in the mind of the author, we attempt a reply. Let us consider the questions as put by the author.

First: "Is it JUST, and does it PAY?"-To claim that the system is perfect, and, therefore, strictly just in its application, would be more than we could do for any system connected with human organizations. There is no system employed to guide the actions or thoughts of men that will not affect some unfavorably. So it is with the marking system in our schools; while it enables the teacher to understand his pupils better, impresses the pupil with the idea of order as connected with their actions and thoughts, operates as a wholesome stimulus to systematic and consequently more successful effort; as a whole, that it does fail to accomplish all this in some cases, and may even affect unfavorably, is undoubtedly true. We believe, however, it answers the end for which it was designed, and is as equitable in its application as its friends could reasonably expect. "Does it pay?" I answer; does it pay to connect system with the actions and thoughts of men in any circumstances? Which gymnast is more successful, one who exercises systematically, or one who does not? Who is the more successful student, he who connects system with mental effort, or he who does not? In short, when do men accomplish most, either in thought or action when they systematize their efforts or when they do not?

Without stepping outside of our profession-why is the teacher of to-day able to give instruction in so many more branches, and in a better manner than the teacher of twentyfive years ago? Why are the classified schools of to-day more successful than the unclassified of former and even later years? It is because of the adoption of systems, which serve to unite thought, and make effort more effectual. We would not claim that the marking system is the most important of these, but we believe it to be a link in the chain of systems without which the efficiency of others would be much lessened.

Again: "Are the true ends and the great object of education promoted by it?"

We believe they are, because systematic training, whether moral, physical, or mental, is more effectual than that where system is wanting, and that this is an aid to the modern methods of instruction which are working such results in our schools.

The great evils connected with this system, and the great injustice done to individuals and even to a majority of the pupils, seem to me to exist principally in the mind of the writer. What are some of the evils enumerated? "It gives great encouragement to some who do not need it; it depresses others and so discourages them as to compel them to leave the school; essentially deprives them of their education and changes their future course in life.”

We admit it may be employed by the teacher so as to act as a powerful stimulant to those with active minds, awakening in them the most earnest resolves, and determining them if it is possible by the most intense application to obtain the highest mark in the class or school, but we do not believe it a necessary or even legitimate result of the system. Use it to excite the pride, to arouse the ambition of the pupils, cause them to think they should labor earnestly because the result of their efforts is to be circulated through the district or city, that all who are interested may know their relative standing; make this the prime motive for study, and the result above referred to will undoubtedly be reached. But instead of this, let the pupils be influenced to labor from a sense of duty to God, who has endowed them with such wonderful powers of body and mind, and be caused to think the marking system is an index of their efforts, and all this undue excitement will exist only in imagination. Need any be depressed or driven from school, because a record of their efforts is kept from day to day? Would not all rather be stimulated to make proper exertion in a proper manner?

We believe the class of pupils to be very small which is affected unfavorably by the proper use of this system. When we meet with those who need awakening, let us employ the

same means to awaken them with the use of the system as without, and they will not be troubled about it. We would not employ the system (as the writer seemed to regard it) as the only motive for effort; we would by no means have the pupil feel he must study simply because a record is kept, but because he loves to study and do his duty.

The author admits that by the use of the system the teacher will have a more definite knowledge of the attainments of his pupils; that upon some he can place perfect reliance; they will at all times be ready, so that the recitation will never be a failure, &c.; but at the same time intimates that when we go to hear such a class recite, the members who can recite best will be called upon to occupy the time, and adds, "very likely they will be found to stand highest on the records." Go to a school wh re the system is not employed. The teacher may, if so disposed, call upon the best scholars to recite, he may be commended, the pupils may be flattered, the school pronounced one of the best, &c. Such deceptions are not attributable to the system.

Another important point in the mind of the writer is the motive which prompts to action. He asks; "does the system encourage, in a proper way, the true love of improvement?" We would not have the system employed at all as a motive to study. Cultivate the true love of improvement in the same way with as without the system; influence all to feel that their powers of mind are gifts from God, and, therefore, an obligation rests upon them to cultivate them in the highest degree; do this, and the system will come to your aid, oper. ating as a wholesome stimulant. Who will say that the fact of God's keeping an account of all we do, say, and think, which will be reviewed by us and an assembled universe, does not operate as a wholsome stimulus to right action, and the cultivation of pure thoughts and emotions?

Again he asks; "Does not the marking depend essentially if not entirely upon the verbal recitation, and may not this. be secured upon many subjects studied without a thorough knowledge or true understanding of the same?" We We say the mark need not be a measure of words. Will a teacher who

employs the system be any less likely to detect the superficiciality of a pupil's knowledge, who has obtained it with the aid of keys, or by borrowing from his neighbor? May he not in the freest manner exercise his judgment as to the thoroughness of the pupil's knowledge, and give him credit accordingly? Though the system will not detect such deceptions, we believe the teacher who uses it will be none the less likely to, and as by it he will have a more definite knowledge of their attainments, he will be more likely to do justice to all classes.

It is possible some pupils have said, "Oh! I can't stop to understand; if I repeat the words of the text I shall get a high mark," &c. We trust the number is very small, for we believe it the result of the wrong use of the system. No pupil need feel that the systein compels him to hasten on committing to memory words and rules entirely unmeaning to him, but rather that it calls him to linger until a thorough knowledge is acquired, for which effort he shall receive credit. I see no reason for the statement that the mark must be given, if given at all, as a measure of words, and if they are glibly uttered in large quantity without hesitation or inaccuracy, the inference must be that all is right, the pupil is flattered, and a high mark is given for the performance. Must the teacher who makes use of the system thus close his eyes to the true merits of a recitation? We say emphatically-no. We see nothing in the proper use of it to lead to any such result. There is nothing in the system to encourage a parrot-like mode of recitation, or reward superficial word-uttering. Let those who conduct such recitations "prate as lustily" as they please about thoroughness in teaching, we would bring to our aid the modern systematic methods.

If there is nothing like teaching, in the true sense of the term, in the mechanical method of grinding out lessons, so long sanctioned and encouraged by the marking system, why is it that the classified schools of the present day are so successful? Teachers, awake! Are we employing a system so injurious in its results? let us no longer cherish the delusion!