" This may be generally true, but it is not universally so. I
cannot but think that the practice of assigning lessons and giving the
pupil the free use of the four-and-twenty hours is a bad practice. Would
it not be better to give to each pupil certain hours for study?--assign
him lessons, by topics if possible, allow him to do what he can in the
allotted time, and then prohibit the appropriation of an additional
minute? Why should a dull scholar, or one who has but little taste or
talent for a given study, be required to plod twelve, sixteen, or
eighteen hours at unwelcome tasks, while another more favored disposes
of his work in six? Why should a pupil, who is laboring under some
mental or physical debility, be required to apply his mind unceasingly
when he most needs rest and recreation? Why should the pages of a
spelling-book, grammar, geography, or arithmetic, be the measure of each
pupil's capacity? Lessons are to be assigned, not necessarily to be
mastered by the pupil, though they should have just reference to his
capacity, but as the subject of his studies for a given period of time.
The pupil should be responsible for nothing but the proper use of that
time. Two advantages might result from this practice. First, the pupil
would acquire the habit of performing the greatest amount of labor
possible in the given time; and, secondly, he would naturally throw off
all care for books and school when the hour for relaxation arrived.
Pages:
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164