ing with Harvard, offered two courses on "Americanism."

3. The University of California, in co-operation with Los Angeles Normal College, offered an extensive program in the field of Americanization; courses in history, government, American literature, and various social and economic problems were included.

4. The University of Minnesota gave a program of courses covering not only the professional aspects of Americanization work, but also courses in immigrant backgrounds and on "Americanism."

5. The University of Pittsburg held an institute on Americanization, comprising lectures and conferences conducted by several national leaders in Americanization work.

6. Johns Hopkins University had a six weeks' course in "Problems in Americanization," described as "a practical professional course."

7. Syracuse University presented a short course in Americanization, entitled "Principles and Methods in the Education of the Immigrant," with a strong staff of teachers and lecturers. This was conducted in co-operation with the New York state Department of Education.

8. The University of Chicago offered a program of courses in Americanization and allied subjects.

9. Of the two courses given at the state normal school at Hyannis, Massachusetts, one was designed especially for teachers, the other for leaders in Americanization work.

10. The New Hampshire Normal School at Plymouth offered short courses under the direc

tion of the Bureau of Americanization of the state Department of Education.

11. The work given by the Cleveland Normal School was not described by courses.

12. In New York state there were several institutes at Albany and other centers similar to the Syracuse Institute, under the direction of the state supervisor of immigrant education. The New York State College for Teachers, cooperating with the New York state Department of Education, offered a course in "Principles and Methods of Immigrant Education."

COURSES SUPERFICIAL AND INADEQUATE

The foregoing list of institutions presenting opportunities for teacher training might lead one to believe that the situation is being well handled. Such is not the case. It must be remembered that up to date, so far as this investigation has been able to determine, not a single state normal school in the country is offering Americanization courses to its undergraduates. The courses listed are all of the extension or summerwork variety. While this may be satisfactory at this early stage, it does not insure that thorough training which the problem demands.

Then, too, the courses offered present some striking inadequacies both in method and content. Prior to the summer of 1919 most of the courses offered were of the short-unit type, eight or ten conferences being the average length. It is possible to train an intelligent person to execute some piece of mechanical work, doubtless,

in ten lessons, but one cannot give teachers an understanding of the great human problem of Americanization in any such time. The shortunit course is usually given over to an exemplification of the methods and principles underlying the teaching of English to immigrants. This is tremendously important, but the teaching of English is only the first step in Americanization; it merely opens the door. In passing, it may be pointed out that a teacher may know how to teach English to an immigrant pupil, but because she does not know the immigrant individual or his point of view, and especially because she does not know what the task of Americanization really is with reference to the immigrant, her teaching may fail to achieve its purpose.

With a few notable exceptions the courses offered have been largely of the lecture variety. No normal school would attempt to train teachers without employing observation, demonstration, and practice work. If we mean to do the task as it should be done, our courses in Americanization must include these activities.

Not infrequently these courses are given not by one or two instructors, but by several, each presenting the phase of the matter about which he knows most. The result is a lack of unity, of coherence; the student goes away with a confusion of ideas. Lectures by different people are not out of place in a course of teacher training for Americanization work, but they should be of a supplementary character. The course itself should be in the hands of one indi

vidual, who is responsible for its aims, methods, and fundamental points of view. This makes for clearness of thought on the part of the student. Anyone who notes the confusing interpretations that are daily given to the Americanization problem appreciates how important this is.

IMPORTANCE OF RACIAL BACKGROUNDS

Some of the courses included in the programs outlined above cannot strictly be called Americanization courses. Some of the leaflets issued for teachers suggest teaching practices that no practical teacher would use. There is a danger just now that some of our higher institutions of learning, in their suddenly awakened zeal, will present work in Americanization conducted by people whose first-hand knowledge of the immigrant is very slight. No teacher can be a firstclass teacher of immigrants unless her knowledge of her pupils as human beings is so intimate that she can utilize in the fullest measure what the immigrant has brought with him from his home overseas. The best teacher of immigrants is the one who reaches her pupils through the heart as well as through the head. To do this she must know racial backgrounds and spiritual heritages. Courses in history, anthropology, and allied subjects should be included in a program of work intended to train teachers along broad lines. Such courses the college instructor may give. Beyond this, it must be remembered that the teaching of immigrants, especially in the initial steps, is a highly specialized and difficult art

which requires skill. Training for this skill should form a part of every teacher-training course of this kind; otherwise we shall have a continuance of those very disappointing teaching performances that have so long characterized immigrant classrooms. It should be pointed out, further, that if this practical side of the task is dealt with in an Americanization course, it should be presented by some one who has had first-hand contact with this special type of instruction. No teacher of English, for instance, either in normal school or college, who lacks this contact, can instruct individuals who are to teach English to our immigrant neighbors.

CO-ORDINATION OF TRAINING AGENCIES

The task is to offer preparation to two classes of people: (1) leaders and organizers; (2) teachers of immigrants and of adult illiterates in all the several types of classes that may be operated. It should be worked out by the following agencies: (1) the Federal Bureau of Education; (2) state departments of education; (3) universities and colleges; (4) city and state normal schools and colleges.

The special function of the Federal Bureau of Education is the stimulation of teacher training everywhere. Recent developments would seem to indicate that this bureau is keenly alive to its responsibilities in this field. The national conference of Americanization workers held in Washington in May, 1919, gave strong assurance that Federal leadership might be expected. The