standard of work demanded in class. No one can teach freshly unless
she is at the same time learning, and widening her own mental horizon.
Too many forms to fill up, too many complicated registers to keep, too
many meetings to attend--these things stultify the mind and crush the
spirit. They are not a necessary accompaniment of State or municipal
control, though sometimes under present conditions it is hard to
believe that they are not the inevitable concomitants of official
regulations. Anything which tends to make teachers' lives more narrow,
is opposed to the cause of education. This truth should be instilled
into all official bosoms. Wherever the State or the local authority
intervenes, wherever public money has been granted, there regular
inspection obviously becomes inevitable, but the multiplication of
inspectors, each representing a different authority, is not necessary
or sensible. At present, in all grant-aided institutions, whatever
their status, inspectors do not cease from troubling, and teachers as
well as administrative officers, though weary, find no rest.[1] This
is as detrimental to the pupil as to the teacher, for it lowers the
intellectual standard by substituting form for matter and the letter
for the spirit. Thus the inspector of an art-school who enquires only
about what are officially termed "student-hours," and not at all about
the work therein accomplished, does not make for artistic efficiency
either in teacher or taught. Yet this instance is of very recent
occurrence, and there are countless parallel cases. No wonder the
Universities demand freedom from State control; no wonder Training
Colleges and subsidised secondary as well as elementary schools groan
under its tender mercies. The present forms taken by this control are
mostly obnoxious to all practical educationists. They arise from lack
of trust in the teaching profession on the part of administrators--a
mistrust which it is of primary importance to allay by increased
efficiency, independence, and organisation. Nationalisation of