We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2017
This article focuses on teachers in the discourses of early twentieth-century proponents of intelligence testing in America. Teachers were often a targeted enemy in the academic literature on intelligence testing—their methods belittled, their unreliability emphasized. Yet, in part because teachers were essential for intelligence tests to be given in schools, they were also often talked about in more ambiguous ways. In particular, this paper argues that psychologists’ ways of talking to, at, and about teachers presented a relationship characterized by an originary indebtedness of teachers toward psychology. Intelligence tests, it was implied, were a gift for teachers, and psychologists’ help a favor that teachers should repay by using the tests and showing rigor, obedience, and gratefulness in doing so. Arguably, the debt was framed in such ways as to render impossible its repayment and to make illegible the potential contributions and initiatives of teachers in the intelligence-testing movement.
1 This was a dominant claim in 1960s and 1970s approaches to the history of intelligence testing. For an example of claims that teachers were being systematically “colonized,” see Richardson, Theresa and Johanningmeier, Erwin V., “Intelligence Testing: The Legitimation of a Meritocratic Educational Science,” International Journal of Educational Research 27, no. 8 (Feb. 1998), 699–714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Later histories of teaching, especially with a feminist slant, have called for an end to the view of the Progressive Era “as a time when teachers were reduced to little more than pawns in large-scale school systems;” MacDonald, Victoria-Maria, “The Paradox of Bureaucratization: New views on Progressive Era Teachers and the Development of a Woman's Profession,” History of Education Quarterly 39, no. 4 (Winter 1999), 427–53, 432CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Yet the processes of belittlement and objectification of teachers historically are still persuasively discussed and denounced today. In this journal, one can think of Kate Rousmaniere's sophisticated study of the rhetorics of disability in relation to teaching, “Those Who Can't, Teach: The Disabling History of American Educators,” History of Education Quarterly 53, no. 1 (Feb. 2013), 90–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; or of Jonna Perrillo's no less enlightening Foucauldian-feminist approach of the discursive control of teachers’ bodies in the interwar era, “Beyond ‘Progressive’ Reform: Bodies, Discipline, and the Construction of the Professional Teacher in Interwar America,” History of Education Quarterly 44, no. 3 (Sept. 2004), 337–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Chapman, Paul Davis, Schools as Sorters: Lewis M. Terman, Applied Psychology, and the Intelligence Testing Movement, 1890–1930 (New York: New York University Press, 1988), 35 Google Scholar.
3 Brown, JoAnne, The Definition of a Profession: The Authority of Metaphor in the History of Intelligence Testing, 1890–1930 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I use the term IQ interchangeably with intelligence. See also Danziger, Kurt, Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language (London: Sage, 1997)Google Scholar.
4 The use of war lexicon throughout this articleis a nod to Dana Goldstein's popular account of the history of teaching. Goldstein, Dana, The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession (New York: Anchor Books, 2015)Google Scholar. War metaphors, perhaps cliché in historical research, are not an abuse of language when discussing “America's most embattled profession,” and martial rhetoric was amply deployed by Progressive Era psychologists.
5 For more on the difficulties encountered by schools at the time, See Chapman's excellent account (Schools as Sorters) and David Tyack's classic study of the rise of urban education in America. Tyack, David B., The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974)Google Scholar. For contemporaneous accounts, see Judd, Charles Hubbard, “The Influence of Scientific Studies in Education on Teacher-Training Institutions,” Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 6 (May 1925), 291–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tansil, Rebecca C., “Steps in the History of Standardization of Normal Schools and Teachers Colleges,” Peabody Journal of Education 7, no. 3 (Nov. 1929), 164–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 35.
7 A dichotomy articulated by most historians, such as Chapman, Schools as Sorters; Danziger, Naming the Mind; and Tyack, The One Best System.
8 The genesis of intelligence testing in the United States is extremely well known, and I sketch here a summary as backdrop. In the early 1900s, French psychologist Alfred Binet, mandated by the French government to study “feeble-minded” children, developed with Théodore Simon general intelligence tests based on a distinction between mental and chronological age. American psychologists Henry Goddard and Lewis Terman enthusiastically adopted and adapted the scale, and Terman's version, the Stanford-Binet scale, was published and taught in books, articles, and handbooks for teachers in the mid-1910s. Schoolchildren were “Bineted” on ever-larger scales throughout the 1910s and 1920s. In 1919, a team consisting of Terman, Robert Yerkes, Melvin Haggerty, Edward Thorndike, and Guy Whipple developed the National Intelligence Tests, of which 200,000 copies were sold in 1920. For an excellent overview, see Zenderland, Leila, Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. For a briefer history, see Fass, Paula S., “The IQ: A Cultural and Historical Framework,” American Journal of Education 88, no. 4 (Aug. 1980), 431–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critical history, see Kamin, Leon J., The Science and Politics of IQ (Potomac, MD: Erbaum Associates, 1974)Google Scholar.
9 Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 4; and Danziger, Naming the Mind, 75.
10 Starch, Daniel, “Reliability and Distribution of Grades,” Science 38, no. 983 (Oct. 13, 1913), 630–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Starch, Daniel and Elliott, Edward C., “Reliability of Grading Work in History,” School Review 21, no. 10 (Dec. 1913), 676–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Starch, Daniel and Elliott, Edward C., “Reliability of Grading Work in Mathematics,” School Review 21, no. 4 (April 1913), 254–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Starch, Daniel and Elliott, Edward C., “Reliability of the Grading of High-School Work in English,” School Review 20, no. 7 (Sept. 1912), 442–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Banker, Howard J., “The Significance of Teachers’ Marks,” Journal of Educational Research 16, no. 3 (Oct. 1927), 271–84, 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Rugg, Harold O., “Teachers’ Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System,” Elementary School Journal 18, no. 9 (May 1918), 701–19, 701CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Rugg, “Teachers’ Marks”, 702.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 717.
16 Steele, A. G., “Training Teachers to Grade,” Pedagogical Seminary 18, no. 4 (Dec. 1911), 523–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Rugg developed several scales. See also Wagner, C. A., “The Construction of a Teacher-Rating Scale,” Elementary School Journal 21, no. 5 (Jan. 1921), 361–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Sharp, L. A., “A Study of School Marks,” Peabody Journal of Education 1, no. 4 (Jan. 1924), 207–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharp, L. A., “The Value of Standards in Grading Examination Papers,” Peabody Journal of Education 3, no. 1 (July 1925), 38–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Byrne, Lee, “A Method of Equalizing the Rating of Teachers,” Journal of Educational Research 4, no. 2 (Sept. 1921), 102–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 For example, “The objections to teachers’ judgment as a basis of selection are now familiar through the studies made by Binet and Simon preparatory to the working out of the intelligence tests followed by those of Terman of a similar nature.” Richards-Nash, Albertine A., “The Psychology of Superior Children,” Pedagogical Seminary 31, no. 3 (Sept. 1924), 209–46, 212CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Arguably the most influential study of psychometry's founding myths, mistakes, and mysticism is Gould, Stephen, The Mismeasure of Man (London: Penguin, 1992)Google Scholar. For an excellent article (in French) on the differences between Binet, Terman, and L. L. Thurstone in the statistical choices made to calculate IQ, see Martin, Olivier, “La mesure en psychologie de Binet à Thurstone, 1900–1930,” Revue de synthèse 4, no. 4 (1997), 457–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Perhaps the most complete exploration of the mathematical and conceptual problems with IQ testing from its origins to the 1990s can be found in Fisher, Claude S. et al. , Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.
21 Brown, Definition of a Profession, 4.
22 Ibid., 47.
23 Hollingworth, Leta S., Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture (New York: Macmillan, 1926), 47, 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Terman had been elected president of the APA that year. The previous year, a symposium on intelligence and its measurement resulted in an influential special issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology and the National Intelligence Tests had been presented to the public. Hollingworth's research on giftedness was beginning to be funded and Terman had also just recruited researchers for what would become his famous longitudinal studies of gifted subjects. This was also the year of Terman's debates with Walter Lippmann and William Bagley (to which we return later).
25 Franzen, Raymond H., The Accomplishment Ratio: A Treatment of the Inherited Determinants of Disparity in School Product (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1922)Google Scholar.
26 “Methods of determining superiority in school have progressed from the subjective (the teacher's estimate) to the objective (mental tests);” Richards-Nash, “The Psychology of Superior Children,” 241. It is worth noting that we are here talking about individual intelligence tests, like the Stanford-Binet, rather than group intelligence tests that, while more easily applied to large populations, were not as usable for the purposes of ability grouping.
27 Banker, Howard J., “The Significance of Teachers’ Marks,” Journal of Educational Research 16, no. 4 (Nov. 1927), 159–71, 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Woodrow, Herbert H., Brightness and Dullness in Children (Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1919), 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Terman, Lewis Madison, The Measurement of Intelligence: An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 MadisonTerman, Lewis, The Intelligence of School Children: How Children Differ in Ability, the Use of Mental Tests in School Grading and the Proper Education of Exceptional Children (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919), 309 Google Scholar.
31 Tyack, The One Best System, 59.
32 For example, see McAndrew, William, as quoted “Women School Teachers,” Journal of Education 65, no. 14 (March 1907), 340–41Google Scholar; Donovan, H. L., “Educating the Teacher for the Progressive Public School,” Peabody Journal of Education 9, no. 5 (March 1932), 266–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gray, William S., Carter, Ralph E., Koos, Leonard V., and Hoyt, Guy M., “Recruiting Capable Men for the Teaching Profession [Part I],” Phi Delta Kappan 4, no.1 (November 1921), 9–14 Google Scholar, and “Recruiting Capable Men for the Teaching Profession [Part II],” 4, no. 3 (April 1922), 4–9.
33 Goddard, Henry Herbert, “The Gifted Child,” Journal of Educational Sociology 6, no. 6 (Feb. 1933), 354–61, 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Karen B. Rogers, “The Lifelong Productivity of Terman's Original Women Researchers,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March 1997.
35 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 299.
36 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, 24, 31. Hollingworth also said that teachers “do not have in mind a clear idea of the meaning of intelligence . . . . This results in deviation from the findings of scientific test.” Gifted Children, 50.
37 Hollingworth, Gifted Children, 50.
38 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, 23.
39 Banker, “The Significance of Teachers’ Marks,” 271.
40 Ibid.
41 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, 34.
42 Terman, L. M. et al. , Intelligence Tests and School Reorganization (Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company, 1922), 78 Google Scholar. This collective book is evocatively introduced by Terman in a chapter called “The Problem,” the problem being that “school reform has lagged behind the advances of psychological science,” 4.
43 Hollingworth, Leta and Hollingworth, Harry L., Children above 180 IQ: Origin and Development (London: George G. Harrap, 1942), 288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, 30.
45 Schwegler, Raymond A., A Teachers’ Manual for the Use of the Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence (Topeka: University of Kansas, 1914), 3 Google Scholar.
46 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 291.
47 For a typical example, see Woodrow, “Clearly, the science of education depends upon, and finds its surest foundation in, the science of intelligence,” Brightness and Dullness in Children, 18.
48 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, 35, 19.
49 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, xiv.
50 Ibid, viii.
51 Buckingham, B. R., “Mental and Physical Age in Relation to School Administration,” Journal of Educational Research 1, no. 2 (Feb. 1920), 139–43, 143Google Scholar.
52 For Zenderland's account, see Measuring Minds or, for a more recent case study, see Perrillo, Jonna, “Between the School and the Academy: The Struggle to Promote Teacher Research at Columbia University's Lincoln School, 1917–1935,” History of Education Quarterly 56, no. 1 (Feb. 2016), 90–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Judd, “The Influence of Scientific Studies,” 297.
54 For accounts (from all sides) of Terman's canny sense of self-promotion and interest in the sales of his tests, see Gould, The Mismeasure of Man; Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 103; and Jolly, Jennifer L., “Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions in the Field of Gifted Education,” Gifted Child Today 28, no. 3 (2005), 38–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Terman, Lewis M., “Communications and Discussions: Concerning Psycho-Clinical Expertness,” Journal of Educational Psychology 5, no. 3 (March 1914), 164–65, 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 Wallin, J. E., “Danger Signals in Clinical and Applied Psychology,” Journal of Educational Psychology 3, no. 4 (April 1912), 224–26, 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 38.
58 For more on the specificities of kindergarten teachers in the Progressive Era, see Reese, William J., Power and the Promise of School Reform: Grassroots Movements During the Progressive Era (London: Teachers College Press, 2002)Google Scholar; and Cuban, Larry, “Why Some Reforms Last: The Case of the Kindergarten,” American Journal of Education 100, no. 2 (Feb. 1992), 166–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 For example, see Brooks, Samuel S., “Getting Teachers to Feel the Need for Standardized Tests,” Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 1 (June 1920), 436–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 While too vast a topic to probe in this study, such openly autosuggestive rhetoric may not be unconnected, besides the recent war effort, to the 1920s trend of autosuggestive methods. Coué, Emile, Self Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion (New York: Malkan Publishing Company, 1922)Google Scholar.
61 Bell, J. Carleton, “Educational Measurement and the Classroom Teacher,” Journal of Educational Psychology 10, no. 2 (Feb. 1919), 111–12, 112Google Scholar.
62 Parents’ ambivalent feelings about tests, and the difficulties encountered by teachers, are mentioned in Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 140–42; and Tyack, The One Best System, 98.
63 Raftery, Judith R., “Missing the Mark: Intelligence Testing in Los Angeles Public Schools, 1922–32,” History of Education Quarterly 28, no. 1 (1988), 73–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 Urban, Wayne J., Gender, Race, and the National Education Association: Professionalism and Its Limitation (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2000)Google Scholar.
65 Goldstein, Teacher Wars, 90; and Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research (London: University of Chicago Press, 2000)Google Scholar.
66 “New Era in Schools Urged on Teachers,” New York Times, Oct. 31, 1931, 19.
67 Goodwin Watson, “Intelligence Test Has Limited Scope,” New York Times, Oct. 5, 1930, E7.
68 “Intelligence Tests Called Dangerous: Dr. McMurry Declares They Bring Education to ‘a Low Level,’” New York Times, Feb. 12, 1928, 34.
69 “Defends Mind Test in Child Training: California Educator Explains Controversial Points as to Its Merits,” New York Times, July 22, 1923, 12.
70 Goldstein, Teacher Wars, 89.
71 Raftery, “Missing the Mark,” 74.
72 On the idealism of American psychology, see Herman, Ellen, The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts (London: University of California Press, 1995)Google Scholar.
73 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 293.
74 For precise indications for purchase, see Schwegler, A Teacher's Manual, 11.
75 For example, “There is not a scale or a test now before the public that cannot be given, scored and tabulated by an intelligent teacher with a little careful practice,” Bell, “Educational Measurement,” 111; “Every effort has been made to remove obscurity in the statement of the tests themselves,” Schwegler, A Teachers’ Manual, 12.
76 An advert for the Stanford-Binet scale in The Mismeasure of Man extolled it as being “simple in application,” “reliable,” and “scoring is unusually simple,” Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, 178.
77 Bliss, W. B., “How Much Mental Ability Does a Teacher Need?” Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 1 (June 1922), 33–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thurstone, L. L., “A Cycle-Omnibus Intelligence Test for College Students,” Journal of Educational Research 4, no. 4 (1921), 265–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tubbs, Eston V., “The Selection of Teachers,” Peabody Journal of Education 5, no. 6 (May 1928), 323–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more nuance, see Whitney, Frederick Lamson and Frasier, Clark Melville, “The Relation of Intelligence to Student Teaching Success,” Peabody Journal of Education 8, no. 1 (July 1930), 3–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 “If the notion has been current, in America, that the schoolmaster or schoolmistress is an oracle and an outstanding paragon of knowledge and ability, that notion must be let slip in the face of the facts,” Bliss, “How Much Mental Ability Does a Teacher Need?” 34.
79 Sharp, “A Study of School Marks,” 209.
80 Tyack, The One Best System, 97.
81 Strong, Edward K., Introductory Psychology for Teachers (Baltimore: Warwick & York, 1920), xi Google Scholar.
82 Wilson, H. B., introduction to Dickson, Virgil E., The Use of Mental Tests in School Administration (Berkeley, California: Board of Education, 1922), 6 Google Scholar. Lest it be thought that scientists were merely self-congratulating, many such sentences, as in this instance, were written by education professionals.
83 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, xi.
84 Woodrow, Brightness and Dullness, 39.
85 Bell, “Educational Measurement,” 112.
86 Buckingham, “Mental and Physical Age,” 143.
87 For example, J. J. Findlay said, “Now many teachers will be prepared to admit the value of these tests.” J. J. Findlay, introduction to Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence, vi.
88 Dickson, Virgil E., Report of the Department of Research (Oakland, CA: Tribune Publishing Company, 1919)Google Scholar; Dickson, The Use of Mental Tests in School Administration; and Dickson, Virgil E. and Martens, Elise H., “Training Teachers for Mental Testing in Oakland, California,” Journal of Educational Research 7, no. 2 (Feb. 1923), 100–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 63.
90 Dickson, Report of the Department of Research, 173.
91 Ibid.
92 Dickson, “Training Teachers,” 107, 100.
93 Trabue, M. R., “Some Pitfalls in the Administrative Use of Intelligent Tests,” Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 1 (June 1922), 1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 Ibid., 5.
95 Terman, Measurement of Intelligence, xi; Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, xi.
96 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 294.
97 Ibid., 296.
98 Whipple, Guy M., “The National Intelligence Tests,” Journal of Educational Research, 4, no. 1 (June 1921), 16–31, 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
99 Dickson and Martens, “Training Teachers,” 101–102.
100 For an example of this, see Otis, Arthur S. and Knollin, Herbert E., “The Reliability of the Binet Scale and of Pedagogical Scales,” Journal of Educational Research 4, no. 2 (1921), 121–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
101 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 298.
102 Terman, “Communications and Discussions,” 164.
103 Terman, Intelligence of Schoolchildren, 299.
104 Keaney, Julia F., “Teaching and Following-Up Supernormal Children in a Small Public School,” Journal of Educational Research 7, no. 2 (Feb. 1923), 145–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
105 Buckingham, B. R., “Accuracy,” Journal of Educational Research 8, no. 1 (June 1923), 63–67 Google Scholar.
106 Pendleton, Charles S., “How to Read Pupils’ Written Themes,” Peabody Journal of Education 1, no. 5 (March 1924), 272–80, 272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
107 Urban, Wayne, “Organized Teachers and Educational Reform During the Progressive Era: 1890–1920,” History of Education Quarterly 16, no. 1 (April 1976), 35–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tyack, The One Best System.
108 Terman, Intelligence Tests and School Reorganization, iii-iv.
109 Dickson, Report of the Department of Research, 225.
110 Kallom, Arthur W., “Intelligence Tests and the Classroom Teacher,” Journal of Educational Research 5, no. 5 (May 1922), 389–99, 390CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
111 Woodrow, Brightness and Dullness, 310.
112 Buckingham, B. R., “The School as a Selective Agency,” Journal of Educational Research 3, no. 2 (Feb. 1921), 138–39Google Scholar.
113 Ibid., 139.
114 Ibid.
115 Buckingham, B. R., “The Next Step after Testing,” Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 5 (Dec. 1920), 855–56, 856Google Scholar.
116 Hollingworth, Leta S., “Problems of Relationship Between Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Case of Highly Intelligent Pupils,” Journal of Educational Sociology 13, no. 2 (Oct. 1939), 90–102, 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
117 Dickson, Report of the Department of Research, 231.
118 Alexander, Carter, “Presenting Educational Measurements so as to Influence the Public Favorably,” Journal of Educational Research 3, no. 5 (May 1921), 345–58, 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
119 For an extensive account of the emergence of such rhetoric in relation to giftedness, see Margolin, Leslie, Goodness Personified: The Emergence of Gifted Children (New York: De Gruyter, 1994)Google Scholar.
120 Taylor, Howard, “The Gifted Child and His Education,” NASSP Bulletin 20, no. 63 (Dec. 1936), 51–53, 52Google Scholar.
121 Goddard, Henry Herbert, “The Gifted Child,” Journal of Educational Sociology 6, no. 6 (Feb. 1933), 354–61, 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
122 For a thorough analysis of definitions of democracy in the intelligence-testing movement, see Minton, Henry L., “Lewis M. Terman and Mental Testing: In Search of the Democratic Ideal” in Psychological Testing and American Society, 1890–1930, ed. Sokal, Michael M. (London: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 95–112 Google Scholar.
123 Donovan, Educating the Teacher, 273.
124 Lagemann, An Elusive Science, 22.
125 Dewey, John, The Sources of a Science of Education (New York: Horace Liveright, 1929), 13–14 Google Scholar.
126 Ibid., 65.
127 Ibid., 48.
128 Payne, Bruce R., “Ten Years of Progress in the Service Rendered by Normal Schools and Teachers Colleges,” Peabody Journal of Education 6, no. 2 (Sept. 1928), 67–72, 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
