loosely graded sections of last year; the pupils in the slow classes will cover about as much, and what is far more important, will do the work well.

A multitude of experiments in the way of more flexible grading are now being tried in American cities. Worcester has a very flexible grouping system. St. Louis, too. Flexibility is the watchword in Ohio. Elizabeth, N. J., has attracted widespread attention because of characteristic departure from rigid graded methods. I wish I had time to speak at length in regard to some of these experiments. But I must not overtax the reader's patience. Let me say, however, that while as experiments they have been most valuable, they are not on that account to be looked upon as ultimate solution of the problem of the poor pupil. Individual instruction itself, as soon as it becomes moulded into a system, is open to criticism. A teacher should always attempt to do much for her individual pupil. A teacher should never do too much for her individual pupil. In the hands of any but a strong, discriminating woman, a system of individual instruction might easily develop into a system of intellectual "molly-coddling." I once heard Dean Briggs "The first lesson in all education is to teach a boy to get down to good, hard work." In our flexible program-making too, so far as it has gone, I think we are but scotching the snake. We still ask all children to take every subject in the grammar school course at the same time. Ought we to do this? Should arithmetic be required of any pupils before the age of nine? Should arithmetic be required of all pupils before the age of nine?

say:

Should writing with the pen be taught in the primary grades? Should grammar be taught to any pupils in the seventh grade? Should grammar be taught to all pupils in the seventh grade? Should we put as much time on reading in the first years of school? Should we promote by subjects. rather than by grades, so that a boy in the fifth grade may take fourth or sixth grade arithmetic? To all these questions, and many more as fundamental, the teacher to-day must answer, "I do not know." But we ought to know, and we must know, before the problem of the poor pupil is solved.

The physiologist meanwhile is daily coming to us with data that we appropriate gladly. We are beginning to find out to our intense surprise that many of our backward pupils are backward purely and simply because they are physically unable to handle the work of the school programs. Dr. Francis Warner, basing his conclusions on the examination of 50,000 school children in England, stated that 38.4 per cent of the boys and 36.2 per cent of the girls showed developmental defects that interfered, in greater or less degree, with their school-work. In an examination of the schools of the better class in Copenhagen, Dr. Hertel found 31 per cent of 3,141 boys and 39 per cent of 1,211 girls suffering from chronic debilitating diseases. In Sweden a similar examination showed that of 11,210 boys in the higher common schools, 44.8 per cent were sickly, the highest per cent being in the Latin section.

In the United States we are beginning to recognize like conditions. Massachusetts has recently taken a notable step in its provision for compulsory medical inspection of eyes and ears. Even this limited application of a physiological test is throwing an amazing amount of light on the problem of the poor pupil. The large cities elsewhere have been making this test, unofficially, for some time. In Minneapolis 25,696 children were tested in 1898; 8,166 of these were defective; 43 of them were practically blind. Columbus, Ohio, reported a few years ago 25 per cent of its school children with defective eyesight. In Brooklyn, 1900, 28 per cent of 50,000 pupils were defective in eyesight and 10 per cent in hearing. Our cities one after the other are handing in like reports, the defectives ranging from about 25 per cent to 63 per cent returned by the town of Wellesley.

Now how many of these pupils with poor eyesight and hearing are at the same time backward in schools? A conclusive answer to this question may be found in the report made by Brookline as to the results obtained from the tests in that town. A very thorough test was made for experiment in the Pierce School by eminent Boston physicians. The principal says: "We form a physical basis for explaining every case of belated or undeveloped power." . . . "In respect to vision, out

of 38 pupils marked poor in their classroom work, only four were normal as to vision. Of those marked unsatisfactory, twice as many had deficient eyes as were normal." The same results held in case of the ears and the teeth. In the Packard School I compared the backward pupils with those defective in eyesight and hearing with the following result:

We examined in all 674 pupils. Of this number 158 or nearly 25 per cent were defective in eyesight or hearing. Fifty-five pupils out of this 158, or 33 1-3 per cent of the number of defectives, were pupils at the same time backward in school. We found pupils stone-blind in one eye. We found a girl who had been kept back twice in school with eyesight 1-10 of normal. We found one boy who had put in two years in each of grades one, two and three, with eyesight and hearing both defective.

Now if so large a percentage of the backward pupils in one school owe their backwardness in some degree to defects of the eye and the ear that can be detected by the ordinary teacher, how many more owe them to more delicate defects that cannot be so detected? How many to astigmatism? How many to much trouble due to poor nutrition? How many to digestive troubles due to poor teeth? How many to adenoid growths? How many to tuberculosis, to scrofula, to rickets? We ought to know these things, and knowing them guard against them. "It must be the first mission of the school to promote health. If our schools, as they are run, are increasing, or even allowing these disorders to continue, then we must reorganize. It would be better to go back to the child culture of Plato's Republic than to ask a child to lay down his good health as the price of a liberal education. If education is to mean anything, it must mean everything. It must comprehend the whole man; and the whole man is built fundamentally on what he is physically."

Side by side, with a realization of our need for diagnosis. along this line, should proceed an attempt to diagnose the pupil psychologically as well. In any large school system there are a number of pupils who depart in greater or less degree from the normal type. Idiots of the first degree, imbeciles, the sub

normal child, the backward child, all of these have been catalogued, written about, their idiosyncrasies noted, the adequate treatment for them prescribed by those much ridiculed, but very worthy individuals, the child-studyists. The democratic public school in a large city must open its doors to all abnormals. The public school, if it is democratic, should endeavor to give them the meat upon which they can digestively feed. Arithmetic, reading, grammar-this is not the menu for the abnormal child. All consciousness primarily evolves from motor activity. In the training of young children of every type, we should recognize this fact much more than we do. In the training of the sub-normal mind, it is especially signifiThe foundation for this education must be laid along three lines of work-physical work, manual training and sense training. Physical work means Swedish gymnastics, light apparatus work, and games that call for quick co-ordination of body and mind. In manual training the mind controls the hand, and the power of attention comes through interest, while the body gains in vigor with the exercise of the muscles used in planing, sawing, boring, etc. In sense training, the naturally dull senses are awakened to distinguish differences in objects conveying to the mind more distinct objective impressions. The ability to read and do number work comes in proportion to the solidity of this foundation. Such a program of work of course requires a special school. Many cities, notably Worcester and Springfield in this neighborhood, have made provision for this in their schools for defectives or atypical children, as they are called. Other cities, it is to be hoped, will follow.

If you and I believed that everything in the world is good enough, of course we should be perfectly willing to build a lodge in the wilderness, and be happy. But if we happen to be so constituted that the "good enough" ideal is not a satisfying one, then we must needs hanker for a little recreation in the way of reform. A little of this reform might profitably be directed along educational lines. There are thousands of pupils in the educational system of our democratic country to-day, whom our democratic schools do not begin to reach. Indeed,

there is only too much ground for criticism that we teach school for the few who can rather than the many that may.

It is not at all surprising that such is the case. Our educational philosophy has been, is now, to a great extent, one of opportunism. We began with the "three R's" as a basis a long time ago. We added history and geography for national reasons. We tacked on drawing because international completion demanded it. Manual training followed in its wake. We incorporated one after another the different studies now offered in our sociologically complexioned program, added to them in City A, subtracted from them in City B, tinkered with them in City C, all in that accidental, haphazard way typical of unconscious revolution. And then when defects appeared, various remedies were offered-smaller classes, more men teachers, longer compulsory attendance and so on. We looked for the causes of the evils elsewhere but to the children themselves. It is true there have been plenty of experiments in all this time, a great many of them along wholesome lines.

But there has been very little co-operation in these experiments, so that without any definite guidance, "blown about by all the winds of doctrine," we have headed now for this port, now for that, bound for nowhere under full sail. In the words of Professor Hanus: "We have not organized our educational doctrine, we have only formulated it piece-meal; we have not organized our educational experience; we have not gathered the fruits of our experience as we went along."

To reach the poor pupil, our specific problem, we must attempt, through an intelligent application of pupil study, through a close co-operation between the home and the school, to discover just why the pupil is poor. We must challenge differential psychology to show us how the mind grows, what it needs to grow, when its changes take place. With this as a working theory we must secure the co-operation of the teaching force in collecting and reporting on the results of this theory in practice. We must preserve data. We must know that these pupils have begun arithmetic late, and the result; that these pupils omitted English grammar, or got it diluted, and then the result; that reading was postponed for these pupils, and the