the necessities of efficient and economical school administration). Here we are, of course, at once involved in the old debate as to the merits and demerits of the elective system and the capacities of learners wisely to use such a system.

All of us have read (and perhaps participated in) lengthy discussions as to the elective system in college and school. We were long ago told that learners-whether college Juniors or high-school Freshmen-were not old enough or wise enough or earnest enough to choose their own studies to advantage. They would usually choose "snap" courses. Their programs, under freedom of election, would consist of unco-ordinated subject-courses, the resulting learning would be fragmentary, discursive, and unsubstantial. "Easy instructors" would be in favor, real efficiency would disappear, and chaos would prevail.

It is a fact that in nearly all debate as to the elective system, its opponents have had the stronger arguments. The proponents, while usually able eventually to win the day in action because of favoring circumstances, have never, it would seem, formulated the most fundamental and strongest arguments in favor of their position.

It must surely be admitted that the pupil, whether in seventh, or tenth, or fifteenth (college Junior) grade, is but poorly equipped to make so momentous a choice as that involved in electing the studies he will henceforth pursue. Almost equally, after college graduation, he will be but poorly prepared to elect his profession, his place of future work, his physician, his political party, a woman to be his wife. Here we express, of course, only an admission that our system of education includes as yet hardly any provision for adequately guiding the individual in the matter of many, if not all, of the important decisions he must make in life.

For, if we ask what is the alternative to free election of studies, even, let us say, in the college period of education, we are confronted by the fact that except in rare instances there exists as yet no organized procedure whereby the individual, with his limitations of capacity and opportunity, his interests, and his obligations to society, can be guided into making choices that best meet or serve his needs. The opponents of election have probably never asserted that they were ready to provide the personal attention and scientific insight that would be required adequately to have prescribed for the individual student on the basis of sound diagnosis the best program of studies for him. It is certain that in college and secondary school this could not be done, for the sufficient reason that never yet have educators in those institutions accomplished anything substantial in the way of capacity for making scientific diagnoses of the capacities, limitations, and probable opportunities of individual learners.

Furthermore, even assuming that such diagnoses were possible at any period, the prepossessions of the advocates of rigid courses-or, usually, of one rigid course would probably have prevented them from studying

the variant qualities of the minds of their students, again for the sufficient reason that the all-important consideration, as teachers have believed, was the subject to be taught-Latin, algebra, Greek, rhetoric, logic, physics, etc.—and not at all the characteristics of the individual learner.

In other words, the historical alternative to free election, at least of courses, if not subjects, has been rigid prescription as determined by inflexible tradition or custom or educational theory. The variability of learners as to capacities, interests, and needs has been ignored. Traditions and dogmas as to the superior or even unique educational values of certain ancient subjects of study have governed. The newer subjects were intrinsically inferior, if not worthless, educationally; hence any choice of them has been regarded as necessarily bad. The thought that election of studies is bad has always been fathered by the wish that it should prove bad from the standpoint of the opponent whose favorite studies might not be elected.

The various attempts heretofore made to modify, on the one hand, the rigidity of the inflexible one-course curriculum, and, on the other, to prevent the wasteful possibilities of completely free election, have constituted admissions that adjustments of courses and studies, based partly upon the capacities of learners, and partly upon their varying needs, are highly desirable and probably feasible. But it is a fact that no satisfactory statement of the principles which should guide in the matter has, as yet, been formulated. There is still too often the naïve assumption that the "system"—that is, the collection of educational dogmas and traditions as expressed by unprogressive educators, usually thru conference or committee edict-knows best what the "student" needs and should have. This is not an individual student, James Ferguson, for example, but an abstract human being, an educational John Doe, who has met entrance requirements and who is probably assumed to be taking his class attendance in the same spirit in which he would accept a necessary, tho distasteful, sentence to a hospital.

It is still too early, perhaps, to formulate the underlying principles which should govern flexibility of curricula and courses; but it is possible even now to apply to the possible junior high-school curriculum the best results of contemporary theory and practice as to this educational problem in secondary school and college.

CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES OF FLEXIBILITY IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

If we take, for example, the entire range of subject-courses that it is possible to offer in the junior high school, it is clear that all cannot be regarded as being on the same footing from the standpoint either of election or of prescription. Some are essential to all, many essential to none. Some are essential in certain courses, others essential to no particular course. On the other hand, there are many that may well be regarded as educational luxuries highly pleasurable to those who can afford them and surely not

injurious to any who can take them without detriment to their more necessary work. But what are the subject-courses that belong in those respective categories? It is difficult for us to reach sound conclusions here because our prepossessions are at present so much stronger and more clearly defined than are any available findings based on scientific study. In the idealized curriculum for a junior high school given above there are found from 58 to 88 alpha units (or subject-courses to be taught with the aim of producing power to do), and from 52 to 82 beta units (or subject-courses in which appreciation is a controlling purpose). No one average pupil, probably, could take in two years more than 30 of the total 140 units supposed to be offered. A slow pupil could take perhaps not to exceed 20, while an exceptionally strong pupil could take 40. What requirements shall we make, what advice offer, and what liberty allow, to our junior high-school pupil confronted by the foregoing curriculum?

First, let us repeat that our attitude toward the alpha units should not be the same as that toward the beta units. If the beta units are taught (or, better word, offered) with due regard to appropriate pedagogical principles, we may experience difficulty in keeping pupils from them, or, at least, from some of them. They should prove inherently interesting to children as do play, the "movies," sports, and certain kinds of fiction, or as the opera, fiction, travel, and association prove attractive to adults. On the other hand, the alpha units present, in the main, the characteristics of the harder work of the world. The interest with which they are pursued must often be a derived interest-derived, in some cases even, from fear of punishment, or fear of forfeiture of desired approval, or from love of gain or approval. Hence it can at the outset be asserted that prescription will be much more necessary in the case of the alpha than of the beta units.

Let us assume that a careful study of the capacities of average children of twelve to fourteen years of age, coupled with an equally careful study of the objectives, individual and social, which should be realized thru their education, shows that it is expedient and desirable that their two-year programs could and should include substantially 15 alpha units and 15 beta units. We might then establish the following rules to govern the making of individual courses:

a) Any pupil deficient as to spelling, writing, and silent reading according to some definite standard shall be required to take these alpha subjects. b) Every pupil shall elect four alpha units in English expression, in addition to those required under (a).

c) Every pupil shall elect at least six units designed to provide a definite course in one of the following fields: (i) foreign language and mathematics; (ii) commercial arts; (iii) industrial arts (boys); (iv) household arts (girls); (v) agricultural arts.

d) No pupil shall have fewer than 15 or more than 20 alpha units. e) Every pupil shall elect at least 10 beta units.

CONCLUSIONS

The following are the conclusions of this paper:

1. The reorganization of education designed for young people from twelve to fourteen is one of the most important of contemporary movements in the field of general education.

2. It is right and proper that this period should continue to be reserved for general education (cultural, physical, and social education), and that no specific vocational education should be offered in it; but (a) vocational guidance, based on communicated information (books, lectures, individual conferences), observation of men at work in vocations, and participation in simple processes derived from industry, all designed as phases of general education, is acceptable and desirable; and (b) differentiated courses in practical arts, partly as a means of enabling each pupil to find himself, and partly as a means of acquiring valuable experience in reception and expression or execution (not necessarily contributing to vocational power however), are desirable.

3. Central schools should, as far as practicable, be organized for all pupils from twelve to fourteen, to include not only the normal in grade, but the retarded as well. As far as practical, retarded pupils should take the same studies as pupils of normal grade; and where, in the more technical studies, they cannot do this, special courses containing work especially adapted to their needs should be provided.

4. Whenever it seems that a new study can profitably be offered to a substantial group of pupils of these ages, it should be introduced.

5. It is to be expected that many more studies or subject-courses will be offered than can be taken by any one pupil; and hence will arise the necessity of election of courses or subjects.

6. In providing for the selection of individual programs, prescribed studies should be reduced to the minimum, and large freedom allowed to the pupil and his parents to elect, subject to full advice, the subject-courses to be taken by the pupil. Choices made by pupils may frequently be unwise, but rarely more unwise than the courses prescribed arbitrarily by the authorities.

ADDRESS

WOODBRIDGE N. FERRIS, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN

I want to have it distinctly understood that I appear before you as an educational exhorter. I haven't a new thing to say to you; I haven't anything to tear down. I just want to present two or three very old notions and exhort you to their observance.

If I were to organize an educational system, I would make for its center health-h-e-a-l-t-h, health. I ask teachers to care as much about health as the great industrial institutions of this country care about

health. If you will do that much, there will be important changes in the United States in a comparatively short time. Our great factories are today houses of glass. What for? Light, light, and more light. They are so built that they can have air and more air. The industrial world has found out that it pays in dollars and cents to have light and air, and of course any industrial institution that has light and air has all other sanitary provisions.

Many of our school buildings, viewed in the light of what I have already said, are unfit for the use of our boys and girls. You say, "What can we do about it?" You can do everything. It is about time schoolmasters and schoolma'ams came to realize the power they possess. You can do almost any wise thing if you have a mind to, or rather, if you

want to.

Tonight I make the appeal for air and sunlight. In Michigan we have a state sanatorium for tuberculosis patients. This sanatorium is full of patients, every single case a well-defined case of tuberculosis. They are sleeping out of doors, living out of doors, playing out of doors, working a little out of doors-everything out of doors except dressing and undressing; on account of the peculiar usages here in America, particularly in sanatoriums, they are obliged to dress indoors. The same restrictions are not placed on people who are well as on people who are ill. We know that the only means by which we can help these people is to have them live out of doors. Well, what under heaven has Michigan and the other states in the Union against people who haven't tuberculosis? I want you to answer that question. My state is going to stamp out tuberculosis, that is, kill tuberculosis, get rid of it somehow. I ask our officials to take hold of the educational machinery of my state and see if they cannot do something to get well men and women to live as they ought to live with reference to air and sunshine. Now, you yourselves don't do it. You don't believe in fresh air, you don't want fresh air, you won't have fresh air; you won't live out of doors, you don't want to get out of doors, and consequently what hope is there?

Microbes do not thrive out of doors; they don't sit up in the trees nor on brick or stone walls. They are indoors. Every cold, every case of pneumonia, is an indoor disease. Let us come a little closer to our subject. What can you people do with the present schoolhouses? You cannot have them condemned and torn down; you cannot build new buildings in order to have air and sunshine. You can take out the lower or upper sash, and put in a cotton-cloth screen for the entire year. You will use more fuel possibly, but you will have fresh air and better air, less sickness, and teach a few boys and girls how to live and have health instead of tuberculosis or any other disease. Will you do it? No, the majority of you won't.

And what else can you teachers do? On every sunshiny day, on every fair day, in the rural and village schools, you can take your boys and