examine the replies that came in from the 1B primary teachers concerning pupils that had received kindergarten training. For instance, threefourths of these teachers stated that kindergarten children are more obedient and show more self-control; 68 per cent report that these children are capable of more concentration and that they master the mechanics of reading more easily than do those children that have had no kindergarten training. From 75 to 93 per cent of these teachers state that kindergarten children master the content of reading more quickly, they do industrial work more easily, they write more readily, they have increased power of visualization, and they have more power of leadership.

What now is the matter? Certainly the primary teachers of Louisville are favorably inclined toward the work of the kindergarten. But, upon the other hand, our figures show conclusively that the kindergarten children in our city have not gained time as a result of such instruction. In fact, it would seem that a child actually lost every month that he spent in the kindergarten after he had attained the age of six. Late entry because of kindergarten work was just as disastrous from the standpoint of school progress as if late entry had been caused by poor health, or by a parent who believed a child should not enter the primary grade until the age of six and a half or seven years.

Why has not the kindergarten instruction functioned and affected the school progress of the child? Miss Dietz, the primary supervisor of the Louisville schools, has this explanation to offer:

During the second term of the school year 1912-13, out of 965 children in grade 1B, only thirty-eight were promoted to the IA grade in less than five months. Of these only fifteen were kindergarten children and twenty-three were non-kindergarten. It is at once evident that, altho we are using the group system in our primary grades, we have not yet learned to use the advantage that the group system gives-flexibility.

The fact that there were more non-kindergarten children promoted than those who have had the training is easily explained. Primary teachers are, as a rule, loathe to push children unless the latter are over-age. The twenty-three non-kindergarten children, I am sure, are, in nearly every case, over-age foreign children, or those who came from the outside and, with assistance, made up back work.

In addition to the information given in the questionnaire, the teachers of the IB grade children were questioned by Miss Dietz. These teachers, following the custom of former years, did not attempt to make a separate group of those children who had received kindergarten training. The grouping of the children in the grade was made without regard to this training, tho a number of the teachers stated that the kindergarten children would eventually work themselves into the strong group.

Now the figures we have obtained from the teachers of the 1B grade children indicate that this assumption is not correct. Possibly the reason is because these kindergarten children have not received the proper training; possibly the reason lies deeper. The explanation offered by Miss Dietz is that "the central thought of the kindergarten has been childlike activity

while too often with the primary room it has been the formal mastery of the symbols of learning."

In this connection it might be well to consider the conclusions reached by Dr. Frank McMurry as found in his recent book, entitled, Elementary School Standards. This book, as we know, was based on the New York City school inquiry, and in it Dr. McMurry devotes some time to a discussion of the unification of kindergarten and primary schools. In testing the quality of instruction in the New York schools, he applies the following four standards:

1. Does the instruction develop motive in the pupils ?

2. Does it develop power to estimate values?

3. Does it develop power to organize and systematize? 4. Does it make provision for the exercise of initiative?

Dr. McMurry concludes by saying:

The kindergarten curriculum, as a rule, is so plainly determined by reference to the chief aims of a school, as expressed in the four standards proposed, that it greatly aids the kind of classroom instruction that can meet those standards.

I may call your attention to the fact that Dr. McMurry asserts (p. 69) that the kindergarten in New York City stood the test decidedly better than did the elementary grades.

In this connection permit me to quote a few sentences from Miss Mary D. Hill, supervisor of kindergartens in the Louisville public schools:

Because the kindergarten theory was developed largely outside of the schools, it has the advantage of freedom to break a new pathway in educational principles and practices self-activity, education related to life and to those interests and experiences of the child which are of value. It has also enabled the teacher to develop the training of the social relations within the group—that is, ethical training in the deed itself. The kindergarten movement has done much to emphasize the fact that education is growth and therefore information is to be considered not an end in itself, but simply as a means to growth.

On the other hand, isolation from the school has been too long continued, and the progressive kindergarten leaders have been asking for constructive criticism from other educators and specialists. If such assistance can be given and we are willing to make the necessary changes in our curriculum and methods, certainly the kindergarten training will function thruout the grades.

In the light of these statements and before we enter into a condemnation of the kindergarten, would it not be well for us to attempt a reconstruction of the work of the primary grades in order that we may see if the fault after all does not lie in bad organization and in the failure to utilize the true values of the kindergarten training? At present the supervisors of the kindergartens and the primary grades in Louisville are trying to overcome the difficulty thru the following means:

1. Bulletins showing the central thought of each-the kindergarten and the primary grades.

2. Small group conferences of kindergarten and primary teachers.

3. Instruction of primary teachers in the most approved kindergarten methods.

4. Placing the children who have kindergarten training in a separate group in the IB class.

5. Urging the primary teacher to use any contribution of the kindergarten child.

6. Encouraging the primary teacher to keep a record of the strong and weak points of the kindergarten children in order that this information may be used for the benefit of both kindergarten and primary grades.

In this paper I have given the results of Dr. Ayres's investigation, the conclusions as made by Superintendent Mary D. Bradford, and the statistics we obtained in the Louisville public schools. In the main, these figures seem to be against the work of the kindergarten. Upon the other hand, we have the conclusions of Dr. Frank McMurry as to the failure of the primary grades to utilize the instruction of the modern kindergarten. He is convinced that the work of the kindergarten will persist and will function most effectively in a well-organized primary school and therefore that the kindergarten child will be enabled to make more rapid and satisfactory progress in the grades.

At present, as we can see, the question has not been settled. However, with the establishment of more exact measurements to test both physical and mental conditions and changes, it will soon be possible for us to determine the value of the kindergarten as a part of the public-school system, and we can then at once make the necessary changes in curriculum and methods of both the kindergarten and the primary work, which will insure the greatest benefit to the children entering our schools.

SOME EXPERIMENTS IN ELEMENTARY-SCHOOL
ORGANIZATION

SAMUEL W. BROWN, STATE NORMAL SCHOOL, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. There are three problems in elementary education today which are demanding solution:

1. The problem of the curriculum.

2. The problem of classification.

3. The problem of expert instruction.

I propose to discuss each of these very briefly in the light of some attempts at their solution with which I have been connected for some ten years past-during the first seven years as supervising principal of a ward school, and during the last three years as director and supervisor in state normal, elementary, and secondary training schools.

1. The problem of the curriculum.-I have assumed that the preparation for the duties of enlightened American citizenship is the first, the fundamental purpose of the elementary public school. All that knowledge of a non-technical nature with which a reasonably well-adjusted citizen in an American state is equipped; all those sentiments and standards, all those social and personal habits, all those ideals, appreciations, and contempts,

which mark the desirable citizen, the man of good repute in our midst; all those tools for the acquisition and expression of experience as are of common usefulness; and such ordinary facility in and habituation to the use of these tools as may reasonably be expected; these, the elementary public school, whatever else it does or does not do, must impart unto all its pupils or insure that they possess on leaving it.

Since this training for citizenship is to be common to all, our minimum standard of attainment therein can be neither very high nor very broad. It must be such as all non-defective children, within a reasonable length of time, say prior to the fifteenth year, can reach. There should be excluded from this common minimum curriculum all that is in any way special in its nature. Preparation for high school has no place therein, for only a fraction of our boys and girls will ever go to high school. Neither should we allow the elements of any particular trade, calling, or profession, nor anything aiming at the earning of a livelihood to have place therein, because these violate our fundamental canon that only that which is of common value to all as citizens of the state shall be imparted to or required of all in common. A second legitimate function of the elementary school is to discover and train particular, individual abilities and talents, and to minister to particular, individual deficiencies and needs. Under this function fall preparation for high school, preparation for vocational life, the education of defectives, and the training and culture of special artistic and constructive talents. While under the first function, the preparation of citizens, a constant, universal, uniform, minimum attainment should be required of all, here, the widest possible range of subject-matter and training, the richest possible curriculum, varying if necessary from term to term, so as to insure greater width, should be offered, and the greatest possible adaptation of requirements to individual needs and abilities consistent with group instruction should be provided.

A failure to recognize this distinction between common and special values in educational material and training has led to the present condition of an overcrowded and conjested curriculum, required in common of all children, with the inevitable result of inadequate treatment and a widespread dissatisfaction with educational conditions and results. It is the recognition of the importance and of the necessity of such a division of the curriculum which lies at the bottom of all I have to say to you today. This having been granted, all the rest follows of logical and practical necessity.

None of the educational aims which I have named are new. They have met with general recognition, but little differentiation of the elementary curriculum in consequence of these varying aims has been attempted. All must take the full course. The ordinary procedure has been, when a new subject or new topic in an old subject has arisen and demonstrated or proclaimed its worth, to put it in on top of the already crowded curriculum

and require all to take it. The present curriculum is marked, therefore, by a variety of aims, varying from common to all degrees of special, and these two types of aims are found existing side by side in many of the subjects now required in common of all, while other subjects totally special in their natures are likewise required of all as if they were of common value.

Because of these facts there is needed not only a separation of those subjects wholly special from those which are in part of common value, but also a reorganization of those subjects which contain elements of common value so as to separate that which is common from that which is special. In undertaking such a reorganization I have found likewise much material which is neither of special nor of common value but which has held its place merely from traditional, pedantic, sentimental, or excessively logical considerations.

Aside from these major considerations of common and special there are three canons which I have found useful in determining the reorganization of the educational material and practices so torn asunder into courses, as I have termed them, or units of instruction.

The first of these canons is unity. A demand for two or more kinds of ability should not be made in a single course. To violate this canon means that, in grading a pupil in his work in a single course, you must average two or more unlike abilities, the presence of one of which is no evidence whatever that the others will be present. This results in low standards and inefficiency in the abilities which are raised from their low gradings by reason of the high ratings of other abilities being averaged with them. The other alternative is to retain the pupil in the course until the ability in which he is lowest shall have been strengthened to the point of passing. This results in unjust and excessive and unnecessary retardation, and is disastrous to the pupil's interest and effort. Courses in English furnish a good illustration of the violation of this canon. Frequently they make such diverse demands as skill in composition and literary appreciation. As educators we must insist as far as possible upon this separation of diverse elements in the interest of justice to the child and of efficiency in instruction.

A second canon is brevity. A short course is preferable to a long one; a half-year course is preferable to a year; a quarter-year to a half-year. For many courses even a shorter time basis of organization is to be preferred. Brevity of the course lends itself readily to thoroness therein, for a child who has not reached the standard of thoroness therein can be held till he does with less loss of time. When a particular course is used for obtaining a diagnosis, to determine what are the educational needs of certain children, or what are their special abilities, a short course will serve the purpose, frequently, as well as a longer one. Closer grading is made possible by means of short courses, thereby lightening the teacher's task by reason of the greater evenness of ability or advancement on the part of the indi