"empiricists," "shallow sentimentalists," "ignorant," "amicable," "pseudo scientific," "vain seekers after something," by which Professor Bailey designates the rank and file of teachers who are ignorant of that philosophical culture which enables one man to know all children through and through. Professor Bailey's pathetic astonishment that his concept of Miss Shinn's niece was at fault after reading some notes on her development would bring a smile to the face of any undergraduate in the kindergarten, for no woman in actual contact with children would expect what Professor Bailey expected, even if the notes were made concerning a feeble-minded child.

It is

Both the articles in the MONTHLY and the programs of the Thompkins school thus far published, show, to my mind, and to the minds of others with whom I have discussed them, nothing more than the common and abstract schematization which every pedagogic program maker has dealt in for ages. The most careful perusal of Professor Bailey's printed work will surely impress the reader that his place is among those who believe that when the universe is pigeon-holed, and each receptacle labeled with a well sounding word or phrase, the work of philosophy will be forever done. well for the children that daily contact with them prevents the expectation from resting on any petrified, finished study of child character, even if once run in the mold of Professor Bailey's isosceles triangle, which may be whisked out in the presence of living children and used as a key to the moral or intellectual nature of any one of them. In no respect can I see any difference between such a diagram view of education and the vague generalities of S. P. Andrews' Universology. Professor Bailey de ceives himself; he is radically and simply Herbartian with the difference of being more complacent in theories without support in facts.

It is because of this nebulous foundation that Professor Bailey makes some of his strangest mistakes; his classification of child study methods being a case in point. The statistical method is differentiated from the inductive, and then curiously enough from the psychogenetic. Any one who has studied children, or, indeed, carefully read the literature, must know that the genetic method is the goal and basis of every other. Is the method of Sully or Russell less or more inductive than that of Hall? to the latter of whom induction is

ascribed with the implication that he cares not for statistics or genesis.

The natural grouping of this work to-day is: (a) Those who merely collect from any source, with no system or hypothesis, like Russell, or strange to say, as Professor Bailey himself advises, this being properly the first stage of the work which tyros best appreciate; (b) the topical method, which selects out of the richness of a child's life one particular form of activity and compares inductively and statistically results from large numbers, to determine the age of its fullest development; and (c) basing on biology or sociology, religion or anything else, which I should call the Hall and Barnes method; (d) the protracted study of individual children. These are the methods of the quarry. Many writers, some of whom have, and some have not, labored in the mines, have generalized and speculated like Sully and Baldwin in a very interesting and stimulating way. It matters little if Professor Bailey, in his passion for hypotheses and unity, makes these constitute a class by themselves.

Another error common to speculative minds, but very misleading, is Professor Bailey's implied assumption that child study should give finished results. This is seen in his distress at lack of unity and agreement in results; in his statement that students are searching for pock ets, and is, in fact, the error that vitiates all his criticism. Child study is only as yet surface mining, it is not even looking for pockets, but for veins and nuggets; it is a movement of decades, of the dimensions of which many students lack all conception, Professor Bailey especially treating the work throughout as if the data were in, the case summed up, and the day for his ethological verdict at hand. His views seems to me to show lack of imagination, intuition, and that best of all powers in young men, a sense of prophecy and the largeness of a future that no foot-rule, or even ten-foot pole can

measure.

One other point I hesitate to mention, but loyalty to the institution and the leaders who have so generally aided me in all my study of child life makes it my duty. Professor Bailey accuses those whom he so tastelessly calls "Clarkites" of being "almost absurdly hostile to philosophy and metaphysics"; "Herbert Sp ncer and Kant seem alike back numbers"; "Plato is to be felt about rather than studied";' "Hegel and Herbart are merely metaphysical,"

etc. This, as I have taken pains to inform myself, is a misstatement that seems incredible in a former student at Clark University. From catalogues and from President Hall's own words, I know the exact opposite to be the case. Of five, and sometimes six, lectures a week through the year, and these sometimes continued through two years, more than half of all President Hall's work is devoted to the writers whom Professor Bailey represents as despised. Nearly one entire year of three hours a week seminary work was not long since devoted to Plato, by methods

which Dr. Aikin has described in two numbers

of the Atlantic Monthly. Besides the lectures on Kant, nearly another year of seminary work was devoted to this author. Had Professor Bailey taken the doctorate at Clark he would have found that the history of philosophy is the backbone of examinations for that degree. This year one of President Hall's two hour a week courses, through the first term, was devoted to Herbert Spencer. Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Mill, and many others receive special attention in the historical course which extends through two or three years. President Hall's students are used to hearing him say that the history of philosophy was his first love, and it is known that in Germany he devoted himself largely to that branch of study and for some time taught nothing else. It would not be sur prising if there were now a little feeling at Clark that an additional chapter to the history of philosophy had been already begun there, yet it is in studied disparagement of just this work that Professor Bailey's article seemed to culminate. Very sincerely yours,

SARA E. WILTSE.

West Roxbery, Mass., Feb. 1, 1898.

The Graded System vs. Individual
Pupils

HE method of promotion of pupils in our cities has been a vexed question, and while the graded system has been put in operation, few contend that it is an ideal solution of the difficulties. In the large majority of schools pupils are bunched in lots of forty to sixty, receive the same lessons for one year, and then take an examination for promotion to the next higher grade. Those who pass this examination go on, and those who fail, as a rule, must go over their previous year's work again. Such a system rests upon the manifestly untenable assumption that all children.

are so constructed that it is practicable to herd all at the same rate of progress. Yet we, of course, know that there are several factors involved which make such an assumption an absurd one.

This study offers some data upon the factors which enter into the problem of individual progress. While the number of children studied is not as large as desirable, nevertheless, the results show suggestive lines of cleavage. The present inquiry has been made possible by a system of promotion, somewhat modifying the regular yearly graded plan, which has been in operation since 1893 in Santa Rosa, California. During the early part of that year the pupils of each grade were gradually sifted into three sections, in the essential branches of study. These sections moved at different rates of progress. While in certain subjects all pupils of a class worked together, in a few subjects, as for example, arithmetic, reading in the first and second years, and geography in the fourth and fifth years, the pupils of each section recited separately. Promotions of individuals from section to section within grades was a matter of extreme flexibility. Promotions from section of the next higher grade occurred three the highest section of one grade to the lowest times a year, or approximately every thirteen weeks, though irregular promotions were made oftener whenever the progress of a group of children made it desirable and possible. The test of all promotion was simply the judgment of the teacher under supervision. The depart mental system had been simultaneously introduced in the upper grades of the school and by this plan teachers passed from grade to grade teaching specific subjects, or a group of subjects. Consequently the promotions were usually controlled, as a rule, by the combined judg ment of two or three teachers. These conditions, it is clear, made a pupil's progress to a large extent an individual matter, and every effort was made to maintain the system of promotion in a state of extreme elasticity. Absence of a pupil affected himself alone, for if important ground had been covered by the class during his absence, he was placed in a lower section. and later might regain his former section. Pupils of innately rapid progress were therefore not compelled to mark time in order to accom modate their slower fellows, nor were those of innately slow development made to hurry at a rate beyond their natural powers.

sent out, one to the parents of these pupils and one to the teachers, asking for pertinent in formation. From these replies, together with some personal knowledge of the children, the tables which follow were constructed. Owing to the comparatively small number upon which the comparisons are based, I have considered it safer to group all those who have made nine, ten, or eleven sections, as one class under the term "normal." In the same way sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20 are grouped under the term "rapid" pupils; and all sections below the tenth, i. e., 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 3, are grouped as "slow" pupils. The first fact of significance is that of the age at which the children entered school, shown by the following table:

This table indicates a significant advantage in favor of the rapid progress of those who enter school later than six years. The pupil who made the most rapid progress of all, twenty sections, is, singularly, the only one who entered as late as ten years. Of the "rapid" pupils, 52% were seven years of age or over at their entrance, while of the "normal" and "slow" pupils only 35% and 27%, respectively, were more than seven. These figures would at least sug gest that since pupils enter school at six years there is need of some readjustment of curricula. It may be, perhaps, that some of the work now required at six years of age of the primary pupils could be advantageously placed later in the school course, since the data would indicate that some of this primary work is more rapidly learned at a later period.

Another significant class of data is that dealing with the home environment of pupils, their nutritive conditions, and the elements of culture in the family life. In the following table, "wellto-do" means that the parents of these pupils are in a position to surround their children with the commoner comforts and some of the mod est social and educational luxuries of life, while "poor" indicates that children of such parents are probably denied any but the necessities of food and clothing. In this, as well as

in all of the following tables, data furnished is in answer to the question, Is such and such fact the striking or conspicuous one concerning the child? Thus there is no occasion to make fine distinctions. If it was dificult to decide whether the parent was "well-to-do" or "poor," or the child "nervous" or "phlegmatic," no entry whatever was made. These percentages, therefore, are based upon the striking and conspicuous cases. The number of pupils given at the head of each column shows how many form the basis of the computations.

Thus while among the rapid pupils only 4% are singularly irregular, among the slow ones 22% have made themselves conspicuous by their absences. In the case of pupils regular in at tendance, the percentages of all pupils, rapid, normal, and slow, show so slight a variation that the cause for the rates of progress must evidently be sought in other conditions.

The following table shows the various qualities of character of individual pupils estimated by the teacher. The form of the question in the circular letter was as follows: "Underline