dent, but needs to be carried right up to that point where the student has both subject-matter and psychology well in hand. This work needs to be the observation not of a hit or miss lesson, but series of observations of real school and class work, carried through not one grade only, but far enough to permit the student to see the connection. It should be work that is as nearly in harmony with actual schoolroom activity outside as possible. It does not matter whether this student teaches either five or fifty lessons, but it does matter that she does the teaching with the utmost consciousness of the problems of subject-matter in its adaptation to the child. To set aside one room where students may go to teach and another where they may observe will aid somewhat, but such a plan is no real solution of the problem. The art of teaching is not teachable by practice, until the student has sufficient knowledge of the principles of the art to make a direct application of those principles. This application will then reveal more things to be done than the student could get into her head through mere telling. Let it be remembered that the state would not permit the would-be doctor to cut off a man's arm, just for the sake of giving him practice. He must have studied long and diligently the location of nerve and blood vessel, the art of cutting, and he must have observed the most skillful surgeon do work of this sort, or of very similar kind. When will we get the same wisdom into this matter of training people who deal with mind and soul, as we have demanded from those who deal with the body? Briefly then, the relation of training school to student is just this, that it gives him an opportunity to observe the application of the principles of the organization of subject-matter as applied to developing mind. This is its first and greatest function. It also gives the student the opportunity to get the feel of the thing, by trying the managing and teaching act. It is to be remembered that the thing he undertakes is to be as nearly in harmony with the actual thing that he will meet outside as is possible. To give him only a handful of pupils for whom he becomes a mere tutor, does not solve the problem and does not give him the needed training as schools are now constituted. He must teach more than one line and in more than one grade in order that he may see the real problem. His work will never be ideal while he teaches in a

training school. Here he is only learning the problem. He will meet with entirely new things in the real school outside, but by this application of the principles he has learned and observed skilled teachers using, he will be better fitted to cope with the real situation in the school outside.

One purpose of the training school should be that of exhibiting the course of study. Localities will necessarily modify any course of study to some extent, but in general the course should be uniform for the state. It will then be the function of a training school to lay before the student teachers the essential elements of such a course. The normal may give expert evidence along the lines of making courses, but it can hardly be its function to make the course. If this be attempted, its graduates will find themselves still out of harmony with the community interests, for the mere ipse dixit of a normal school to a course is not going to establish such a course for the schools of the state, nor should it do so. It would seem that the training school of the future would have more distinct work along this line than any other lines thus far discussed. Its function is to make clear the limitations and possibilities of the existing course. To do this it will be necessary for the student teacher to see more and to attempt more than the practice in one subject in one grade. Every man who has closely supervised work in the public schools knows that the greatest need of grade teachers is that of seeing the work of the grade below and the grade above at least, and better still of the entire course. When a supervisor finds a teacher who knows what the children have passed and to what they are expected to attain, such a supervisor knows that he has found an excellent teacher, other things being equal. Number sixty-four in the factory may do all right at his little piece of work, for there is management somewhere along the line that assembles all of these little pieces and thus perfects the machine. With the teacher it is not the same as with number sixty-four; and it is to be sincerely hoped that the day will never come when schools and factories may be regarded as at all comparable in their operations.

Finally, the all important thing is the relation of the training school of the future to the child. No public school has any excuse for existence save to aid the child to harmonize his will and his

very being to that higher will and being which constitutes the essence of the other institutions of civilized society. In other words, the philosophy of the matter may be stated in these terms already used by some one; viz., the school exists to institutionalize the child. The school does not exist to take the place of the home, but to assist the child to become a more efficient member of this institution. The school does not exist to take the place of the church, the business or social institutions, but to assist the child to more adequately take his place in these institutions and thus aid himself and his fellows. That the school does assume the duties of some of these institutions, or all of them at times, cannot be denied; but every time it is compelled to do so, it cripples itself, because it does so at the expense of some more direct duty of its own. If the above statements be in any considerable measure correct, then it follows that the training school must in the fullest sense fulfill this mission to the child; first of all for the child's own sake, and then for the sake of the other child who will be more adequately trained, because this training school child has enabled some would-be teacher to realize the problems of teaching.

The child of the training school must not be used for experimentation, he must not be practiced upon for the sake of practicing. If we parallel the medical preparation again, we must realize that the state does not allow the patient to be carved just to show how carving may be done. If the medical student needs practice in carving, he must use dead bodies, not living. The expert or the student is allowed activity upon the patient only that the patient may be benefitted. It can hardly be conceived as possible that the state would allow patients to be taken off to little hospital rooms to be operated upon by the would-be doctor without his having first observed the process until there could be little uncertainty of the result, and not even then without the expert being at hand. In some training schools it frequently happens that children are sent off to little rooms to be practiced upon, without the expert at hand. In one case I have observed, the student teacher had in charge six boys and one girl whom she marshaled into a room remote from their schoolroom. Here she tried to learn the teaching act by stumbling through her work without any guidance save that her plan had been red-ink marked and she

was visited twice in fifteen recitations. On these visits the critic remained ten minutes each time. During the first week these boys littered the floor with paper wads and practiced all the smartness which sometimes makes a school training ground for states prison rather than life. What a woeful waste to student, to child, and to state! It would have been far more gain if this student had been asked to teach two lessons in the regular schoolroom under as nearly ordinary school conditions as possible and under the constant sympathetic guidance of the critic. The boys were settled by the possessor of the classroom, but he did no more than watch to see what the young woman learned about teaching. He found that so far as her attainment was concerned, it was time practically wasted and the state was cheated.

The child of a training school more than of any other school needs the constant and daily direction of the expert. His course must be so supervised that his work be fully equal to that of the child who is in the best of grade schools. He must not be compensated for the loss which frequently comes to him by giving him a little extra in the way of folk dancing, gymnasium training, manual training, extra supplementary reading material or some other bait. The state owes him the same straightforward life that is obtained in the well conducted public school. The critic needs to be at hand to rectify the egregious blunders that may be made by the student teacher. As fully as possible must the child feel that between himself and the critic teacher there exists that bond which contributes the real interplay of life, resulting in the definite molding of character. He must feel, in short, that he has a teacher and is not the lone chick of a dozen mothers. That all this is a great task goes without contradiction in any manner, but that it is possible is surely within the range of belief.

The training school of the future will see to it, then, first of all, that the right of the child to the best possible training is conserved. Under no other consideration has such a school any right to ask for any child to enter its precincts. This school of the future will illustrate in the best possible manner the application of the course which has been approved for the schools of the state. The training school will likewise become the center of the normal school in a more complete sense than ever before, and this will be

done not by making all of the departments subservient to the ideas and wishes of one person whom conditions have placed at the head of such a training school, nor by making this principal, the mere servant or clerk of the departments, to work out their decrees. To do this it will not be necessary to enter upon the manufacture of courses. That the knowledge gained through this work will be valuable for courses is beyond question, but the chief function of the training school along this line must always remain the exemplification of the successful use of an approved course. The departments will gather much material, but the principal of the training school of the future will exhibit to the student teacher the very best work in presentation of consecutive subject-matter and the most skillful work in adapting this subjectmatter to the child mind. When, through the observation and acquisition of subject-matter from the teacher's standpoint, the student has acquired principles to apply, then this school will enable him under the most helpful criticism to apply the principles. This application will render these principles more definite and more comprehensive to him. He will not be left to stumble about with a few children, in the hope that somehow, through the formality of meaningless lesson plans, or the mere act of stumbling, in presentation, he may acquire the art of the teaching act. He may be permitted to teach a few lessons or many lessons, but he will be led to see the necessity of always studying the matter of adjusting subject-matter to developing mind. He will be led to enthusiastically apply such principles as he possesses and to seek for more. He will be led to study the teaching act, and not be satisfied with the mere attaining of a passing mark through the teaching of one branch that he thinks he likes.