ive power in action is the true end of education, rather than the storing up of information or the cultivation of faculties which are mainly receptive, discriminating, or critical. We are no longer content in either school or college with imparting a variety of useful and ornamental information, or with cultivating aesthetic taste or critical faculty in literature or art. We are not content with simply increasing our pupils' capacity for intellectual or sentimental enjoyment. All these good things we seck, to be sure; but they are no longer our main ends. The main object of education, nowadays, is to give the pupil the power of himself doing an endless variety of things which, uneducated, he could not do. An education which does not produce in the pupil the power of applying theory or putting acquisitions into practice, and of personally using for productive ends his disciplined faculties, is an education which has missed its main end. One humble illustration of the influence of this principle is the wide adoption of reading foreign languages at sight as a suitable test of fitness for admission to colleges. Another similar illustration is the use of question papers in geometry containing a large proportion of problems which do not appear in explicit form in the ordinary manuals, but which can be answered or solved by making a simple application of the geometrical principles developed in those manuals. These are tests of acquired power. We think it reasonable to test a student of chemistry by giving him an unknown substance to analyze. Can he find out what it is and prove his discovery correct? In other words, can he apply his information and knowledge of methods to a problem which is to him wholly unknown? Has he acquired not only information, but power? The whole field of natural science is available for that kind of training in power getting which it is the main object of modern education to supply. It is not what the student of medicine has heard about, or seen others do, but what he can do himself with his own eyes and hands and with his own powers of comparing and judging, which will give him preeminence as a physician or surgeon. To give personal power in action under responsibility is the prime object of all medical education. This same principle, however, applies just as well in the primary school as in the professional school. Education should be power getting all the time from the beginning to the end of its course. Its fundamental purpose is to produce a mental and moral fiber which can carry weight, bear strain, and endure the hardest kinds of labor.

IV. The next educational principle which I believe to apply to two-thirds of the entire educational course between 5 and 25 years of age is the principle of the selection or election of studies. In the first three or four years of a child's education— say from 5 or 6 years of age to 9 years-there are not so many possible subjects of equal value and necessity but that the child may pursue them all to some adequate extent; but by the ninth or tenth year of age more subjects will claim the child's attention than he will have time for, thereupon arises the necessity for a selection of studies. As the child advances from the elementary school to the secondary school, and from the secondary school to the college, the number and variety of subjects from which to choose will rapidly increase, until in the department of arts and sciences of the university he will find that he can not attempt to follow the twentieth part of the instruction offered him. Table I and II, in the report of the committee of ten, demonstrate abundantly the absolute necessity for selection or election of studies in secondary schools, and even in the later years of the elementary course. Who shall make the selection, is really the only practical question. The moment we adopt the maxim that no subject shall be attacked at all, unless it is to be pursued far enough to get from it the training it is fit to supply, we make the election or selection of studies a necessity. This principle has now been adopted by all colleges and universities worthy of the name, and by the greater part of the leading high schools, academies, endowed schools, and private schools; but in these secondary institutions, the principle is commonly applied rather to groups of subjects than to single subjects. The result is an imperfect application of the elective

principle, but it is much better than any single uniform prescribed course. Finally, this principle has within a few years penetrated the grades, or the grammar schools, and has earned its way to a frank recognition at that stage of education.

It is no objection to the principle, and it establishes no significant distinction between college experience and school experience, that there must obviously be limitations of diversity in studies during school life. School programmes should always contain fair representations of the four main divisions of knowledge-language, history, natural science, and mathematics-but this does not mean that every child up to 14 must study the same things in the same proportions and to the same extent. On the contrary, representation of the different kinds of knowledge and mental action having been secured, the utmost possible provision should be made for the different tastes, capacities, and rates of progress of different children. Moreover, a main object in securing this representation of language, history, science, and mathematics in the carlier years of education is to give the teacher opportunity to discover each pupil's capacities and powers. There is, however, no ground of distinction between school teaching and university teaching in respect to these special limitations; for if we turn to the very last stage of education-professional training-we find there a serious limitation on the principle of election, a limitation imposed by the necessity of giving all young lawyers, physicians, ministers, teachers, engineers, biologists, or chemists the considerable quantity of strictly professional information and practice which every future member of these several professions absolutely needs. Again, for the same reason, scientific or technological schools must for the present use a group system rather than a free election of studies. They must adjust their present instruction to current professional needs. The freest field for the principle of selection or election of studies lies between the ages of 13 and 23, including five or six years of school life and all of college life. School men and college men alike should rejoice in this free field.

V. The next rule of educational reform, which applies at every stage of the long course of education that civilized society provides, relates to what is called discipline. Down to times quite within my memory the method of discipline both in school and college was extremely simple, for it relied chiefly, first, on a highly stimulated emulation, and secondly, on the fear of penalty. It had not been clearly perceived that an immediate, incessant, and intense emulation does not tend to develop independent strength of will and character, good in either solitude or society, and that fear of penalty should be the last resort in education. It is now an accepted doctrine that the discipline of childhood should not be so different from that of adolescence as to cause at any point of the way a full stop and a fresh start. A method of discipline which must be inevitably abandoned as the child grows up was not the most expedient method at the earlier age; for the reason that in education the development and training of motives should be consecutive and progressive, not broken and disjointed. Herein lies one of the objections to whipping, or other violence to the body, and to all methods which rely on the fear of pain or of artificial penalties or deprivations. There comes an age when these methods are no longer applicable. At 18 there are no methods of discipline analogous to whipping, or to the deprivation of butter, sweetmeats, supper or recreation, or to the imposition of verses to learn, or of pages of Latin or English to copy. If this sort of motive has been relied on up to 18, there will then be need of a whole new set of motives. For these reasons among others the judicious teacher, like the judicious parent, will not rely in childhood, if he can help it, on a set of motives which he knows must inevitably cease to operate long before the period of education is ended. By preference, permanent motives should be relied on from beginning to end of education, and this for the simple reason that the formation of habits is a great part of education, and in that formation of habits is inextricably involved the play of those recurrent emotions, sentiments, and passions which lead to habitual volitions. Among the permanent motives which act all through life are prudence, caution, emulation, love of

approbation, and particularly the approbation of persons respected or beloved, shame, pride, self-respect, pleasure in discovery, activity, or achievement, delight in beauty, strength, grace, and grandeur, and the love of power and of possessions as giving power. Any of these motives may be overdeveloped; but in moderation they are all good, and they are available from infancy to old age.

From the primary school through the university the same motives should always be in play for the determination of the regulation of conduct. Naturally they will grow stronger and stronger as the whole nature of the child expands and his habits become more and more firmly fixed; and for this reason these same enduring motives should be continuously relied on. Obviously, then, there is no difference between men who manage colleges and men who manage schools in relation to this important principle of educational reform. The methods of both should be identical; and the college man or the school man who does not guide and govern through the reason of his pupils, through their natural interest in observation, experiment, comparison, and argument, and through the permanent motives which lead to right conduct, is not in sympathy with one of the most humane and hopeful educational reforms of the present generation. All teachers who deserve the name now recog nize that self-control is the ultimate moral object of training in youth—a self-control independent of temporary artificial restraints, exclusions, or pressures, as also of the physical presence of a dominating person. To cultivate in the young this self-control should be the steady object of parents and teachers all the way from babyhood to full maturity.

VI. The next principle of educational construction to which I invite your attention is again one which applies throughout the length and breadth of education. It is the specialization of teaching. One might easily imagine that this principle had already been sufficiently applied in universities, and only needed to be applied hereafter in schools, but the fact is that the specialization of instruction is still going on in universities, and needs a much greater extension in American colleges and professional schools than it has yet received. Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes was professor of anatomy and physiology in Harvard University down to 1871, and he really taught, in addition to these two immense subjects, portions of histology and pathology. He described himself as occupying not a chair, but a settee. The professorship in Harvard University which was successively occupied by George Ticknor, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and James Russell Lowell, is the Smith professorship of the French and Spanish languages and literatures. In many American colleges we find to-day the same professor teaching logic, metaphysics, ethics, and political economy. Indeed, this was the case in Harvard College down to 1871, except that moral philosophy and Christian ethics were detached from the Alford professorship from and after 1860. The specialization of instruction is by no means completed in American colleges. It is better advanced now in American secondary schools than it was in the American colleges eighty years ago, and it is just beginning to be developed in the American grammar schools, or grades, where it is generally spoken of as departmental organization. From the extension of this principle in American schools much is to be hoped within the next ten years, particularly for the teacher. To teach one subject to pupils at different stages, adapting the instruction to their different ages and capacities, watching their development, and leading them on with due regard to individual differences through four or five years of continuous progress, gives an inexhaustible interest to the teacher's function. To master one subject so as to be able to give both elementary and advanced instruction in it, is for the teacher himself a deep source of intellectual enthusiasm and growth. Real scholarship becomes possible for him, and also a progressive intellectual expansion through life; for only progressive scholars can maintain for many years the mastery of even a single subject. Does it seem to you an unreasonable expectation that teachers in the grades, or grammar schools, should possess the mastery of single subjects? Careful observation seems to me to give assurance that exceptional

teachers, both men and women, already possess this mastery, and that what remains to be done is to make the exceptions the rule. Toward effecting this great improvement two important measures are the elevation of normal schools and the creation or strengthening of educational departments in colleges and universities. At any rate, there can be no doubt that this specialization of instruction is a common need from beginning to end of any national system of instruction, and that is capable of adding indefinitely to the dignity, pleasure, and serviceableness of the teacher's life. Obviously this common need and aspiration should unite rather than divide the various grades of education, and should induce cooperation rather than cause dissension.

VII. There is a fundamental policy in regard to educational organization which should unite in its support all teachers, whether in schools or universities-the policy, namely, that administrative officers in educational organizations should be experts, and not amateurs or emigrants from other professions, and that teachers should have large advisory functions in the administration of both schools and universities. The American colleges and universities are better organized in this respect than the American schools. More and more, the heads of the institutions of higher education are men of experience in education itself or in other administrative services. The presidencies of colleges are no longer filled, as a rule, by withdrawing from the ministry men well advanced in life and without experience in teaching. The deans of the rather distinct schools which compose universities are usually men of experience in their several departments; and much power is exercised by the faculties of colleges and universities, these faculties being always bodies composed of the more permanent teachers. Moreover, in large colleges and universities all the teachers of a given subject are often organized into a body called a division or department, with a chairman chosen from among them as a judicious man and a distinguished teacher. These or similar dispositions need to be adopted throughout the large urban school systems. Superintendents should be educational experts of proved capacity. Their assistants, whether called supervisors, inspectors, or assistant superintendents, should be organized as a council or faculty, and all the teachers of a single system should be associated together in such a way that by their representatives they can bring their opinions to bear on the superintendent and his council, or in the last resort on the committee or board which has the supreme control of the system. The teachers of the same subject should also be organized for purposes of mutual consultation and support, and at their head should be placed the best teacher of the subject in the whole system, that his influence may be felt throughout the system in the teaching of that subject. Moreover, the colleges and the schools need to be assimilated in respect to the tenure of office of teachers. After suitable probationary periods, the tenure of office for every teacher should be during good behavior and efficiency.

In general, the differences of organization between colleges on the one hand and school systems on the other are steadily growing slighter. The endowed schools and academies already have an organization which closely resembles that of the colleges, and ail the recent changes in the mode of conducting urban school systems tend in the good direction I have described. There is in some quarters a disposition to dwell upon the size of public school systems as compared with the size of colleges and universities; but size is no measure of complexity. A university is indefinitely more complex than the largest city school system, and the technical methods of university management are more various and intricate than the technical methods of any school system. Independently of all questions of size or mass, however, administrative reform is taking the same directions in both colleges and schools-first, toward expert control under constitutional limitations; secondly, toward stable tenures of office; and thirdly, toward larger official influence for teachers.

Recalling, now, the main heads which have been treated, namely, the individualization of instruction, the six essential constituents of education, power in action as

the true end of education, the selection or election of studies, the appeal to permanent instead of temporary motives for controlling conduct, the specialization of teaching, and the right principles of educational organization, do we not see that the principles and methods of educational reform and construction have a common interest for all teachers, whether connected with colleges, secondary schools, or elementary schools, and shall we not agree that there is something unphilosophical in the attempt to prejudice teachers of whatever grade against the recommendations of the committee of ten and of the conferences that committee organized, on the grounds that a small majority of the persons concerned in making them were connected with colleges, and that the opinion of college or university officers about school matters are of little value?

The plain fact is that there is community of interests and aims among teachers throughout all the grades into which the course of education is at present artifically divided. The identity of the principles which govern reforms and improvements at every stage is strikingly illustrated by the simultaneousness and similarity of the advances now being everywhere made. Elementary schools, secondary schools, and colleges all feel similar impulses, and are all making similar modifications of their former methods. I can testify from personal observation that some of the administrative improvements lately made in universities resemble strikingly improvements made at the other extremity-namely, in the kindergartens. It is very noticeable that even some of the mechanical or business changes made in school administration-changes which were not supposed to have any bearing on the philosophy of education, or on new methods of teaching-have facilitated true educational reform. Thus, the method of transporting children at public expense to central grammar schools in a rural town, or to high schools in large towns and cities, has distinctly facilitated the introduction of departmental and elective instruction. Again, the purchase and free issue of books for pupils by towns and cities has facilitated the use of good literature instead of readers—an important contribution toward improving the teaching of the native language and literature by increasing interest in them and love for them. In like manner, the institution of departmental libraries-that is, of small working collections of books on the same general subject, deposited in a place by themselves, and always accessible to students of that subject-has made possible great improvements in the instruction of Harvard College and many other colleges.

The committee of ten declare in their report “that it is impossible to make a satisfactory secondary school programme, limited to a period of four years, and founded on the present elementary school subjects and methods." In view of the rapid changes now going on in elementary school subjects and methods, this declaration amounts to saying that the committee's work on the four secondary school programmes they recommend has only a temporary interest. Tables I, II, and III of their report have some permanent value; but Table IV, which contains the four programmes called classical, Latin-scientific, modern languages, and English, and which cost the committee a great deal of labor, will surely be rendered useless by improvements in the elementary and secondary schools which may easily be accomplished within ten years. Some firm, lasting principles are embodied in Table IV, but the programmes themselves are only temporary trestlework.

If I were asked to mention the best part of the contribution which the committee of ten have made to the progress of American education, I should say that their general method of work was the best part-the method of investigation and discussion by subject of instruction teachers and experts from all sorts of colleges and universities and from all sorts of schools, public, private, and endowed, taking part in both investigation and discussion. The committee's method of work emphasizes the community of interest at all grades, and the fact that experience at every grade is valuable for suggestion and counsel at all other grades. To my thinking, the present artificial and arbitrary distinctions between elementary schools and secondary