could better illustrate the lateness of the emergence of an adequate educational theory than this long continued satisfaction with an inaccurate correlate to the word educator. It is only occasionally and in unimportant connections that the need of the correlative has been felt. In the two examples of the use of the word "educatee" supplied in the dictionary by Dr. Murray, one cannot help finding a somewhat contemptuous connotation. Like a triple rhyme, words ending in "ee" suggest a flippant context. There is in such words usually a lack of philological justification.

In drawing up a syllabus of lectures on education there must be frequent references to the passive partner in the process, and since education is not limited to the case of pupils or students there is an imperative need of a proper term. In searching for a better word to express what is meant, we find that we can appeal to the respectable authority of the Latin grammar, where we discover just the form we desire in that ending in -ndus. The educand would literally mean the person that ought to be educated, or that is suitable for, or worthy of, education. Objectionable as are neologisms, it may be permitted to recommend the use of a term that so accurately represents the idea intended to be conveyed, an idea for which we have at present no equivalent in English. Besides, the word, after all, is only a revival. It was never current, but it was used by some writers. Thus in William Petty's Advice, dated 1648, we find the words "that the educands be taught to observe and remember all sensible Objects and Actions." The word was used in a serious way, unlike educatee, so that it had its chance, like any other word, of establishing its place in the language. That it did not succeed in making good its claim to a permanent place can be explained only on the assumption that the study of education was not sufficiently developed to make the term essential. No one can write much at present on the subject of education without feeling hampered through the lack of a word to express exactly what is covered by Petty's term. To use the word pupil as a correlative to both teaching and educating is to beg a whole series of questions that it is the business of the lecturer or writer to answer.

It is true that there is danger of allowing a fallacy to creep into our writing through an insistence upon the correlation between the educator and the educand. While the educator plays the active part and the educand the passive in the process of education, as such, we must not let the passive form of the word educand blind us to the fact that in education the person to be educated must necessarily bestir himself. One of the most pestilent heresies in education is this very notion of the passivity of the educand. He is certainly the object upon which the educator acts: very frequently he is entirely in the power of the educator: under certain circumstances he can be none other than the educator determines. But it does not at all follow that he is, as a human being, passive. It is of the very essence of successful education that the educand should be kept in a state of activity. To save the educand from spending either time or trouble over his work is no part of the educator's plan-unless

indeed the time and trouble would be spent uneducationally. A great part of the educator's work is to stir up the necessary mental and physical activity on the part of the educand. So far as the educand is a living developing being he is active in the process of education, though in the regulation of the process he plays the passive part. In the educational process, as educational process, the educator is active, though he appears to be doing little. The cavalry drill sergeant who stands still in the middle of the riding-school, and uses only his tongue, is educationally active, while the recruits who career violently round the ring are educationally passive.

Even in the regulation of the educational process the educand may take a share, in so far as he enters upon what is known as self-education. The pupil who prepares with scrupulous exactness the work prescribed by his teacher is no doubt being educated; he is an educand and nothing more. But at a later stage he probably realizes the need of making himself better than he is, either in skill or in knowledge, to say nothing of morals. As soon as he seeks to make himself different from what he is at present, he takes himself in hand, and to that extent ceases to be an educand and becomes an educator. A good system of education is marked by just this transition step by step from educand to educator. At the earlier stages the educator does practically all the work as educator; but as the process advances the educand takes a hand, and by and by comes to such a mastery over himself that he is practically his own educator. This does not mean that at the higher stages there is no need of an educator, but that at those stages the teaching element is more prominent than the educational. It is not so much that the educand is educated by his teacher as that he educates himself by reaction upon his teacher. The professional teacher becomes a means by which the educand completes his own education. The whole process of education may be said to be one in which the educand becomes gradually transformed into his own educator. At the earliest stage the educand is literally educand and nothing more. By and by he begins to take a share in his own education and the educator element increases at the expense of the educand element, till at last the stage is reached at which the educand element practically disappears. Ambitious people seek to strengthen their position by making themselves indispensable. The true professional educator must seek for success by quite another route. Like the good doctor, the good educator proves his worth by making himself unnecessary. The true educator is never satisfied with his work on any given educand till his occupation, so far as that educand is concerned, is gone.

Since in the scientific study of education the term educand or some equivalent is necessary, we must seek to discover why the need for it has been so slightly felt. The explanation is full of encouragement for the teacher who does not shirk responsibility. It is to be found in the fact that knowledge after all is the chief educational organon. Few people will find much to object to in the widely accepted definition of education: "The science of human development so far as that development is deliberately modified by the impart

ing of knowledge." This definition embodies, though it can hardly be said to be founded upon, the principle that underlies Herbart's theory of moral education. If the basis of Herbart's theory could be expressed in one sentence, that sentence would run: "The will has its root in the circle of thought." Our activity depends upon our mental content. This is not a mere restatement of the old Socratic, "Virtue is knowledge." Herbart is not content with a mere knowledge of right and wrong. He claims that all knowledge has an educational significance. The whole circle of thought has an effect in determining the nature of the soul's volitions. The soul must be nurtured as well as trained. Herbart would have welcomed the old French equivalent for education, nourriture. The soul that is poorly supplied with ideas, even if the ideas are good, cannot rise to what Herbart would call virtue. This is what he means when he says "stupid people cannot be virtuous' '—a remarkable statement in the ears of the plain man who is inclined to believe that this is the one thing that stupid people can be. Herbart's word, stumpfsinnig, rendered stupid cannot fairly bé translated ignorant, though it implies ignorance. For your dull-sensed person finds it difficult to acquire knowledge and so must always remain ignorant in comparison with his more favored fellows.

The fact that we have been so long content to let the word pupil do the double work of pupil and educand is an unconscious, and therefore all the more reliable, proof that people in general agree with Herbart that in imparting knowledge we are modifying character. Though for technical analysis both terms are necessary, we have to admit that the pupil is necessarily an educand. This equivalence sweeps away for ever the justification for the attitude of that class of teachers-fortunately a very small class-who maintain that they are teachers only and decline to be held responsible for anything but the communication of knowledge or skill. The teacher is not a mere knowledge-monger, but, whether he will or no, a man-maker; the school is not a knowledge-store but a man-factory, a veritable officina hominum.

DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE

CHICAGO MEETING, 1907

SECRETARY'S MINUTES

FIRST DAY

MORNING SESSION-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1907

The meeting of the Department of Superintendence of the National Educational Association was called to order in Music Hall, Fine Arts Building, Chicago, Ill., at 9:30 A.M., by President W. W. Stetson, of Maine.

The invocation was offered by Rev. R. A. White, of Chicago.

Mayor Dunne, who was to have delivered one of the addresses of welcome, was unable to be present, and E. G. Cooley, superintendent of city schools of Chicago, on behalf of the city and the schools, welcomed the members of the department to the city.

A response to the address of welcome was made by Hon. Nathan C. Schaeffer, president of the National Educational Association.

President Stetson then introduced J. B. Aswell, state superintendent of public instruction, Baton Rouge, La., who read a paper on the topic, "Is the Child the Ward of the Nation?" The second topic, "What Should the Public Do for the Care and Training of Children before They Are Admitted to the Public Schools ?" was discussed by Miss Ada Van Stone Harris, assistant superintendent of schools, Rochester, N. Y.

The two papers were then discussed by Mrs. Ella F. Young, principal of the Chicago Normal School; Miss Amalie Hofer, Chicago Commons, Ill.; and S. Y. Gillan, Editor of The Western Teacher, Milwaukee, Wis.

The third address of the session was delivered by James H. Eckels, president of the Commercial National Bank, Chicago, Ill., on "The Financial Value of Education." The department adjourned until 2:30 P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION

The afternoon session of the department was called to order by President Stetson, at 2:30 o'clock.

The first paper was read by Lawton B. Evans, superintendent of schools, of Augusta, Ga., on the subject, "Should the School Attempt the Circle of the Child's Training, or Address Itself to the School Segment ?"

The second topic, “Admitting That Our Schools Are Defective, Who Is Responsible for the Present Conditions?" was discussed by Payson Smith, superintendent of schools of Auburn, Me.

The third topic of the afternoon, "Has the Product of Our Schools Reasonable Fitness in Scholarship and Personal Qualities for Citizenship?" was discussed by Samuel Hamilton, superintendent of schools for Allegheny County, Braddock, Pa.

A general discussion followed.

Mr. E. O. Vaile, of Oak Park, Ill., being recognized by the chair, made the following report:

It has been just ten years since this Department, at its Indianapolis meeting, first definitely committed itself to the support and use of a very brief step in simplified spelling. At that meeting a resolution was passed

directing the secretary of the Association, in printing the proceedings of the Department, to use such amended spellings regularly, until instructed otherwise by vote, as might be prescribed by a committee consisting of Dr. W. T. Harris, Superintendent F. Louis Soldan, and Superintendent T. M. Balliet. This committee designated the twelve words which by subsequent vote by the board of Directors have since been used in all the printed matter issued by the N. E. A. All will admit that the initial step has borne fruit. It gave standing and impetus to the spelling reform idea which were sorely needed. For the past ten years this Department has been the arena in which the contest for rational spelling has been waged. Echoes from the debates on the platform and on this floor have reached the outside world every year, and have served to convince it as nothing else has or could, that in this reform there is sound sense.

Eight years ago, I believe, in this very place, occurred the memorable debate as to whether or not the Department should petition the board of directors to appoint a board of 21 prominent public men to head the movement, with Dr. Wm. R. Harper as chairman—all of them being specifically named in the resolution with their consent-and to give it annually a considerable sum of money for promotion work. Many of you remember the excitement of that session. Its like has never occurred on any other occasion in the history of the department. Tho the proposition lacked seven votes, I believe, of carrying, the uniform courtesy and good humor which prevailed thruout, the cogent arguments which remained unanswered, and the fact that those 21 men had enough interest in and respect for spelling reform to allow themselves to be nominated in the proposed petition-this produced a strong impression in favor of the general cause and even in favor of the appropriation. Its practical effect was as intended, to fix in the mind of our educators, and as far as possible in the mind of the public, a definite process and policy by which this reform would be lifted from its estate of contempt and ridicule and could be pushed and kept within moderate lines, safe from radicals, and zealots. The plan of organized effort proposed and emphasized in that debate led directly to the establishment of the present Simplified Spelling Board, and eight of the proposed members nominated at that time have seats today on the present board.

The next salient move was at the Atlanta meeting where a decisive victory of nearly 3 to I was scored in favor of petitioning the directors to appoint the board and to appropriate money for its use. The matter was duly laid before the board of directors who according to the rule referred it to the Council of Education where dilatory if not unfair tactics in regard to it prevailed for two or three years. In the meantime, thru representations originating from the same source that had shaped the various propositions which year by year had been brought before this department, Mr. Andrew Carnegie decided to finance a trial of the "Board" plan of a simplified-spelling propaganda, and the present Simplified Spelling Board, on his invitation and promise to furnish funds, came into being a year ago, and has been at work since.

Ten years is a long time "to labor and to wait," to labor and to wait so strenuously. But the fruit is coming, slowly to be sure, but with certainty I believe. While I regret that the N. E. A. did not take what seems to me its logical and natural step as petitioned by the superintendents, it is of the greatest credit to the educators that it has done what it has, that it has fairly and fully faced this question, that it has focused public attention upon it, that by discussion it has clarified the spelling reform propositions, and by its own example and precept has shown how progress can be made. I believe the majority of you appreciate and commend the courage and the progressive spirit of the millionaire philanthropist who, by his timely and effective support of this reform, has added a unique epitaph on his monument for posterity to read.

Before submitting my resolutions it seems fitting that I should make a brief statement of the present situation as reported by the secretary of the Simplified Spelling Board:

More than 14,000 persons have signed the promise to use the simpler spellings recommended by the board, among them 4,000 educators-superintendents of schools, professors in colleges and universities, presidents of colleges and universities, etc.

Simplified spellings have been adopted or authorized in many school systems, normal schools, colleges, universities, and libraries, and recommended by state and local educational associations.

Not only have the philologists and linguistic scholars generally reaffirmed their urgent approval of simplified spelling, but a large number of scientists have done the same.

President Roosevelt has adopted simplified spelling in his personal and official correspondence, and in further testimony of his approval of the principle and the practice he has accepted membership in the Simplified Spelling Board. The principal circulars of the board have been reprinted by the government and circulated in government offices everywhere.

Altho no formal canvass has yet been undertaken abroad, inquiries come daily from Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, and from every country where English is spoken or taught. In England and Scotland especially there is great interest. Six eminent scholars in Great Britain and two in Canada are members of the American board and will assist in the plans for an international effort to promote the reform.

About 150 periodicals, many of national circulation, are now using simplified spellings, and more have agreed to join a general league of periodicals in an advanced step.

More than 2,000 business men, firms, and corporations are using the simpler spellings in their correspondence and advertisements.

I submit, Mr. President, that this is a pretty good record. It shows that every man and woman who believes in this movement may now lend a hand with safety and with assurance that his influence will count. Whether the time has come for an advance step we all leave, of course, for the Simplified Spelling Board to decide. But I desire to submit two resolutions, to be voted on separately, which for its own sake as well as for the sake of the cause, I hope the Department will adopt. These are the two resolutions:

Resolved: (1) That the Department of Superintendence, N. E. A., hereby expresses its gratification at the creation and the policy of the Simplified Spelling Board, and at President Roosevelt's active and conspicuous support of the simplified spelling movement.