The efficiency of the teacher, as shown in her daily schoolroom work, is the first consideration to be taken into account. The second element, her intellectual and professional growth, as shown by her outside study and interest in her profession, is subsidiary to her schoolroom efficiency. They are, however, so closely related to each other that it is proper to consider both in estimating the fairness of the demands of the teacher for promotion. If she cannot and will not meet these demands, there is no valid reason, considering the question from the standpoint of the interests of the children, for promoting her and paying her a better salary. Teachers should not be encouraged to get into our school systems and then let the clock work.

Scholarship and habits of study are factors that must be considered in estimating the efficiency of a teacher. No teacher who is not a student can long remain really efficient. If a teacher wishes to impart a piece of knowledge she must, as Fitch says, not only have appropriated it herself, but she must have gone beyond it and around it. She must see it in relation to other facts and truths. She must know from what it originated and to what it is intended to lead. She must have an ample margin in reserve for dealing with unexpected questions and unexpected difficulties. The teacher must study educational processes and educational philosophy and methods; her study cannot cease with her preparation for entering her profession, but must be life-long. She must not lose her sympathy with the learner-a sympathy that she can retain only by continuing to be a learner herself. It is only in this way that she can avoid the depressing effect of constant association with immature minds and ideas. It is true that many good students of books are poor teachers and something more is required of a teacher than ability to absorb book knowledge. Still, the chances are extremely large that one who is a student and who has learned to use her mind in a systematic way will be a better guide for other students than the mere empiric.

It is, however, very important to estimate the relative value of schoolroom efficiency and advance in scholarship and professional zeal in such a way that they may not counteract each other. The teacher should not become so interested in academic study that she will forget her main business, which is the work of the schoolroom. The teacher may use up too much energy in carrying on outside study to the detriment of health, as well as schoolroom work. We must, therefore, in presenting any scheme for promotion, be careful not to emphasize mere academic scholarship too much.

In making up an estimate of a teacher's fitness for promotion, schoolroom efficiency should count for more than her academic study. We must arrange to put a constant premium on keeping up the work of the schoolroom for which the teacher is employed. Experience has shown that this is no imaginary difficulty. At the same time, we ought to offer some inducement to keep the teacher from mistaking purely mechanical efficiency in handling a schoolroom, mere control of pedagogic devices, for real pedagogical power and

spiritual growth. An estimate based upon schoolroom work only tends to overemphasize this element in teaching efficiency.

The problems of estimating schoolroom efficiency, intellectual growth, and scholarly zeal present serious difficulites to the supervisor. In making the estimate of schoolroom efficiency, we must endeavor to provide a system of recording efficiency that will be fair to the teacher, fair to the children, and not a perfect nightmare to the principal or other administrative officers responsible for making it. Sometimes this estimate has been made in percentages by the principal, supervisor, and district superintendent. It is difficult to protect the schools under this arrangement on account of the inclination of supervising officers to escape trouble by boosting the marks. According to the Brooklyn Eagle a few years ago, the marks of over 90 per cent. of the teachers in Brooklyn were over 90 per cent. In Chicago, at the end of five years, in marking for promotion, it was found that 96 and a fraction per cent. of the teachers were marked so high as to entitle them to promotion. It is evident that these estimates had ceased to properly discriminate between the degrees of efficiency of the teachers. In 1906 the Board of Education passed a rule requiring principals to mark all teachers as either "efficient" or "inefficient," thinking that this simpler estimate would result in greater fairness to all concerned. Under this arrangement, after two trials, it appears that over 98 per cent. were marked efficient and entitled to promotion. We found ourselves back where we began, with a flat rate for everybody, or with the clock doing the work. The rule has been abandoned and some modification of the percentage marking will again be employed.

There have been many propositions for organizing supervisory boards to make this estimate of efficiency. It has been proposed to have a commission composed of educational experts who were not directly concerned in the supervision of schools who should visit the schoolrooms and pass upon the efficiency of the teachers. This would relieve the principal of responsibility, but the estimates of the work of teachers made under such conditions would be worth little. Such commissions could not appreciate the conditions under which the work was done, and no teacher, under such inspection, would be at her best. Then, too, it would separate the administrative work of the school into parts, would set up divergent standards, and reduce the principal to a mere clerk. In my opinion, the only person who can safely be intrusted with this estimate is the principal of the school, who is on the ground and knows the facts. Even he must be placed under restrictions, and it must always be possible to appeal from his decision. It must always be possible to protect the teacher against favoritism and inefficient supervision. The problem is difficult, and many of our superintendents will prefer to permit teachers to advance on length of service only, rather than attempt to estimate their schoolroom efficiency.

On the other hand, the problem of passing on academic advance or intellectual growth is not a simple one. You may use an examination. If you

do, you will quickly discover the limitations of such a test in estimating efficiency or growth. Every teacher recognizes that many things cannot be determined by an examination. Everyone recognizes that it is not an entirely satisfactory agent for selecting or promoting teachers. We may use them, however, as an auxiliary, and there seems to be no special reason why they are less effective in aiding in the work of selecting or promoting teachers than in selecting or promoting other public servants.

As Latham has pointed out, an examination will test one's accuracy, the fullness of one's memory, and one's power of concentration. We can see that knowledge has been got, and we know that brainwork has been done, to get it, in addition to indications of strength or feebleness of will, and we can find out pretty well from a set of papers whether a man knows his own mind or not. Then, too, it seems fair to assume that there is some relation between knowledge and power. We work consciously or unconsciously on the theory that the man who knows is the man who can do, and we believe that the only reason why people should know is that they may be able to do. It seems natural, then, when it is impossible to submit the applicant to a complete test of his power to do, to ask him to submit to a test of his knowledge.

It has often been urged that an examination will not determine so much the applicant's ability to do the thing desired as his ability to say how it should be done. Sometimes this can be learned from books, but the skillful examiner will usually be able to tell the difference between experience in doing the thing and knowledge about it. Then, too, it is fair to assume that the person who has the knowledge is interested in doing the thing that there is relation between knowledge and interest-knowledge of a particular kind of work and interest in doing it. The man who has the best sort of knowledge about some particular piece of work is, other things being equal, the most interested in it and the best prepared to do it.

Then, again, teaching calls for ability to state clearly what one knows. It is part of the equipment of a teacher to be able to talk, to explain, to interpret. The teacher who is dumb in the presence of a problem demanding solution, who lacks the power of expressing herself definitely and accurately must, in some degree, be unfitted for the work she is attempting to do. An examination will test this.

While providing for the moderate and rational use of the examination to determine efficiency, it will be advisable to encourage in its stead the taking of courses of instruction at colleges or other higher institutions of learning. Such systematic work done under the right conditions will do much to keep the teacher alive and interested in her work. Such work, however, must be carefully looked after; only good work must be recognized and even that must be carefully inspected if the school system is protected against fraud, as well as against the waste of the teacher's time and strength. Much of this outside. work should be done under the advice of the principal or district superintendent with a view to its direct bearing upon the work of the school. It is, however,

important that the work should not be so thoroly supervised by others that the teacher's interest or the teacher's hobby will be crowded out. If the teacher's hobby is carefully excluded, much of the joy of the work will disappear. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to have an equal and impartial interest in all subjects and the recognition of the teacher's hobby is a perfectly legitimate consideration.

It has often been proposed that teachers be permitted to advance from the minimum salary paid to the highest limit fixed by the Board of Education, without any let, hindrance, or interruption, except that they continue efficient enough to avoid dismissal. Fear of dismissal has been relied upon to keep them up to the mark. Such an arrangement it seems to me, however, absolutely ignores the real purpose for which the schools exist, and looks at the school system from the standpoint of a "job." Such an arrangement suggests making the necessary effort to get into the system and then letting the clock work. Such an arrangement does not keep in mind the absurdity of relying on fear of dismissal for keeping teachers up to the mark.

Everyone who has had experience in school administration realizes how extremely difficult it is to get rid of inefficient teachers in the public-school system, or inefficient public employees of any sort. The attempt to conduct our school system upon the basis of length of service, tempered by fear of dismissal, will produce the old fossil that we often find holding a good position in our cities. These fossils have sought the haven of a position in a city school system after being tossed about by the storms of village school politics. They settle down in some comfortable berth and make little effort toward increasing their efficiency. I think many of you know some of these sleepers; you have heard their snores, and have, perhaps, tried to waken them. You may have witnessed their surprise and indignation at the outrageous proposal that they wake up and go to work or get out. The suggestion that we can keep teachers of this sort up to the mark in our great cities by mere fear of dismissal is made by the persons who are not familiar with current history. When the old teacher who is a good fellow and is simply looking for a comfortable position, gets into one of our school systems, the chances of removal until death or physical disability are exceedingly small. We shall have to wait for death, and we shall probably feel, as Charles II. said about himself, that they are an unconscionably long time in dying.

A better thing to do than permitting advance, tempered by fear of dismissal, when teachers go to sleep, is to keep the younger men and women from going to sleep. Let us soon frame up our recommendations for increase in salaries and promotions in such a way as to encourage growth and work. Let us arrange in every way possible for the encouragement of work and growth on the part of the teacher.

Taking up again the question of schoolroom efficiency, it is vitally important for the supervisor to discriminate between mere skill in the use of schoolroom devices and real teaching power. It is easy for the supervisor of school

work to place too high a value on the skill in the use of these devices, and underestimate the teacher whose work is based on sound educational principles and who carries them out in a natural, systematic way. Our normal schools are, to some extent, to blame for this reliance on devices. On account of their short courses and limited opportunities, they have spent too much time in perfecting mere devices rather than in searching for fundamental principles. It is now proposed that our city normal schools finish their job; that they assist us in completing the preparation of the teachers by continuing it after entering the work of the schoolroom.

If this contention is right that the teachers must continue to be students, our great cities must make provisions for enabling teachers to continue their study after entering upon their life-work. If my contention is right it will in the future become as large a part of the work of the normal schools to carry forward the training of the teacher after her entrance into the service, as it was to take her from the high school and prepare her for entering the profession. The normal school, or some other educational agency, must assist her in advancing along the various lines of culture. The normal school, or some other agency, must assist her in gaining professional skill as well as breadth of scholarship and culture. We shall always find our teachers with interest in things of one sort or another that are sometimes not directly connected with their professional life. It may be music, it may be the mechanical arts, it may be literature, science, or mathematics. Whatever it is, it should be the work of the normal school and other auxiliary educational institutions to seize upon these interests and develop them, with a view to making the teacher a more efficient worker.

This attempt to state what may be legitimately expected of a professional teacher will seem exacting and exorbitant to some. It represents, in a general way, however, the ideals of earnest workers in the fields of education. It represents the views and ideals of teachers who believe that teaching is a profession and not a job. It describes the situation yet to be realized; one that is now being looked forward to by our best teachers. Our best teachers are thinking of the time when by one or two years' work beyond that given in the normal schools of the past they shall be entitled to a degree recognizing their attainment of professional standing.

While freely criticizing the schemes which have yet been presented for connecting advancement in salaries with greater efficiency among teachers, the great army of teachers are not anywhere objecting to higher standards, as well as higher salaries. The great army of teachers appreciate the fact that the schools are for the children, and that it is only by accident that any person happens to be called to serve the public in teaching. They realize that the primary function of the school is to protect the public against the dangers of an illiterate and ignorant citizenship; that by increasing the quality of the teaching done they increase the efficiency of these schools for the people, while at the same time they increase the remuneration, social and pecuniary, for the