est possible value to the pupil in after life." The supervision of these schools is being ably conducted by Louis Nusbaum of the Philadelphia Department of Superintendence.

Attracted by the work of the continuation classes and by the higher pay, the number of applications from women teachers for positions in the continuation schools has been three times the number required. The teachers have formed a "Continuation Teachers' Club," which has made a good record in promoting the interests of the new continuation schools, the officers being Elizabeth M. Gallagher, president; Wilhelmina Hummel, vice-president; Miss Cahill, secretary, and Miss Helen Sixmith, treasurer.

There are approximately 20,000 Philadelphia school children under sixteen who have passed the sixth grade, have come up to the required physical standard and are permitted to work forty-three hours a week, with eight hours in continuation schools. The cost of the schools is conservatively estimated at $200,000 a year.

In other sections of Pennsylvania the work of the new continuation schools, like that of Philadelphia, is adapted as nearly as possible to the children's needs, the total number of all the continuation schools in all the school districts of the state being over 400.

NON-PROMOTIONS

A recent editorial in the Journal entitled "Non-Promotions Doomed" should not be permitted to pass without critical consideration. The position taken is in line with a long series of protests that have been made during the past decade or two against school failures and of theories that have been advanced for the correction of the evil.

Such pronouncements have been inspired by worthy motives. As a general proposition it is evidently unfortunate to be obliged to require a pupil who has passed over a section of the school curriculum to go back to the beginning of that section and repeat the whole of it. The method involves a falling short of the ideal in school management.

The habit of failure is bad for any pupil, and a system of schools that involves the formation of that habit is in that respect defective. It requires no expertness in pedagogical psychology to understand that when a pupil begins to fail in his work there is something wrong, and measures should be taken, if possible, to overcome the difficulty. If the work is too difficult, it should be modified in order that the normal rate of progress through the subject may be maintained, or there should be a slower rate of progress through the whole.

In school systems that are sufficiently large it is sometimes possible to make a classification of pupils according to their ability that will permit those of less than average ability and alertness to advance only as fast as they are able to succeed in the work and thus to avoid the necessity of repetition, but the position usually taken by the advocates of universal promotion does not refer to such a liberal interpretation. It is upon the basis of the common understanding of promotions according to which a child either repeats the whole of the work of a grade or is promoted to the next grade. It is difficult to discuss without impatience a proposition that in this sense one hundred per cent. should be promoted.

In a land of democratic institutions there is a popular sound in the statement that every child should have the benefit of such treatment in the schools as will enable him to complete his elementary education, together

with his fellow pupils, in the prescribed course of eight school years. A narrow concentration of attention upon the interests of any particular child in question naturally calls forth responsive sympathy. But upon the basis of a broader view the theory will not stand the test of rational examination.

Human nature is not uniform in ability and possible attainment. In view of the wide variation among adults and children alike the per cent, of pupils who ordinarily fall so far short of the average that they cannot profitably or wisely continue with the larger groups in the schools is surprisingly small.

The most exasperating aspect of the criticism that is so frequently made in extreme form consists in the fact that it usually runs against the teacher and seems to imply that there is both a natural desire to keep pupils back and a tendency to neglect individual assistance. Since teachers are human, it would be unwise to deny the possibility of any ground for complaint in such directions but in the main the implication is short-sighted and unjust. A conscientious teacher may interpret the curriculum too strictly and may be inclined to hold to its requirements too rigidly, but this is a matter of routine in administration that should be corrected by those in higher authority. No teacher of normal comsense and temperament would wish to withhold promotion. The line of least resistance is in the other direction.

mon

On the question of the duty of the teacher toward individual members of her class there has been much loose thinking and much hasty assertion. The teacher of a class of forty or fifty children should have genuine interest in the personal welfare of each, but to hold her responsible for the equal advancement of all is an absurdity. The time and the energy that a teacher has to expend upon her pupils are both subject to limitations, and the proper problem is to secure the greatest total good within those limits. It is a serious question to what extent a teacher of the grades should be expected or even permitted to devote her attention to the special and unusual needs of individual pupils at the expense of the interests of the majority. As long as the limited budget renders it necessary to assign forty or more pupils to each teacher, teaching must be mainly class instruction and must be planned for the needs of the greater number.

If the course of study is made easy enough to meet the limits of those lowest in scholarship there may be an injustice to those of higher ability. On the other hand, if it is made difficult enough for the higher level it will inevitably leave some behind. The promotion of all pupils from grade to grade regardless of successful accomplishment of the work would result in the arbitrary advancement of many into subject matter beyond their depth without the necessary preparation, which would amount to an abandonment to hopelessness.

The fact should not be overlooked that the failure of a considerable number of those who are not promoted is due to irregularity of attendance on account of illness or for other reasons. In such cases the repetition of work is only partial and the schools have no responsibility for its necessity.

There is no absolute solution of the difficulty to the extent of one hundred per cent. The partial solution must consist in the special treatment of pupils who fail, and in most instances this means a differentiated plan of work to meet varying needs or capabilities. Let parents demand as loudly as they will, not that their children shall be arbitrarily advanced over ground that they have not been able to cover properly, but that they may be provided with that course of education that will enable them to make regular advancement. In most cases the complaint cannot be against teachers but rather against higher administrators and taxpayers.