of those habits that make for good citizenship. Socially, the child cannot, at first, be a complete democrat, for democracy always means greater insight than the young child possesses. But the school can always be making for intelligent democracy. Some of its laws must be accepted on authority, yet it affords abundant opportunity for bringing out the thought that certain laws and regulations are necessary merely to insure the possibility of social living. It can make the fitness of these regulations apparent to childhood. There are countless opportunities in the schoolroom for the exercise of the spirit of coöperation, and the care of the school (as public) property brings the child at once in vital contact with his own civil responsibilities. These are but a few of the fields open to the teacher, in which his pupils may be led to the cultivation of habits that make for good citizenship. Indeed, every opportunity for the child to act that touches his own social, civic, or national relations, may be utilized to this end. It is at this point that school celebrations receive their greatest significance. The question may fairly be raised, however, in how far mimic civil institutions, that in nowise touch the vital relations either of the child himself or of his parents or comrades to real society, can really be regarded as of value in the training for citizenship.

REMARKS.

PROFESSOR JENKS.-I should like to make a suggestion in addition to one of the minor points of the paper. The objection is made that it is hardly possible to have the fullest training for citizenship, because our people are not tolerant in the discussion of vital political questions. This difficulty exists because the teachers themselves do not have the impartial habit. We cannot overcome the difficulty until the teachers themselves can discuss political questions impartially; but there are two methods for the teacher: First, to be generous, so that the pupil feels that the teacher will entertain opinions different from his own. Second, questions may be taken up along lines slightly different from the issues of the day. If the teacher cannot discuss the currency and tariff without offense, let him take some other questions.

This lack of impartiality, too, has become more general from the fact that many of our college professors have erred in discussing these questions from partisan standpoints. So far as my own knowledge of

the last campaign goes, some of the most partisan discussions came from the professors of political economy in our most prominent institutions.

Still further, when we speak of the impartial habit we must remember that habit is a matter of very slow growth, though impartiality is partly a matter also of temperament.

(After questions by DR. VAN LIEw.)

The teacher of the lower grades is best fitted to answer these questions. So far as I myself dare express a judgment, it would be to this effect: Teachers should be extremely careful to present these subjects in their proper order. For example, there would be no use in discussing in the lower grades the "Nature of the Social Mind." But, if a child is living in a dark, filthy alley, it is possible for the teacher to put into his mind the idea that the alley need not have the wretched litter of the gutter. Even the schoolroom itself is a place free from banana and orange peel and all such litter. The smallest child can be made to understand the difference between that place and his home, and to wish to improve his home.

Light can be given to little children also on some of these questions that puzzle even college students. My little boy seven years old asked me a question about taxation the other day which convinced me that he could understand the nature of taxation.

It is true, of course, that we should beware of saying too much that would reflect on the opinions of the boy's parents. There is enough material, however, that would not do harm in this way.

As to the opinion of parents that their children should be partisan in opinion in order that they may be active and do something, I believe there is merit in the suggestion. A friend lately said of one of my colleagues: "There is one thing I like about this professor; whatever he undertakes he puts his heart into. It is better for him to do this even if he does make mistakes sometimes." We ought not to have too much of the indecisive, Hamlet frame of mind.

DR. FRANK MCMURRY.— I am interested to know what is the chief lack. The paper has suggested two points, and as I see it there are mainly two points before us. It is stated by the leader that some of our professors of political science are dogmatic. How shall we overcome the dogmatic tendency? How shall we send forth boys anxious to know more? If the right habit of mind is derived primarily from

method of teaching, then we want to look to that first of all. The author of the paper shows that text-books are dangerous. He says,

"Do not tell the child what the conclusion should be." I left the

high school wholly unfitted to reason. Shall reason be made especially prominent? My question is whether Professor Jenks thinks that method is the first remedy, and whether text-books can be followed without failing to cultivate the pupil's judgment.

PROFESSOR JENKS.-The chief influence upon the pupils is the personality of the teacher. We teachers should first get ourselves into the right mental attitude. Aside from the fact that the spirit of the teacher generally determines results, I should say that the method of teaching is important. If we rely upon the text-book, the textbook becomes dangerous. From my own experience I should say that the simplest, easiest, and most direct way is to put into the hands of the pupils a text-book or some other outline of the subject to be considered. But this text or outline is not to be of chief importance in the class. Again, I am strongly opposed to the lecture system in the class except with the most advanced students, who have formed the habit of making judgments for themselves. Text-books are dangerous, but are exceedingly convenient, if wisely used.

PROFESSOR GALBREATH.- Referring to the training of the teacher and a point which preceded it, I want to say one or two words. The fundamental lack is the training of teachers. I do not agree that the question is fundamentally one of method or of mental habit. Those questions are essential and important, but not fundamental. A man can be trained to be very unbiased in judgment in some fields, but remain very thoroughly biased in certain other fields. When so trained in one field that we can reserve judgment, it may help us in another. History should be so taught as to reveal the civic idea, and to cultivate the inductive spirit. To secure the proper elements of training, let us return now to the training of the teacher. In the first instance, the teacher does not have the training in history or geography that reveals the life of the citizen. The matters studied in connection with our government are at Washington or the state capital, or the subject may be given in general. My thought is this, that in the normal schools we need a sociology pure and simple that would reveal to the teacher a system of ideas which we denominate sociology, which will

help her to the civic elements in the community to which the child is related. She is not to teach political economy, she is to teach literature, geography, and history to the children. She must be able to set forth the civic idea in these subjects.

SUPERINTENDENT SLAUSON.-Something has been said about bringing these subjects down into the secondary or elementary schools. So far as I know, the gentlemen have not agreed upon anything that can be brought down. So long as probably 90 per cent. of the teachers have no connection with the civic matters, what shall we do to move them to gain this knowledge, to study how to present it, to make use of it?

SUPERINTENDENT BRIGHT.-I rise to raise a question. I read the topic, "Training for Citizenship." That means something more than civics. The children that have been in school for a year have come. into contact with two institutions, the family and the school. Perhaps the school introduces the child to the first consciousness of the institution. His training in the family is about as various as the number of families. Has not the training for citizenship about as much to do with the relation of parent to child as with any other relation?

Now I raise the question, if the child assumes the proper relations to the children in his home, to the people with whom he associates in school, is there much danger about the relations he is going to assume in the world at large? It seems to me that if the child is fair, if he is taught in school that he must act with fairness, he will, as a man or a woman, be fair to his fellows and to other citizens in the place where he resides. These children are to be young republicans. They come for their training into an institution that, in about nine cases out of ten, is run on the principles of an absolute monarchy. If they recognize the school as a republican form of government, should they not be allowed to understand why things are thus and so? This is republicanism. It seems to me that it is proper training for American citi

zens.

PROFESSOR JENKS.-It has certainly been my intention to convey the idea that has been suggested by Superintendent Bright. No person can be a good citizen unless he is good as a member of his family, unless he is a good neighbor. Children should have the right ideas about family

and school; and then they can be taught that the school is connected. with public affairs. Their relations of "Charity towards each other" should be extended to "Charity to all."

A word for the questions of Superintendent Slauson. It did not seem wise to try to lay down in the paper a specific course for the lower grades. If these ideas regarding the nature of citizenship are agreed upon, then the superintendents are far better prepared to formulate the details of such a course than I am.

It may be that there are many teachers who have not had special training along these lines who have, nevertheless, a great interest in these subjects. An attempt is to be made to have the teaching of citizenship systematically tested in several places so as to gain experience along this line.

As to the statement that 90 per cent. of the teachers have no connection with civic affairs, I suppose that means no right to vote. The essential thing regarding the suffrage is that the voter shall have an independent personality, and women have that as much as do men. I would like to see women vote. As our ideas of the progress of civilization and of human nature are changing, we shall all come to believe that women should vote. But even it they do not vote, they have civic relations and civic duties. Why, teachers who draw salaries have a very vital legal connection with public affairs; they are paid by the public. If they have right conceptions regarding their civic duties, they will be glad to train good citizens. If they have the proper superintendent, they will be glad to interest themselves in this kind of knowledge. The superintendents can see to it that the teachers get the spirit very promptly.

MR. BELL: Do you say that we take pride in our prejudices? MR. JENKS: Yes. MR. BELL: I do not believe it. MR. JENKS: I suppose that Mr. Bell is as likely to be right as I am, although I cannot agree with him. At least, he has as good a right to his own opinion as I have to mine.

Mr. Galbreath thought that impartiality was dependent upon knowledge that if a person knew one subject well, he would be impartial on that subject but bigoted on others. He believes that thorough knowledge is necessary to impartiality. I think that this mental habit of impartiality must be a conscious habit. If I find a person