Every bit of historical fiction should be used, with plentiful credit given and plenty of time for reports.

The objection may be made that there is no time for such reports. Five minutes here, ten there, two or three might discuss the same book together. When one really hunts for time or anything, it is usually found. Another objection is made that historical fiction is not always accurate and sacrifices the great problems to the interest of the story. A history teacher dealing with a Sophomore mind does not use the same methods used by a college professor. That is the key to the whole situation. It is but recently that we are able to get text books suitable for High School work. Such texts need not be short or too simple but they should be adapted to arouse the interest of a young mind—a mind that has no background of collateral knowledge but is getting that background for later and deeper and more extended knowledge.

A High School teacher remarked that she could not teach Freshmen, that her best work was done with the Juniors and Seniors. This is an admission of incompetency. Any ordinary teacher can teach well prepared Juniors and Seniors; but to inspire, to interest, to expand the minds of Freshmen and Sophomores is the work of no ordinary teacher. Were the best teachers and the highest paid teachers put in the first and second year class rooms there would be a great change in High School efficiency and output, while the per cent of loss between the Freshmen and Senior classes would be greatly diminished.

The great aim of Ancient History teaching should be the inspiring of vivid mental conceptions of the Ancient peoples and life. This is not done by mere recitation or mere lecture work. It demands accuracy and facts, otherwise we have only confused ideas; but it demands something more. The ordinary teacher may secure the first but only the unusual and enthusiastic teacher can secure the second. If it is secured the student of Ancient History has gained a real boon, an insight into life and a real joy in the reading of all history and biography. Is not this a priceless possession even to old age?

Experimental Test of Educational Values.

I

PROF. H. C. NUTTING, DEPARTMENT OF LATIN,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

T is quite in accord with the spirit of the times that
in education, as in other fields, the "traditions and
assumptions" of previous years should be subjected
to investigation and test. But it is matter for re-
gret that, at the present time, much of the work un-
dertaken along these lines is incidental and super-
ficial; for, being unscientific in spirit and method,
it is far more likely to do harm than good.

How difficult a matter it is to test educational values, and how easy it is to fall into error regarding them, is abundantly illustrated by the history of the discussion of the question of the transfer of the general powers. The first group experiments failed to detect transfer; and though it flatly contravenes the facts of everyday experience, the doctrine of no-transfer was eagerly taken up and ruthlessly applied. Now subsequent group experiments are showing very different results; and there is scarcely a scholar who is fully abreast of the discussion who does not admit-albeit unwillingly that the announcement of the no-transfer doctrine was quite premature, and that, to say the least, conclusive evidence in its support is wanting.1

Such a record as this should serve as a warning against hasty acceptance of the supposed results of any laboratory test of educational values, and still more against the premature modification of a course of study in accordance with those findings. Time should be allowed for verification, and the correction lines that may be drawn from the facts of everyday experience should not be disdained. And if these precautions are necessary in regard to the work of the best equipped investigators, still more are they necessary in regard to the work of writers who seem to assume that

1 From the point of view of the psychologist, the present status of this question is summed up in an interesting way by Professor L. W. Cole, in "Latin and Greek in Education," University of Colorado Bulletin, Vol. XIV, No. 9. p. 14 ff.

scientific demonstration of a thesis requires nothing more than the collection of a few selected items that seem to support it.

A case in point is the recent article on Theory and Verification, by Professor Joseph Kennedy.' The main theis of the paper is that a subject should not be retained in the high school curriculum because tradition recommends it, but that each subject should be tested to determine whether it "functions" or not. To illustrate the process, Latin is singled out for examination.

In the background of the paper lie two unverified assumptions. In the first place, it is held that only those subjects "function" which impart to the student the permanent ability to do further work in the same department; for, it is said, they are otherwise like ornaments tacked upon a Christmas tree they have no organic union with the tree, and fall away after a time, representing a sheer loss.

On this basis it would follow that the great majority of people who study a subject like algebra are simply wasting their time; for, in the years that follow, they have no occasion to work out algebraic problems, and gradually forget the formulae and operations once learned in school. But is this the final word about the matter? Is it not true rather that in mastering the principles of algebra and in the solution of its original problems there is a training that results in effects more valuable than the mere ability to carry the subject of algebra further?

The facts of everyday observation seem to substantiate this view; and until its falsity is established, it is certainly unwise to attempt to reform the school curriculum on the basis of some a priori theory. Adroitly as he tries to shift it, the burden of proof lies entirely with the theorist. His task will not be a light one; and it chances that the very simile which Professor Kennedy chooses to illustrate what he means by functioning makes for the traditional view, rather than against it:

becomes a part of

If the subject matter of any course one's self and is thoroughly assimilated; so that, like the food we eat, it becomes the very life-blood of our minds, it is then vital and efficient and will issue in expression or in conduct. of some kind.

1School and Society, IV, No. 86, (August 19, 1916), p. 279 ff.

We do not eat (let us hope) primarily that we may learn to eat the more; but, rathher, that the food, changed in its character through chemical action, may be absorbed into the blood and thereby be carried to every part, nourishing mind and body. Where could there be found a more apt analogy for the "unpractical" type of education that concerns itself not whether the student remembers every concrete detail ever learned, but aims rather to develop the general powers of will and imagination and inventiveness that are essential to successful, well rounded living?

In the second place, the paper under discussion takes for granted the assumption that a study cannot be expected to "function" unless it be one to which the student "takes" naturally. This seems to be another way of saying that a child should not be required to pursue any study against which he rebels. The adoption of such a program would be hailed with delight, no doubt, by boys and girls. But what of its merits?

Suppose two tables to be set forth, one with an array of nutritious dishes in which food values are nicely balanced, the other with a tempting collation of pies, doughnuts, and the like. If some boys are called in and invited to partake, which table would be the bone of contention? If a boy is not a good judge as to what he should eat, is it likely that (on the average) his untutored impulses will prove a better guide to the course of study that would profit him most?

With those who think so the burden of proof again rests. Until their theory is proved, we shall do well to take no chances with it. Given two courses of study, one of which allows a boy to move about freely and to have something wherewith to busy his hands, while the other requires that he sit down quietly, concentrate, and do some hard thinking, there can be no doubt which of the courses most boys would prefer; but it is by no means clear that the choice in every case would be a wise one.

With these unsubstantiated assumptions in the background, Professor Kennedy proceeds to describe the results of a test which he devised to determine whether Latin "functions" or not. For this purpose he used a single test sentence which he submitted, at different times and places, to some thirty individuals who had

studied Latin for one or more years. The sentence reads as fol

lows:

Studium discendi voluntate quae cogi non potest constat.

The degree of proficiency looked for as evidence that Latin "functions" is made clear in his commentary on this test sentence: Would any English speaking person, whether schooled or not, be puzzled about any such sentence in English? Would he not get the thought and the feel of the sentence at once. Would not his mind, which had made English its own to a reasonable extent, function at once?

As a gauge of the educational value of Latin, this test is defective at almost every point. In the first place, it ignores the fundamental difference between acquiring a knowledge of an ancient language from written documents and the absorption of a modern language like English through its use in daily intercourse. As now taught, neither two nor four nor six years of Latin will develop a facility equal to that with which a student uses his native tongue. In fact few teachers aim at such facility, the chief values of the study of Latin being found in other directions.

In the second place, a highly inflected language with no fixed word order presents a wholly different problem from that of a comparatively uninflected language like English, which secures precision by the position of words in the sentence. Professor Kennedy-though ignoring this distinction, yet provides a good incidental illustration of it. For he states that, on submitting his test sentence to a teacher of Latin, a discussion arose as to the construction of the genitive discendi, the question being whether it modifies studium or voluntate. In a corresponding English sentence the order of words would absolutely preclude any such ambiguity.

On account of the genius of the language, the interpretation of a given Latin sentence often calls for a very delicate balancing of probabilities. The words may all be familiar, and no unusual construction may be involved; but the question is: Which of the possible meanings and which of the possible constructions is the one intended by the writer? After centuries of study, classical texts still bristle with passages about the meaning of which scholars are by no means in agreement.