"A professor of. language and literature, I doubt if the language part of my work functions in the sense you mean, except as exactness and accuracy are not unrelated to truth in its broadest sense."

"In reference to literature, the case is entirely different. Literature reflects Life. Not a day passes that there is not some emphasis on such virtues as Patriotism, Devotion to Duty, Bravery, Integrity, Steadfastness, Justice, Thrift, Temperance, Patience, Chastity, High-Mindedness, 'the sound mind in the sound body'. etc. etc. If I do not put primary emphasis upon these points, rather than teaching itself, still I am unwilling to say that I put 'little' emphasis upon them."

"In all courses occasion is made to emphasize scholarship and honor in scholastic life; but this can only be done occasionally and in a minor way and not as a part of the course of study.

"The qualities are so jumbled as to make a reliable reply hardly possible. The search for truth is fundamental to all science, but is not to be confused with preaching honesty." "I find myself unable to frame definite answers such as you request to this inquiry. In general, my view on this subject is that deliberate effort at 'Character Education' by school or college instructors would be presumptuous. I cannot agree with the assumption 'that it is possible to give concrete working definitions of character in relatively few terms.""

"In case of most of the questions asked the product I have indicated is a by-product of a conscientious attempt to present the subjects taught scientifically."

"Really I don't know how to answer this. I try to teach___________ and trust that my courses foster all these desirable qualities.'

"This reminds me of the old question, 'Have you left off beating your wife? Answer yes or no.' If I teach chastity, generosity, and forgiveness in my. classes, am I attending to business? do not teach them, why teach at all? So far as I am aware I am teaching. just that, though not without the hope that my

If I

"No one of them is made the specific subject of instruction, but in the presentation of course material and in incidental discussion I endeavor to find occasion to cultivate a respect for truth, a sense of responsibility, for the social use of the tools placed in their hands by a university education, a conception of character and of conduct as the sum of habitual reactions which may be controlled and modified, and some idea of the social expediency, necessity and base, of morals.” "Because of the nature of my work, all of the above are taught either directly or indirectly in connection with the interpretation of literature."

Lin

"I cannot see where the structor would consider the development of general character as more than a minor function of his subject."

"I fail to see how any teacher could do less than emphasize all of the above."

"There is hardly a quality mentioned which I am not likely to stress the need of when occasion arises. It is of course futile to be continually harping on conduct, but I am likely to go out of my way not a little to stress my own high opinion of all these desirable qualities in character making. While it sounds a little drastic, I am almost disposed to think that the development of right minded character is really the first function of a teacher, no matter what his subject is. To put the whole matter in a nut shell, a teacher who is not eager to judiciously stress right conduct as the most important thing in life has no business to teach at all."

"It is impossible for me to distinguish with any degree of accuracy between what I have constantly in my mind as the things which a good teacher must do and those things I actually do deliberately in my teaching. The items checked are the ones which I consciously stress both directly and indirectly to the class as a whole and in my

personal relationship with individual students.

"Of certain things, however, I am convinced. The first is that character and intellect are closely connected. The second, that no amount of moralizing upon the part of instructors will have the desired influence upon our young people unless they are convinced that he who undertakes to lecture them is honest, clean and square himself. Third, that the instructor or administrative officer who plays favorites, winks at violators of the established law, or commits breaches of it himself, can do nothing constructive along the lines of character building in young people. They are keen in detecting hypocrisy and have a thorough contempt for him who practises it."

"It would seem to be incorrect to say that any of the listed qualities are a function of this subject, or that they can be emphasized in teaching it. Not only this, but the major part of the content of. has to do with matters not involving character qualities at all, but matters of routine, procedure, formality, technical requirements, etc."

An examination of the characteristics given the higher and lower ratings, respectively, seems to give some indication as to explanation.

Scholarliness, which is given highest rank, one would naturally expect to be given a place of preeminence in the estimation of those primarily responsible for the instructional program of higher educational insti

tutions.

Dependability and Honesty as defined on the blank sent out, concern trustworthiness, reliability, industry, and diligence on the one hand; and integrity on the other with truthfulness, veracity, rectitude and fairness. These two traits involve qualities which have to do directly with progress as a scholar, with success in a student as judged by his teacher. They are factors which are directly involved in relations between pupil and teacher.

On the other hand those traits rated lowest in importance are of the contrary sort. Religiousness is not an element likely to be

prominent in situations between pupil and teacher, even though liberally defined as referring to such qualities as reverence, forbearance, forgiveness and piety. Chastity with purity, decency, modesty and virtue involved, obviously concerns what may be thought of as more strictly personal matters.

While Economy and Healthfulness are far afield from ordinary learning-teaching relationships and situations.

The above interpretation seems justified in the light of certain of the comments voluntarily offered. Illustrations are:

"Honesty, in my opinion, includes practically the whole list of virtues mentioned here."

"In all courses occasion is made to emphasize scholarship and honor in scholastic life."

"I assume that a student is honorably sincere, etc."

It has already been pointed out that, with minor exceptions, the various groups are in striking agreement in their judgment on the relative values of and emphasis upon these ten factors in teaching. It is quite as true that individual judgments differ widely, from the one who sees no direct connection between them and his teaching, to the one who thinks it is the chief duty of all teaching to emphasize them all.

This suggests another cleavage of judgment. It is very clear that a portion of those who answered hold strictly to the belief that the subject matter is the thing; that teaching is for the purpose solely of getting students to master that matter. A part of the group, however, conceive the function of teaching to center in desired modifications accomplished in the student, modifications based upon acquiring subject matter, but whose primary purposes lie beyond the subject matter, in the student himself.

Tables IV and V represent a percentile distribution of answers to the same questionnaire from forty-five sixth-, seventh-, and eighth grade teachers and thirty-eight high-school teachers respectively in one public school system.

The differences in these replies* and those given by instructors in higher schools are striking. The grammar grade teachers give major place, in both function and emphasis, to all these items except Religiousness. The high-school teachers give such emphasis to Honesty, Dependability, Sincerity, HighMindedness, Scholarliness and Economy. In only one phase is any trait judged as of no importance by a considerable percentage of either group, and this is in the teaching emphasis given to Religiousness by highschool teachers.

We shall not pursue these judgments through as detailed comparisons with the last two groups of teachers as was done with college instructors. The reader may easily do so from the data presented if he so desires. Without doing this some clear issues can be pointed out.

One is the fact that for these groups of teachers the importance of certain character traits changes distinctly from the grammar school through the high school to the college period. These changes are characterized by being about the same for both the function of the subject taught and the emphasis given in teaching. The changes are significantly

*(The writer is indebted to Mr. Fairchild, superintendent of City Schools Elgin, Illinois, for the coöperation involved in securing these replies.)

marked by successive decreases in the number of character traits that are thought to be of major importance, or even of any importance at all. They are further marked by a constantly decreasing emphasis upon those traits which have direct relation to mastery of subject matter, and an increased emphasis, comparatively, upon traits which do bear such relation. That is to say there is a much greater degree of agreement between the judgments of high-school and college teachers, than between the judgments of grammar grade and college teachers. In other words, as far as a composite of these traits constitutes character, character is judged to be of decreasing importance the higher we go in the formal education process, through at least the stages here represented. Conversely, the more important becomes the mastery of subject matter, and the personal traits upon which such mastery depends.

Partial explanation would seem to be in the phase of teaching that is most noticeable in the consciousness of teachers of children of different ages. Those who deal with children in grammar school groups recognize behavior as one of the immediate, pressing problems. Class room and laboratory instructors of college students seem to think of these students not in terms of behavior, but in terms of individuals whose learning progress is at stake. This attitude tends further to be increased by the fact that the distance is much greater between the scholarly achievement of the grammar grade teacher and pupil, than between the college instructor and student. This tends to be especially true in relations with advanced students in the higher institutions.

There is one other consideration that should not be omitted in considering the larger problem. It is the relation in teaching between conscious aim and achieved result. Briefly stated that relation is that if we teach in order to get certain results, those results will then tend to present in far greater degree, than if we teach and hope that the same results will come incidentally or as a byproduct. For example the classical investi

gation records that when Latin is taught to improve English, such improvement is two to three times as great as when Latin is taught with English improvement as an indirect aim.

There is no reason to suppose that the principle is different in other fields than Latin. If scholarliness is the aim of our teaching, the results will doubtless bulk largest in that quality. It is surely not sound reasoning to expect to aim to secure scholarliness, and get something else. Neither is it good teaching.

These observations raise some questions which it seems proper to record here even though they be left unanswered.

1. Should formal instructions in secondary and in higher education emphasize scholarliness to the practical exclusion of the more distinctly character or moral issues?

2. If it is justified in so doing, what obligations have the institutions to provide character training, and through what avenue should it be done?

3. Do the intellectual interests and activities of high school and college youth limit themselves to the scholarly pursuit of subject matter?

4. Is the main purpose of undergraduate higher education learning, or is it broader than mere learning?

5. Is the mastery of subject matter a justifiable end in itself?

6. Is it highly desirable that teachers of high school and undergraduate college students have a philosophy of education. that makes individual development the aim, or should that aim relate itself chiefly to mastery of methods and content of learning?

T

HE thing that impressed me most at the world conference on the New Education held at Locarno in Switzerland in August, 1927, was a pervading interest in moral education. Although the general theme for discussion was "The True Meaning of Freedom in Education," I could not help observing that everything said and done aimed at the moral benefit of children.

Locarno, situated at the end of a pass in the Alps at the head of Lake Maggiore, is a natural gateway to Italy and Rome, so long the source of Christian moral education. Here therefore, at the door of the Eternal City, was a strong new human impulse from the north giving ethical teaching its gift. Teachers from all parts of the world, from the nations lately at strife, from India and China, came here united and enthusiastic

for human good. It was the fourth annual meeting of the profession that devotes its time to bringing up the children of our world. It indicated an increasing interest in the forces that mold intelligence. Such a group of people naturally turns its attention to discovering the means of doing good.

One of the most striking manifestations was the spirit of the Germans. I believe they outnumbered all other nationalities present, and in enthusiasm they were certainly noticeable in a remarkable way. They had something about them that was familiar to Americans, an energy, a go, an activity aiming at what they wanted. They said they were trying out new things in education all over Germany. With them mental inquiry was not a thing to be found only here and there, but was stirring the whole German educational world. Dr. M.

C. Del Manzo, of the International Institute of Teachers' College, New York, who had just returned from a tour of German schools, corroborated this for me. He said their industry in education was incomparable. As I watched them at Locarno I saw even more than this standing out, an exuberant joy in the freedom they were now giving to their children. When Dr. Elizabeth Rotten, director of the New Education Fellowship in Germany, spoke in the theatre about "freedom and the hearts of the children," I heard an applause unequalled there before. It had the cry of a moral craving answered at last, imperialism conquered and fine instincts set free. This development among This development among the Germans and Austrians was extremely gratifying to the other nations present because it meant death in a great area of Europe to a moral system based on dictation, a system inimical to morality based on the understanding and conscience of the individual, toward which the world is advancing as education increases. One felt that honesty was coming into its own.

A foremost group at the conference was the Swiss. It would be better if American teachers knew more about the Swiss educators, who come from a country long a leader in religious and political reform. The chairman of the conference was Professor Pierre Bovet, Director of the International Bureau of Education, at Geneva, Switzerland, a man of world-wide reputation and a dignified inspirer of confidence in the high mission of education. From Geneva also also came Dr. Adolphe Ferriére, founder of the International Bureau of New Schools. I had already visited Geneva and observed its importance in university education and teacher training, so the leadership of the Swiss at Locarno came expectedly.

From England and Scotland came large groups of teachers bringing as a moral contribution their national independence of spirit, their tradition of active experimentation in affairs. They and the other Englishspeaking visitors had been brought together by Mrs. Beatrice Ensor, who is at the head of the New Education Fellowship in Eng

land, with an office at 11 Tavistock Square, London. The teachers from the United States were, like everybody else, purely voluntary participants. They had the satisfaction of seeing several well-known American educators lecture at the conference. The activity of the Americans was impressive enough to make one American school teacher say that she could not observe anything new at Locarno that had not been tried by Americans. But the Americans were present with their eyes wide open according to their habit, and watched the Europeans with interest.

A noticeable thing at this meeting which had been called for the purpose of discussing the new freedom in education was the absence of Russians. I discovered the reason for their absence from their neighbors the Germans. German professors were unable to get their books into Russia and were unable to receive any educational matter from Russia except the propaganda of the Soviet. In Germany a teacher might teach what he thought. Russian teachers, it was said, had not obtained this freedom yet. Another regrettable absence at Locarno was that of the Italians. The people of Italy are throwing off their handicap of illiteracy, but public education in the country has not reached northern standards of progressiveness. The absence of Russia and Italy had significance. Moral education in the two countries has not attained the point where the individual can work coöperatively with other peoples. Lack of interest among the masses and autocratic authority interfere.

It was the intention of the conference to help the world toward an awakening of spirit. Human sympathy was urged between teacher and pupil. Professor Ferriére hit the note when he said, if the teacher associates himself with the child's interests and with a deep search for the true he will bring his pupil more joy than pain. The teacher must have the personal influence to stir love in the child with such a strength that the child will feel he must keep the love alive for future generations. This love