on page 248 of the Second Yearbook, D.S., N.E.A.: "We are sure that public education needs remaking." But she does not state why, and in fact but a paragraph before in the same article she states that the American Association of University Women voted at its convention in Portland in July, 1923, "to devote itself for a period of five or ten years to a study of public elementary education." It would be interesting to know the grounds upon which existing American education is condemned in advance of a study which, it is estimated, will require from five to ten years.

The Third Yearbook of the Department of Superintendence, N.E.A., page 10, sums up the need for curriculum revision under two heads: "What the Layman Sees," and "What the Educator Sees." Under the first it cites two objections to the existing educational program: first, growing costs, which, however, it immediately justifies on the grounds of growing population and the demands of a growing civilization; second, "lack of thoroughness in essentials," which it immediately refutes with the statement that "the only reliable evidence, however, such as the Springfield tests and the Boston tests of 1845, has demonstrated that most public schools of today are securing better results in the so-called 'fundamentals' with a heterogeneous mass of children than the schools of half a century ago secured with selected groups.

Under the heading "What the Educator Sees" it first raises what is merely a suspicion that, with the expansion of the field of knowledge, perhaps our curricula do not represent the selections best suited to meet present social demands; and second, it remarks that provision for character building and for the development of individual talents should be made in our schools, without mentioning any evidence that such provisions are not in

existence.

Again on page 11: "When the educator fully comprehends that the objectives which the school must serve today are health, training for a vocation, citizenship, worthy home membership, the profitable use of

leisure, and ethical character, he keenly feels the need of a thorough revision of the present public school curriculum." The present writer submits only that the mere "feeling of a need" for revision, may be sufficient justification for a survey, but is disappointing as evidence of the need for revision.

Professor Bobbitt, in his article on "The Trend of the Curriculum," page 249 of the Second Yearbook, D.S., N.E.A., touches a key thought of the current movement when he speaks of the need for "activityanalyses" of human affairs; but he offers nothing specific in support of his contention that "They (activity-analyses) demand a tremendous reconstruction of the curriculum from kindergarten to the end of college.” He continues merely in suggestive vein when he says:

Clearly our schools must rid themselves, and speedily, of any useless academic accumulations. Whatever Latin does not function in the community life must be sloughed off, and only that portion retained which actually does function. Likewise algebra. Likewise geometry, drawing, singing, dramatics, amateur literary composition, French, Spanish, technique of specialized research, speech drill, manual training, technique of literature, journalism, trigonometry, competitive athletics and facts and skills and habits of every kind that do not lead to man's needed vision and judgment and right behavior.

Finally, the following from the same article seems to be a rather harsh indictment of current practice to be made apart from any specific instances of its verity:

It is the belief of the writer, who classifies himself as a constructive worker and not an adverse critic, that there is much, very much, waste in education, due to mistaken objectives, artificial and non-vital procedures, too much carrying of the burden by teachers and not enough by the pupils and parents, waste academic motion because of a lack of vision of the educational goals and a lack of use of common sense in attaining them, a primitive conception of the nature of the genuinely educated man, the method of prematurity, neglect of the principle of timeliness, the emphasis upon memorizing rather than living experience, and the like.

on page 248 of the Second Yearbook, D.S., N.E.A.: "We are sure that public education needs remaking." But she does not state why, and in fact but a paragraph before in the same article she states that the American Association of University Women voted at its convention in Portland in July, 1923, "to devote itself for a period of five or ten years to a study of public elementary education." It would be interesting to know the grounds upon which existing American education is condemned in advance of a study which, it is estimated, will require from five to ten years.

The Third Yearbook of the Department of Superintendence, N.E.A., page 10, sums up the need for curriculum revision under two heads: "What the Layman Sees," and " and "What the Educator Sees." Under the first it cites two objections to the existing educational program: first, growing costs, which, however, it immediately justifies on the grounds of growing population and the demands of a growing civilization; second, "lack of thoroughness in essentials," which it immediately refutes with the statement that "the only reliable evidence, however, such as the Springfield tests and the Boston tests of 1845, has demonstrated that most public schools of today are securing better results in the so-called 'fundamentals' with a heterogeneous mass of children than the schools of half a century ago secured with selected groups."

Under the heading "What the Educator Sees" it first raises what is merely a suspicion that, with the expansion of the field of knowledge, perhaps our curricula do not represent the selections best suited to meet present social demands; and second, it remarks that provision for character building and for the development of individual talents should be made in our schools, without mentioning any evidence that such provisions are not in existence.

Again on page 11: "When the educator fully comprehends that the objectives which the school must serve today are health, training for a vocation, citizenship, worthy home membership, the profitable use of

leisure, and ethical character, he keenly feels the need of a thorough revision of the present public school curriculum." The present writer submits only that the mere "feeling of a need" for revision, may be sufficient justification for a survey, but is disappointing as evidence of the need for revision.

Professor Bobbitt, in his article on "The Trend of the Curriculum," page 249 of the Second Yearbook, D.S., N.E.A., touches a key thought of the current movement when he speaks of the need for "activityanalyses" of human affairs; but he offers nothing specific in support of his contention that "They (activity-analyses) demand a tremendous reconstruction of the curriculum from kindergarten to the end of college." He continues merely in suggestive vein when he says:

Clearly our schools must rid themselves, and speedily, of any useless academic accumulations. Whatever Latin does not function in the community life must be sloughed off, and only that portion retained which actually does function. Likewise algebra. Likewise geometry, drawing, singing, dramatics, amateur literary composition, French, Spanish, technique of specialized research, speech drill, manual training, technique of literature, journalism, trigonometry, competitive athletics and facts and skills and habits of every kind that do not lead to man's needed vision and judgment and right behavior.

Finally, the following from the same. article seems to be a rather harsh indictment of current practice to be made apart from any specific instances of its verity:

It is the belief of the writer, who classifies himself as a constructive worker and not an adverse critic, that there is much, very much, waste in education, due to mistaken objectives, artificial and non-vital procedures, too much carrying of the burden by teachers and not enough by the pupils and parents, waste academic

motion because of a lack of vision of the edu

cational goals and a lack of use of common sense in attaining them, a primitive conception of the nature of the genuinely educated man, the method of prematurity, neglect of the principle of timeliness, the emphasis upon memorizing rather than living experience, and the like.

It would appear then that the curriculum "revision" movement is to be at the outset more of a general survey of existing educational practices, with revision to follow as need may become manifest. It seems to the writer, however, that it would be well if this fact were generally made known, for it certainly cannot greatly aid the cause of education to have the impression gain ground that the American educational profession is generally guilty of "waste motion because of a lack of vision of the educational goals, and a lack of use of common sense in attaining them."

Some Developments of the Movement
Thus Far

I Subject Matter Classifications

At the outset there appears to be no suggestion of a change in the existing subject classifications. Subject heads used in curriculum studies in many American cities, as reported in the Second Yearbook, D. S., N.E.A.1 show both a general uniformity, and indication that cognizance is being taken of all the important fields of knowledge.

A general idea of the range of the knowledge content of today may be had from a tabulation which the writer has prepared (see page 16), using his own classifications, from such references as the list of the departments of knowledge covered in the Webster's New International Unabridged Dictionary, the American Encyclopedia, etc.

A juxtaposition of the main heads of the tabulations on page 16 gives us a very rough picture of the way in which our elementary school curricula are covering the field of knowledge.

Since, then, the existing subject classifications seem to cover satisfactorily the 20th century fields of knowledge, the investigation turns to an intensive study of the teaching content of each of the principal subjects of the curriculum; to various phases of teaching method, and to the mechanical structure of the curriculum.

1Second Yearbook, D. S., N.E.A., pages 42-44; 140-171; 187; 228-242.

II Teaching Content

As previously indicated, the Division of Research, D.S., N.E.A., has given us in Part III of the Third Yearbook, a report from each of its twelve sub-committees, the same being analyses of existing research studies in the several subjects of the elementary school curriculum. These reports are illustrated by digests of as many of the actual research studies as space in the Yearbook would permit. The researches deal mainly with the problems of teaching content; although the almost inseparability of the problems of method and structure cause them to be encountered here and there. Following is a brief review of the sub-committee reports:

Arithmetic. The report begins with statement of a number of the major curriculum problems in arithmetic, such as: What is the relation of arithmetic? to the major aims of education?; What is the proper unit of instruction in arithmetic?; and What is the best plan for eliminating the traditional and useless in arithmetic? The research study illustrations then follow, grouped under the following seven heads: