teacher with a working definition of knowledge, which will tell him how to distinguish unerringly what lessons the child must learn from the infinite mass of pseudo-lessons which he might spend his time upon and be none the better or wiser for having done so. Let me give you some illustrations of just this need for distinguishing knowledge from facts, for selecting the matter which children should be taught from that which they should not be taught. This selection must be made in every subject and the principle or ideal of utility is the only principle which helps us to make it.

All children who go to school in our country must be taught to spell. But there are 400,000 words, more or less, in our language. Shall they be taught to spell all of them or only a part of them and if only a part, which part? What does a knowledge of spelling mean? What does the teaching of spelling require the teacher to do? There are two views: According to one, spelling is spelling, and to be a good speller means to be able to spell every word, or since that is absurd, almost every word and at least most of the hard words in the language. Those who take this position say that spelling is for the sake of spelling, the more of it one learns the better. The other view is that spelling is a very practical matter, we must all take pains to spell the words that we write. Each one of us has at least four vocabularies and of these our writing vocabulary is by far the smallest. The words which folks are likely to use in letters after they leave school, we should take particular pains to teach each child to spell while he is in

school. That number of words careful tests have shown to be no more than about 2000, while the number of words which everybody uses is hardly more than 500. Now if we should follow the Cleveland plan of putting but two new words into each spelling lesson together with eight old ones, since there are more than 150 days in each school year, we could perhaps in four years teach children to spell all the words which they are likely to have occasion to write, and to spell them correctly. As soon as we take the position that spelling is not for spelling, but for use, we can teach it successfully. As long as we cling to the view that spelling is for spelling we are so confused and uncertain that we get nowhere and no one is pleased with our attempts, ourselves and the children least of all. That we are not pleased may make but little difference, but that the children should because of our misguided efforts learn to hate learning is a tragedy more terrible and devastating even than the world war.

An examination in geography was given in Boston a little while ago to 594 eighth grade students, 165 third year high school students and 86 normal school students. The list which was submitted to them was carefully prepared and included such questions on the geography of the United States as: Locate New York City on the map. Locate San Francisco on the map. Why do the states just east of the Rocky Mountains receive less rain than Massachusetts? Explain the way in which the flood plains of the Mississippi river have been formed. Why are these flood plains good for agriculture? And on the geog

raphy of Europe such questions as: Locate on the map two seaports of European Russia. Why does England import large quantities of wheat? Why has Germany become very important as a manufacturing country? Out of the 845 pupils tested on the geography of Europe not a single pupil passed. In the test on the United States 8.7 per cent of the elementary school pupils, 4.8 per cent of the high school students and 1.1 per cent or one of the normal school pupils passed. Your conclusion is, doubtless, that they were either pretty poor students or that their teaching had been poor. That is not my conclusion. A few days after this test had been given I was present at a meeting where these results were discussed. Everyone had practically reached the conclusion which you just now reached, when one of the men present asked, "How many facts would you say are brought to the attention of a public school child in his study of geography each year? As many as 10,000?" "Yes," was the reply, "fully as When we study geography for facts you see we do not learn geography.

many as 10,000."

The view that we study spelling for the sake of spelling, geography for the sake of geography, science for the sake of science, and knowledge of all kinds for the sake of knowledge, is due to the anti-pragmatic philosophy known as intellectualism. It says that the highest function of our minds is to know in order to know that a subordinate function of them is to know in order to do. That knowledge in its truest form is knowledge wholly unmixed with volition, or knowledge that as somebody has said, thank God, no

body can possibly do anything with. "God hath framed the mind of man as a glass capable of the image of the universal world. . For knowledge is a double of that which is," said Bacon. According to the pragmatists God has done nothing of the sort, and we would be enormously handicapped and wholly helpless if he had. The fact that it is impossible for us to attend with the same intensity to everything which goes on, indicates that the mind is not a mirror to reflect images of everything which is, but a selecting device which works by picking out that which is worth while from that which is not worth while. This philosophy, then, commands educators to abandon their attempts to treat all that is known as equally valuable, and to impart universal knowledge to the young. It says that knowledge for the sake of knowledge, science for the sake of science, or art for art's sake, are monstrous shibboleths, that only confusion, misdirected effort and a wretched wasting of life result from them, that knowledge, science and art are all for man's sake, are tools, and must never be hypostatized into self-existent realities.

So much for ideals about what we should teach. Next comes the question, What result should we seek when we teach it? What does teaching these various lessons that the race has learned, and values, do for the learner? Or, in other words, what is education? Here so many ideals are held by teachers that I can not examine them all. I will select three for your consideration. The first is that education imparts knowledge that teachers have it and students do not have it and students go to school that

teachers or textbooks or both together may pass it over, hand it out, impart it or deliver it to them. Many people think schools are knowledge-shops, where pounds, ounces, pennyweights of knowledge are transferred to the young. They do this perhaps because they see teachers constantly engaged in testing their students to find out how much of what has been delivered to them they retain and can hand back again. But if you will stop for a moment and consider what sort of a thing knowledge is, you will see that no teacher can hand over or share his knowledge with his pupil any more than he can hand over or share his headache or his toothache with him. My knowledge is the body of sensations, perceptions, memories, images, thoughts, feelings, and volitions that I am aware of, somewhat reduced to order, classified and arranged so that when something happens that calls for a reaction from me I am able to make that reaction and do what should be done next. If you speak to me in English I can answer you in English, for I have a knowledge of English words, but if you speak to me in Italian I can not answer you in Italian, for I have no knowledge of that language. If you ask me what 2 and 7 and 9 make I can tell you, but if you put me into the midst of a battle and ask me what to do next, I can not tell you, nor can I do it if you give the commands, for I have not learned how to work by that actionsystem. We go to school to learn to use our own minds in the several most important ways in which the race has found it necessary to use minds, to learn to work by the action-systems that the race has