I am convinced after fifteen years experience in public school work, that candidates for admission to our High School know less about Reading than any other branch they have pursued. It is not an uncommon experience to have teachers of grammar grades complain that pupils are unable to read their text books. Even such an eminent school man as Superintendent R. C. Metcalf of Boston, has this to say upon the point.

"Much of the unsatisfactory work of the grammar school is in consequence of the inability of pupils to read and understand readily the books placed in their hands."

It is not an uncommon experience to have pupils come with tears in their eyes pleading for an explanation to problems in arithmetic, which are easily solved after an intelligent reading by the teacher. Who has not observed how easily

parts of the tangled mass in difficult sentences are brought into proper relation when the language is read with expression by the teacher. And the reading lesson itself how many teachers endure its agonies from day to day, striving with might and main for something better without any appreciable results.

These experiences of which I speak are not fancies, but facts. Nor is the condition confined to any one locality. I will venture the assertion that if a free expression could be had from teachers in elementary schools where there is no special supervision of reading, the testimony of ninety-five per cent would coincide with the statement which I have made.

"Reading is the poorest thing the pupil does, and that after fifteen or sixteen years of his life has been spent in school," said a prominent

teacher of English the other day. And where shall we search for the root of the difficulty?

A few years ago we heard much discussion of what was called "Elocutionary Reading," whatever that means. We saw many educational noses turned up at the very mention of elocution. We heard mighty voices hurling their thunder-bolts at what they believed to be a useless expenditure of time and effort. Said one mighty man as he paced excitedly up and down the platform before a teachers' institute - "We have no time to train public entertainers. There is but one real end to be obtained in the study of Reading, and that is to develop the power to extract thought from the printed page."

And who will deny that his statement contained a great truth? But do you agree that his view is a broad one? He reminded one of a narrow gauge engine trying to speed on a broad gauge track. On one side, the wheels ran smoothly, but there was a mighty bumping of the ties on the other. Ten minutes later he was pleading earnestly with his audience to give more attention to Music and Drawing. How consistent! When one remembers that these arts are but different channels through which our expression flows.

It seems to me that we have been gradually drifting away from the true ends to be attained in the study of Reading in the elementary

school. Somewhere in our educational development a Pied Piper has appeared and we have followed him out of our course. Recently a school man who is known for his broad views and liberal ideas gave the following as what he considered. the true aims of the study of Reading in the elementary schools.

"The accumulation of a vocabulary, and the ability to recognizeand articulate words, are the chief aims of the early training of pupils. While the acquisition of knowledge and appreciation of literary forms, are the ends to be attained in later years."

Truly all of these aims are important. The child must recognize and articulate words. He must get a vocabulary and acquire knowledge. But while he has been doing all this, has he been taught to think? Has he been taught how to extract thought from the printed page? Has his preparation been so complete that he has acquired the power to reproduce the thought orally in such a manner as to give the fullest measure of meaning to one who listens? If he has not accomplished these things, has his instruction. been adequate? A very large per cent of the reading time in the elementary school is given to oral reading. Now if this exercise does not have for its chief ends the development of a power to grasp the thought in every shade of its meaning, and the power to give correct oral expression to the thought, then

the opportunity for making it a good lesson in thinking has been lost, and the exercise degenerates into a lesson in recognition of word faces, and the pronunciation of their names.

In the introduction to the splendid little book entitled "How to Teach Reading in the Public Schools," written by S. H. Clark of the Chicago University, he makes this

statement.

"No one who has examined the reading in our schools can fail to be impressed, not so much with the absence of expressive power, as with the absence of mental grasp. We are so anxious to get on that we are content with skimming the surface, and do not take time to get beneath it. Careless of all the future, we are too prone to push the pupil along, ignoring the simplest and most evident of psychological laws that thought comes by thinking, and thinking takes time."

Though this note of warning was sounded eight years ago by one of the most eminent men in his profession, yet so far as I have been able to observe a large percentage of the schools are swinging around the same old circle, or are describing new ones, just as limited in area. How many readers and teachers of expression would present a masterpiece to an audience without having spent hours and hours in mental preparation for the task? Not one! And yet this is what we expect our pupils in the

elementary school to do. The preparation is indeed a "lick and a promise." and we command them to read, and after the allotted time of torture, close our books with the mental observation, that these are certainly the dullest pupils ever gathered together in one class.

We need more time and less material. Time to teach the pupils more than the mere recognition of form. Let us have time to teach him how to get that which has madeform possible. This accomplished, and the skillful teacher will be able to get the best expression which the pupil is capable of giving. I say skillful teacher, for it is at this point in the development of the lesson that the ship of reading often crashes against the rocks, and becomes a helpless drifting wreck.

"Oh I can prepare a reading lesson," said a teacher the other day. "I believe I am intelligent enough to analyze every selection in our reader, but sometimes I doubt whether my standard of judgment in the matter of oral expression is the correct one or not. Things sound good or bad to me, but I cannot always give a reason for my opinion."

Does not that statement suggest a way into the very heart of the difficulty? Thousands of teachers. will give this same testimony. They have the ability to make a literary analysis, but grope in the dark when oral expression is attempted. This is one phase of the

teacher's education which has been neglected. It was thought unnecessary by some. Others have pushed into the profession without the opportunity to pursue the study, and finding so many in the rank who have never given any attention to the art of expression, and who are recognized as successful teachers, they come to the conclusion that it is really not so important after all, and are contented to accept indifferent results with the consoling thought that "It's just as good as others are doing."

Let us insist that students who are preparing to enter the profession of teaching, take training in the art of oral expression. But what shall we do for the thousands who are already in the profession groping their way in the darkness of doubt and uncertainty? There seems to me but one sure way to relieve the unfortunate condition quickly, and that is by special supervision of the reading.

A competent supervisor, one who thoroughly understands his business. could revolutionize the reading in a very few years. Not only would the pupil be directly benefited by skilled supervision, but the teacher as well. Witness, if you will, the splendid results which are obtained in the departments of Drawing and Music and reflect for a moment upon the cause.

Very few grade teachers have ever had the opportunity for special training in these arts, and yet these

same teachers are able to get marvelous results. Especially is this true of the Drawing, and the cause can be directly traced to the splendid work of the Special Teacher. These enthusiastic supervisors have brought into our schools an atmosphere of their arts. From them the untrained teacher has learned to appreciate keenly the beauty of form, the blending of color, and the harmony of sound. A correct standard of judgment has been established, and as a consequence the pupil receives the benent or intelligent direction.

This plan of special supervision will cost thousands of dollars annually, but that should not be a serious objection. The people are willing to stand the expense if it can be shown that they are getting value received for their money. Immense sums are spent each year for special supervision of Music and Drawing and I would not urge that one cent less be spent for this purpose. I am in close sympathy with the teaching of Music and Drawing in the public schools, and I rejoice to know that the elementary training in both arts is being carefully supervised by hundreds of men and women who have given their best thought to their special lines.

But it is a source of deep regret that Reading, which is vastly more important than either Music or Drawing in the education of our youth, is thought by many to be unworthy of skilled supervision.

Recently a superintendent said to me, "Oh yes, we have elocution in our High School," and when I asked him if his teacher supervised the Reading in the elementary schools, he replied, "No I have not deemed it necessary." And I thought here is another educational architect, building his house upon the sands instead of the solid foundation of careful elementary training. The elementary school, it seems to me, is the place where this foundation work should be done. It is true that our work should deal with the why in a very simple way, but under skillful supervision we could at least teach much of the how and thus awaken in the pupil an eager desire to pursue the study of expression and literary interpretation when he reaches the High School and College.

In this age of organization, men and women in all walks of life are called upon to read and speak to their associates. Does it not sometimes bring the blush of shame to the cheek of a conscientious teacher, when he hears his pupil who has been graduated from our public schools, attempt to read even

a

short paragraph of some kind before an assemblage of his friends? Who is to blame? Certainly not the pupil in most instances. His training is responsible, and we who direct his education must share Iwith him the humiliation of his failure. I think I am safe in saying, that there is not a teacher of expression who has ever trained High School or College graduates for commencement, who will not testify that a very large per cent of the students who come for training, are unable to read their own orations acceptably unless they have had special work in this line.

Think of it, fifteen or sixteen years spent in school, and yet the student does not read satisfactorily. It is my opinion that something should be done to improve present conditions. Let us search in the rubbish of the quarries of Education for this stone which the builders have rejected. Let us give it the prominent place which it should have in our educational foundation. Let us spread about it the cement of intelligence and sympathy. Let us then build upon it. Build and fear not.

The emotional life is deep-seated and one of the best parts of our nature. Is is far-reaching in its in

fluence, being intimately connected with health and life, moral and religion.