Despite the above statements the writer is still committed to the opinion that no study should ever be required of all pupils alike. In other words, it is inconceivable that there will not be cases where a student should be excused from any particular subject, however rigidly enforced upon the others.

A few of the specific answers may be given in conclusion:

"The same subjects should be required of all pupils but not given in a like manner."

"Mathematics, English, hygiene, and safety for those between 14 and 16, but from 16 to 18 we are not certain."

"We would give required subjects but not always alike; we would have citizenship, but adapted to each class; English, but adapted to each student."

"If we include English it would be especially for foreigners." "We would require specialized English, specialized arithmetic, hygiene, and safety. We do require elementary English of all pupils, but modified to fit the needs."

Should physical education be required only where there is an evidence of defective physique?

TABLE CVII. OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER PHYSICAL EDUCATION SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE WITH DEFECTIVE PHYSIQUE.

This question was presented in 20 communities. Three would not give an opinion. Two answered with an unqualified "yes." Three answered with a qualified "yes," the qualification being the lack of time. Twelve answered the question in the negative. This means that 12 out of the 20 places would prescribe physical education for all students, or nearly all, not for those only who are defective in their physical make-up. Some of the more interesting answers follow:

"It should be given for all in an intensive 10-minute period." "Games and dances, at least, should be provided for all." "Part-time school attendance is not often enough to cure defects; it might be suggestive, however, of training at home or lead to advice for the use of other agencies more effectively." "Physical training, for lack of time, might be restricted to those physically defective, but physical knowledge should be given to everyone."

"It should be given to all pupils. We are doing it now. "It would improve the physical appearance for physically defective children; why not all four hours on this if it is their greatest need?"

Should civic education be prescribed only in places where the elementary school has failed to give it?

TABLE CVIII.-OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER CIVIC EDUCATION SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY WHERE DAY SCHOOL NEGLECTS IT.

Again we have 20 answers, 4 in the affirmative, 2 doubtful, and 14 negative. A general reason for the 14 negative answers of those who would not restrict civic education under any condition to the elementary school seems to be the one already familiar-that the child is now entering a real civic environment. The following answers are given:

"It is doubtful if the elementary school will not always fail because it has a poor environment for civic training."

"Civic education should be taught everywhere; it has no ending in this country."

66 Civics should not be restricted to the elementary school; they get a new civic attitude when they become workers."

The working child has a new viewpoint he is now living up to the laws which are affecting him."

"Hundreds come to their civic intelligence through contacts outside of the school."

"There is a continued change in the viewpoint of the pupil after he works outside."

Of those who favor no training in civics where the elementary school has been successful, some have indicated qualifications, as, for instance, in the following:

"Yes; except for over-age pupils who did not get it in the full-time school."

"It should be handled in the elementary schools, but practically can seldom be."

"Most of it can be done and the new angle in part-time work would add a little."

"Yes; where the public school has capable teachers and the pupils complete the eighth grade having had real civics.”

Without question the majority of these educators are very skeptical of their ability to organize a course of civics in an all-day school which can be satisfactorily substituted for that work now given in the part-time school.

Should students be exempted from English who have passed all the elementary school standards?

TABLE CIX.-REPLIES TO THE INQUIRY "SHOULD EIGHTH-GRADE EXEMPTED FROM ENGLISH

GRADUATES BE

IN

PART-TIME

In but 1 place out of 20 was it impossible to obtain an answer. Six answered the question in the affirmative, whereas 13 did not make such exemptions. Two reasons given by those who would make an exemption are the following: "Examine them; if they have really done good work you can find it." "Pupils should be exempted unless a definite lack of English can be shown." Still others would exempt them from compulsory work, and another would exempt high-school graduates only, as they are now exempt by law. Three reasons why pupils should not be exempted have been selected to present here: "English must be given constantly to keep what they have alive." "Presentation of good English usage demands followup for the young worker, and apart from all other needs he must have a new type of oral English." "Unless good English is used every day the part-time pupil abuses it."

Here, again, the weight of testimony is in favor of part-time school English, the reasons given in the opinion of the writer being valid. No one knows what type of the many types of English instruction that may be offered he is going to need until he is in a situation which makes definite the usage which he must acquire. Moreover, a majority of part-time school children are working constantly in an atmosphere of incorrect English usage, and persistent instruction can prevent them from adopting this usage, whatever may have been their grammar-school training.

Why do pupils attend school when not compelled to do so?

This question was asked largely to find out whether or not the administrative authorities were studying the problem of attendance from any other viewpoint than that of the compulsory attendance department, as well as to get the ideas of pupils regarding the field of part-time training. Of the 20 places covered by the inquiry, 8 could offer no answer, 7 based the attendance of pupils upon

a feeling of industrial need, whereas 5 attributed it to general educational reasons. Answers may be quoted as follows: (1) "They come for industrial training." (2) "They come for vocational aid; quite a number are now voluntary." (3) "Because they see it helps them in a living program." (4) "Boys come seeking greater earning power; girls for better living conditions." (5) "Their attendance will depend upon how well the school articulates with their local social life." (6) "For advancement on the job." (7) "They have a feeling of need for more general education; girls especially enjoy being in touch with school again." (8) "They have a desire to get an education because they have found it is worth while since they left the regular school."

Against the above statements, however, must be placed those made in a large number of instances to the effect that removal of the compulsory law would practically wipe out the part-time school. The above answers evidently apply to the few who are ambitious and farseeing, and apparently the majority have not yet reached any such stage of educational desire.

SECTION XIII.

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS.

A NATIONAL PART-TIME LAW.

From time to time there has been expressed the desirability of having a national part-time law that would do away with the discrepancies between the various State laws and thus place all employers of juvenile labor on much the same basis, so far as continuation-school work is concerned. Since this law would be compulsory upon the States, it would seem to require a constitutional amendment to make it possible.

Such a law can be made effective only if it is expressed in very general terms, and prescribes little more than the minimum and maximum ages of compulsion and a minimum school term. All matters of detail relating to administration of the act in each State-housing, finance, teachers, courses, specific times of instruction, and relations to industry-must be left to State authorities. Those who would oppose this must consider carefully that it is a question of a compulsory law, not of one to be accepted or rejected as previous Federal acts on education have been, and that local conditions vary so greatly within the Nation that they can never be properly provided for where details are fixed in the law. For instance, one of the States visited has a large foreign-born population of very elementary educational attainment, and public opinion will not support its own State day elementary-school compulsory legislation. Conditions are such that high-grade teachers could hardly be induced to live in many of its settlements, and the population is continually shifting. In another State one city not visited had 93 per cent of its pupils complete high school; the population is almost entirely American born; many families remain in the city for two or three generations; and there has been public support of educational measures for more than half a century.

These two States can not start in the same way, or along similar lines; and deplorable as the first condition may appear, a national law can not cure it by force. It must be solved by local ingenuity backed by State support, induced, perhaps, by pressure from the National Government.

Two other factors must not be lost sight of: Federal money as a grant will force the expenditure of local and State funds for some