ing gifts, illustrating steps, bridges, and other structures; or punch holes in sewing cards for the sewing out of conventional and life forms, etc.; and the children are expected to imitate these things in the regulation way. This presupposes that they see the things represented in the same symbolical form the teacher sees them, and which is intended to contain all the essential features of the objects thus delineated. But a study of the spontaneous drawings and structures of children shows that this is a mistake. Children do not see things in the regulation way. To them features seem essential that are quite different from those the teacher thinks should be shown in the reproduction.

The blackboard forms of houses, cats, etc., are nothing but pictographs, picture-writings, hieroglyphics, as it were, symbols of the real things, and the child uses them as such. In the ordinary practice, whenever he is asked to draw, or lay with sticks, or build with blocks, or what-not, a certain object first presented in the form described, he will always reproduce the original symbol without any freedom of deviation, or any attempt to express what is really in his mind. Thus, a conventional method is introduced which counteracts the natural instinct of the child to represent things in his own way. The ordinary exercises perpetuate this conventionalization. Individual attitudes and visions are entirely lost sight of, and much opportunity is lost of studying and understanding what is really in the child's mind, or where his aptitude lies.

Imitation is said to be one of the fundamental instincts of the child at early stages. True enough; but imitation rightly understood. As said before, there are children who can do little more than imitate; but they

must not set the pace for all. As soon as the teacher leads the child into stereotyped form, she is on the wrong track. She must always first appeal to the child's own method, and merely assist him in expressing himself. In this connection the author is, as he often is, reminded of the paradoxical saying of the late Doctor Harris: "Of course, the teacher must be an example; but she must take care that no one follows it." In other words, while she should be an inspiration to the child to find the right path, she must never be a pattern after which he moulds his own individuality.

Illustrative Cases.-It may be of interest to quote here the contrasting types of two boys from a report of a kindergartner at "Herbart Hall" (Cases 74 and 75). A is older than M, and an entirely different type of mind, although both were very backward when they came and really beyond kindergarten age, socalled.

A showed in his Gift work a preference for small material, dull colors (always chose the brown tablets instead of the red, blue, and yellow), and accurate details in construction. His natural diffidence called for an encouraging method. I used at first the free play, then combined it with imitation and suggestion. Toward the end of the year he had acquired confidence in his own powers, and, in response to any given suggestion, would bravely choose his own material to carry out an idea.

In many cases the suggestions came from his little schoolfellow, M. This child has a powerful imagination and at the same time a marked tendency to utilize the things he can get hold of. Once, while building with the Sixth Gift (large size) he found that his train was so tall that it could not pass under a four-block high bridge. He then brought two loads of boxes (8) from the cupboard and made a fine bridge. When A saw what M did, he took the cover of a cardboard box and improved his house.

As a rule A would spend the full Gift period in making and perfecting one construction, while M would build ten different things, in a careless, rapid way. A's perseverance in his work is quite remarkable. One day he tried to build a castle with the tablets of the Seventh Gift. As the task seemed too hard, he tried to make a tunnel. When told that the tablets were not intended for that purpose he begged to be allowed to try. And although he spent thirty minutes in trying (the tunnel came down twelve times) he finally succeeded in showing me a smooth, carefully finished tunnel about ten inches long.

Examples might be multiplied.

The Kindergarten Principle.-The author wishes to have it understood that he believes in the possibilities of a real kindergarten. All the Gifts and Occupations, all the Games and Songs, and all the traditions have their legitimate place. But the kindergarten is more than all that. It is a principle, and around that principle we may assemble a multitude of means and methods among which we may discriminate for the sake of reaching the individual child.

The Montessori Cult.-Inasmuch as a surprising number of lay people, parents, and even teachers in this country have hailed the Dottoressa Montessori as the new savior of the child, and her doctrines as a veritable gospel of child conservation, it seems necessary to say here at least a few words in regard to the "new method."

Of course, it is not a new method at all. It contains no new principles or inventions. Fröbel was a forerunner of modern psychology, the creator of a new thought (no matter how imperfect some of his methods were), a seer, and his work will have to be recognized as having broken new paths even after his Gifts and Occupations are long forgotten. Montessori is mainly a compiler and digester.

The Principle of Freedom.-Both Fröbel and Montessori appeal to the same period in child life, the age of 3 to 6. Fröbel gave many of his suggestions for use in home education, and his "Mutter- und Koselieder" ("Mother-Play Songs") will be immortal. Montessori seems to lay less stress on the home element, perhaps under the influence of Italian conditions. But just in this period of a child's life, the principle of freedom is of the greatest importance. It has been claimed that this freedom has found its first thorough realization in the "case dei bambini." Montessori rejects stationary desks and chairs and says:

The lesson must be presented in such a manner that the personality of the teacher shall disappear. She must be warned of two things: First, not to insist by repeating the lesson; and second, not to make the child feel that he has made a mistake.

These demands are psychologically valuable, but cannot be enforced too rigorously. Besides, the freedom which she demands is rather illusory, as she has very fixed rules and restrictions, and says:

The liberty of the child should have as its limit the collective interest; as its form, what we universally consider good breeding. We must, therefore, check in the child whatever offends or annoys others, or whatever tends toward rough or ill-bred acts. But all the rest-every manifestation having a useful scope-whatever it be, and under whatever form it expresses itself, must not only be permitted, but must be observed by the teacher. Here lies the essential point: from her scientific preparation the teacher must bring not only the capacity but the desire to observe natural phenomena. In our system she must become a passive, much more than an active influence, and her passivity shall be composed of anxious scientific curiosity,

and of absolute respect for the phenomenon which she wishes to observe. The teacher must understand and feel her position of observer; the activity must lie in the phenomenon.

Little objection, if any, can be made against this conception. It has been preached by progressive educators for many years past. Fröbel knew no stationary desks or chairs; and movable seats and tables have been introduced in many leading schools long ago. German pedagogy has always recognized the child as the real centre of instruction, and has taught the gospel of "education in freedom." Pestalozzi, a century before, preached the same sermon over and over again.

Wise Teachers Required.-Education in freedom and for freedom is, however, a very difficult task, and requires well-trained, experienced, and wise teachers. The want of these has wrecked many a kindergarten; it will be the danger-point for the "Montessori school."

Objectivity of Instruction. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that Montessori's suggestions on behalf of objectivity of instruction and of proper sense training are restatements of old pedagogical teachings and offer little that is new, unless it were the introduction of such terms as "thermic," "baric," and "stereognostic" senses. This does not mean that we may not feel indebted to her for several skilfully planned pieces of didactic apparatus. Some of them, are taken from the methods of teaching the feeble-minded from which the Dottoressa originally started, and which have been in use for many years. One of these is the form board, first developed by Seguin when he was superintendent of the institution in Waverley, Mass., together with other similar material suggested and used by him. Her advice to use with normal children methods which