powers. When this mental motherhood, with its resulting intimate acquaintance, is once productively established, it should not only occasion a saving of time, but many other advantages should result, to the city, State, and Nation through the teacher's more vital contact with the child and his home, and her consequent greater ability to help him adjust himself to life. It should follow, also, that inopportune change of personal influence, particularly in the earlier stages of self-realization, would lead to faults and distortions, mental, moral, and spiritual.

Such is the pedagogic theory, but is there any considerable body of actual school experience which tends to substantiate this theory? Have any practical limits to its application been determined?

It was with a view to getting some definite answers to these questions that the Bureau of Education sent, in April, 1913, to all superintendents of the United States in cities and towns of 4, 000 population and over, the following questionnaire:

1. Are teachers promoted from grade to grade with children, or do they remain in the same grade from year to year?

2. If the teacher is promoted with the children, does she follow them to the end of the grammer school, or does she stop at a lower grade? If at a lower grade, what grade? 3. State briefly your reasons for the plan you use.

4. If you have had experience with both methods (i. e., of promoting teachers with their pupils, and also of retaining teachers in grade), what is your opinion of their relative merits?

Replies were received from 813 superintendents of schools, in cities large and small, in 46 States, giving facts with regard to this plan as tabulated below.

Summary of replies to questionnaire as to advancement of teacher with class.

Summary of replies to questionnaire as to advancement of teacher with class.-Continued.

Many of the superintendents do not answer with regard to the grades or cycles through which their teachers move, and the answers of many of those who do reply are very incomplete.

Those who have not yet established an approximate system of advancement or series of grades through which certain groups of teachers pass as through a cycle, and yet who have made some experiments along this line, give the following answers, some of which are quite indefinite: Four report that teachers retain their pupils for one year, with semiannual promotions; one reports the fourth year, with semiannual promotions; one, the fifth year, with semiannual promotions; three, the primary grades do not advance; one, "the lower grades"; six, two grades; two, three grades; two, two or three grades; one, grades 1 and 2; three, grades 1 to 3; four, grades 1 to 4; one, grades 1 to 5; one, grades 2 to 5; one, grades 1 to 8;

one, grades 5 to 8; one, grades 6 to 8; three, grades 7 and 8; two, one to two years; one, one and one-half years; four, two years; one, one to three years.

The reports of those who have established approximate cycles of advancement are also incomplete, and often indefinite. Three report one year, with semiannual promotions; two report two grades; two, grades 1 and 2; two, two years; one, 1 and 2 and 1 to 3 years; one, 1 to 3 years; one, grades 4 to 8; one, grades 1 to 3 and 4 to 7; one, two or three grades each up to eighth; two, grades 1 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 and 8; one, grades 1 to 3, 4 and 5, 6 to 8; one, shift within three groups; one, grades 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8; one, grades 5a, 5b, 6a; one, grades 5b, 6a, 6b; one, grades 6a, 6b, 7a; one, "cycles, primary to grammar"; one, "the 3-3-3-3 plan."

OPINIONS OF SUPERINTENDENTS AS TO MERITS OF PLAN.
CHARACTERISTIC STATEMENTS.

(a) Of superintendents who have tried only the static plan, and have not yet considered any other: "Simply old precedent habits"; "adjustment to environment"; "matter of custom"; "tradition"; "sicut erat in principio"; "never tried another plan"; "I have really no good reason."

(b) of those who have apparently given some consideration to the matter, but have not tried the promotion plan, either because they believe that local conditions are unfavorable, or that sound educational reasoning is against the plan: "Pupils change residence too often"; "not feasible"; "would not work well in a small city"; "normal system prepares teachers to teach specific grade."

(c) Of those who favor the plan but do not adopt it, believing that their teachers are not fitted for the promotion plan: "Teachers become absorbed in one year"; "teachers not fitted"; "few teachers can adapt themselves"; "too many new teachers each year"; "teachers are seldom ready and willing to change"; "teachers object to changing grade, as it means added labor"; "teachers would resign."

(d) of those who believe that salary list prevents trial of plan: "Salary list"; "our salary schedule makes it necessary for teachers to remain"; "our salaries being same for all grades removes incentive."

(e) of those who condemn promotion plan on theoretical grounds of efficiency (apparently without having made trial of plan): "Teacher becomes a specialist in one grade"; "grade specialists are desirable"; "better for pupils to meet different personalities"; "certain personalities fit certain stages of child development"; "takes two or three years for teacher to get acquainted with work of one grade."

(f) Of those who directly condemn plan of promotion without trial of it: "Fail to see advantage"; "have not had promotion plan, but they do better work to remain in grade"; "impossible to promote-what would you do with teachers of highest grade"? "promotion of teachers after trial will prove collossal failure."

(g) of those who gave promotion plan some trial, but abandoned it: "Tried plan in a few cases, did not get results, returned to old plan." "A real good primary teacher often fails in fifth or sixth grade."

(h) of those who are considering the new plan, or experimenting with it: "I think promotion plan might be made to work"; "we are trying to work away from old plan"; "prefer to let teachers stay through one year at least."

(i) of those who favor both plans: "If the teacher is strong and has a good grasp on class promote her, otherwise not"; "when we can get same pupils back, better to promote"; "when teachers are qualified, promotion plan is better"; "if teachers are strong I prefer to promote them"; "within certain limits, favor promotion"; "depends on adaptability of teacher"; "works well with some teachers, others poorly."

(j) of those who have given the promotion plan a trial and have the conviction that it is the better plan: "Latter plan is better"; "prefer to let teachers stay through one year at least, longer period would be better"; "promotion plan worked well, and whenever possible, pass teachers on with pupils"; "the plan of promoting teachers through at least two or three grades is a good one— it shows up the poor teachers to good advantage"; "the teacher becomes attached to her pupils knows them better"; "I consider two years very much better than one year, and I would not consider a six months' term for a minute"; "heartily indorse promotion; better coordination, less time lost”; "changing teachers wastes time"; "teachers can not say 'children not prepared""; "it is better for pupils not to change teachers often"; "each teacher ought to stay with pupil two years, in order that by acquaintance she may help pupil"; "keeps teachers growing"; "keeps from falling into rut"; "is an inspiration to a teacher to say to her 'take these seventh grade pupils and fit them for high school"; "it probably brings stronger teaching of the branches"; "arouses teacher's methods and interests and enlarges her views"; "teacher must be familiar with work above her and below"; "the plan tends to hold children in school through a desire to go back to an old friend-the teacher's responsibility is multiplied by three."

It is noteworthy that those who favor the plan of promoting teachers with pupils speak with the enthusiasm and varied expression of those engaged in any work of fruitful experiment; while those opposed give stereotyped answers.

In a general way, the replies point to the need of more and wider training of teachers, with the consequent need of more normal schools and the need of proper tenure and adequate salaries, in order to secure the stability of the teaching force. These things are emphatically stated by many superintendents to be the essential prerequisites for success with the plan of advancing teachers with their pupils. Yet, even under present conditions, 152 superintendents, or about 19 per cent of all, report that they have had favorable experience with the plan; and 90 per cent of these distinctly give approval. About 100 more are investigating the subject, and about two-thirds of these are inclined to the opinion that both plans can be maintained in the same school system.

Fully half of the superintendents who replied to the questionnaire condemn the advancement system, though a very large majority of these admit they have had no experience with it. Yet a plan that has hitherto received but little use and less investigation, that commands the warm endorsement of such a large percentage of superintendents who have actually tried it, certainly deserves further study and experiment.

It is here worth while to state again some of the questions that naturally arise from this problem in administration:

Is the present method of retaining teachers in grade (or, at times, in half grades) conducive to an economic use of the teaching force?

Does it tend to produce growth and ambition, or stagnation, in teachers?

Does it afford the best opportunity for locating the strong and weak links in the teaching chain?

Does it tend to produce a maximum of training, development, and guidance of the powers of pupils?

Does it produce the greatest interest of teacher in the pupil?

Does it afford the best means of correlating the school with the home and the community, and to realize our national ideals?

Would the plan of advancement of the teacher with class be more beneficial both for teacher and pupil? If so, in what ways? To what degree? Should the advancement include all the grades-lower, grammar, and high; or should it be limited to a few grades? Must the degree of advancement be entirely indeterminate, or is it possible to establish approximate cycles? Are there any data that would enable an administrator to reasonably forecast the appropriate grade movement, or cycle, of given types of teachers, e. g., teachers with specified training and experience? Is this subject matter by nature chaotic, or are there laws which may be determined? Who has already tried the experiment? Where? In a large or a small community? In a farming, mining, factory, or mercantile community? Is it wise to attempt the plan if the teachers are not normal-school graduates? Are there any kinds of pupils with whom the plan ought not to be tried, e. g., kindergarten, primary, or high school? Is this method consistent with departmental work?

Inasmuch as many doubts were expressed in the answers of the superintendents, and the affirmative evidence was in many ways indefinite, it seemed best to send another questionnaire to the superintendents who expressed most interest in the problems of grading and promotion, in order to secure some positive information upon which to base answers to even a few of these questions. Accordingly, a questionnaire was sent, November 7, 1914, to the 152 superintendents who had in 1913 manifested an interest in the plan of advancement. The questions and answers are tabulated below, with a summary following the tables. The table is divided into three parts; to obtain complete answers for each city it is therefore necessary to refer to each of the parts in turn. Information for South Bend, for example, is found on pages 14, 18, and 21.