Native mentality or native intelligence, the determinist will admit, is not directly measured by the tests. What is measured? Let me again quote Mr. Colvin :

"We never measure inborn intelligence; we always measure acquired intelligence, but we infer from differences in acquired intelligence, differences in native endowment when we compare individuals in a group who have had common experiences and note the differences in attainment of these individuals." (Yearbook, p. 19, italics in original).

This, then, is the assumption back of the I. Q. which is playing so important a part now in our education programs and which threatens to overturn the entire theory and practice of democratic education. The validity of mental measurements and of every inference that is drawn from the alleged facts that the measurements have disclosed is based upon the assumption that with respect to the materials of the tests, the environment, the experience, the education, the stimulation, and the inspiration of those compared have been identical. We have had assumptions in science before this: in fact, the history of science is largely the history of assumption and hypothesis. They have their place. This particular assumption has its place, and restricted to this place I grant its pragmatic justification. Generally speaking, its justification is clearest in the simplest tests which detect differences between some mentality and no mentality at all. As we pass from the lowest to the higher "mental ages," the validity of the assumption is rapidly weakened. The tests even then measure a certain ability or group of abilities but the contributions of experience become so numerous and influential and these vary so widely even among the individuals of fairly homogeneous groups that it is the height of absurdity to contend that it is a native and unmodified factor that is being measured.

What are the facts in the case? Take a man whom you would find by your measurements to be of average or even somewhat below average mentality,-"the common man," in short, the Homo ubiquitus whose educational opportunities I am attempting to safeguard. Take this man in his daily business. Does he not grow in his power to deal abstractly with problems as he becomes familiar with them? I assert most emphatically that he does. I further assert that with the proper kind of instruction he can be taught to deal with many of the abstract problems that the determinist has in mind when he proposes to exclude every one except the high I. Q.'s from the

privileges of secondary and higher education. The question as to whether society can profitably undertake such an educational enterprise I shall consider in a moment when I shall prove to you that society either must undertake it or perish.

Before considering that problem, however, I wish to dwell a little on this cool proposal to separate the sheep from the goats at the close of the sixth school year. With the constancy of persistence of the I. Q. still in doubt the edict has gone forth that, "For all practical purposes," it is safe to predict a child's future at the age of twelve. It is "safe," in other words, to stamp the twelve-year-old child with the brand of permanent inferiority. It is "safe" to neglect the broader education of mediocre and dull children, to let them be satisfied with a narrow specific training that will fit them only for routine work, and to reverse the higher privileges for the "gifted" children. With this instrument of selection admittedly faulty, with his measures that measure something that no one has yet been able to define, the determinist proposes this policy and seeks to justify his proposal on the high grounds of social welfare and especially of social progress.

Intelligence is not everything, they assure us; it is only one of the many innate traits that condition achievement. A person may have a high degree of intelligence and still be a failure in life; or he may succeed on a fairly slender margin.

. . Equity of opportunity, then, is the only real democracy, according to the determinist. Give every child opportunity, he says, opportunity to develop precisely as his original nature dictates, this one into an artisan, that one into an artist; this one into a machine operative, that one into a "captain of industry"; this one into a clerk, that one into a "merchant prince"; this one into a teacher, that one into an "educator." The determinist is very skeptical about the possibilities of teaching some lessons; but he apparently has no doubt that one lesson can be effectively and universally taught. Every man, he nonchalantly assumes, can be taught to know his own place, appreciate his own limitations and mind his own business.

.. Let us come then to the real issue, namely, the need of democracy for a high level of trained and informed intelligence as a basis for collective judgment and collective action. We cannot dodge this issue by saying that those who cannot readily "take" this kind of education may take some other kind that is far better for them individually. This may be true, but let us not deceive ourselves by calling it democratic. It is not democ

racy as a theory but as a stupenduous fact that education must consider. The development of democracy has been unquestionably toward the elevation of the common man to a position of supreme collective control. Within a century in our own country, the franchise has been made universal. Our government is a representative government in form; in fact, it is coming every day closer to a type of direct government controlled by the great masses of the people. It is this variety of democracy that has lately spread through the world. . . . It cannot be a question of going back to an earlier form of social control. It is now, as it has never been before, a "race between education and annihilation." If education is to save civilization it must lift the common man to new levels-and not so much to new levels of industrial efficiency as to new levels of thinking and feeling.

. . What has the determinist to propose in place of this program? He would apply his intelligence tests to discover the future leaders. Having thus selected them in advance he would give them every advantage and stimulus to turn their native abilities to the benefit of society.

. . . Men and women of average or below average mentality may possess these qualities in such abundance that they become leaders inevitably. It is of the greatest importance that these men and women be prepared through education for the responsibilities that will devolve upon them.

. . . I make no absurd claim that if I teach a common man the principle of gravitation, let us say, I am making the common man equal to Newton in originality, acumen, alertness, or whatever other qualities made Newton one man perhaps in a thousand million. I do maintain that I have enabled this common man to participate in a very real measure in the experiences of one of the most gifted men of all time.

51. Equality of Opportunity

[HUGHES, W. H., "Providing Individual Differences with Respect to Instruction, Scope of Work, and Credit," Educational Administration and Supervision, October, 1919, Vol. 5, p. 347.]

We need frequently to be reminded that democracy does not mean equality of achievement, but, rather, equality of opportunities for achievement. Where this kind of equality is provided, the gifted student will have the attention which is so essential to his individual development and so important to the training for leadership in a democracy.

52. Children Who Do Not Conform to School Routine

[MCCAULLEY, Selinda, "A Study of 1,000 Cases of Children Who Do Not Conform to School Routine," Psychological Clinic, March, April, 1923, Vol. 15, pp. 9–17.]

In studying their cases, an attempt has been made to discover where differences exist between them and the normal group, and what is the nature of the differences. .

It is popularly supposed that many children of low intellectual attainments possess an unusual ability to use their hands. Therefore many educators advocate motor education for backward children. The method of teaching in many of our special classes presupposes that retarded children always possess good manual ability. Since this is so, it is important to discover the validity of this supposition.

Some children, it is true, respond well to this method of teaching, but others never respond. Their hand work is mediocre, or worse, at the beginning, and it remains mediocre, or worse, at the end. . .

It seems therefore that the group retarded in school work is much slower, also in reaction time.

In the field of physical education, a comparison of their achievements with that of an unselected group shows their inferiority. Mr. Judelsohn... found the following results:

Height. In every age group but the eleven-year-old, the normal child is the taller.

Weight. In regards to weight, the groups vary considerably. But again the normal child is not far above the other two divisions.

Standing Broad Jump.-It is in the jumping ability of the three divisions that one sees the great difference, and always in favor of the normal child. In every age chart the normal child's curve is beyond that of both the backward and the disciplinary child.

In every field of accomplishment in which we study these children, we find they are less proficient than the average child. A study of their results in the performance tests show that they are no more gifted in motor ability than they are in intellectual ability. It seems, therefore, that a course of study which gives predominance to motor education does not meet their needs.

53. Can Teachers Select Bright and Dull Pupils? [VARNER, G. F., "Can Teachers Select Bright and Dull Pupils ?" Journal of Educational Research, September, 1922. Vol. 6, p. 132.]

Teachers can select 20 to 40 per cent of the bright pupils in their grade and from 50 to 60 per cent of the dull.

It is more difficult to select bright pupils than it is to select the dull.

It becomes less difficult to select the bright and the dull pupils as they become older.

Selection of pupils for special classes by teachers' estimates is a very unreliable and unsatisfactory method of procedure and should not be used if it is possible to use an intelligence test. In the selection of pupils to enter classes for gifted children, teachers' estimates of intelligence are of practically no value. . . .

54. The Relation of Ability to Achievement [PYLE, W. H., "The Relation of Ability to Achievement," School and Society, September 26, 1925, Vol. 22, p. 408.]

Ability, even if we had an absolutely correct measure of it, would not give a perfect correlation with achievement because there are at least three factors which contribute to achievement-ability, application, and previous experience. The relative influence of each of these three factors varies with circumstances. I doubt that ability usually contributes more than one half to the final result or achievement. It might be a better way to put the matter to say that achievement depends upon ability as modified or limited by experience . . . and application. Genius achieves nothing without work. On the other hand, work achieves little without ability. A combination of great ability, favorable experience and much work brings about the highest achievement. Failure may be due to the lack of any one of the three factors.

55. Role of Intelligence Tests in the Selection, Elimination, and Guidance of College Students

[COLVIN, S. S., "The Rôle of Intelligence Tests in the Selection, Elimination, and Guidance of College Students," Pennsylvania School Journal, June, 1923, Vol. 71, pp. 462-465.] (Abstract.)

Brown University has now for a period of four and one-half years been employing a scheme of educational advice and direc