bart's very suggestive doctrine of the "Steps of Historical Development." He assumes an analogy between the history of the child and that of the race. The child in its development to manhood passes through successive stages, corresponding to these passed through by the race. To know in what order a subject, say literaure or history, should be presented to the child, inquire how this subject has been developed in our race history. The myth and story which have come down to us from the childhood of the race, are the best pabulum for the child mind of to-day. To insure interest, logical sequence, proper understanding, and to avoid, needless repetitions, much depends upon the proper arrangement of the matter of each subject.

CORRELATION OF STUDIES.

For the other side of our arch, with interest for the foundation, let us place Herbart's happy principle of the "correlation of *studies." Nothing is to be taught out of its connections; no branch should stand alone; every study should shed light upon every other and give support to it. Fearful are the wastes of the schoolroom where the teacher forces asunder what God and Nature have joined together. Not only should such studies as history and geography be taught with referénce to each other, but all other subjects as well. Language, reading, writing and arithmetic are better learned and understood and used, when related to each other. Correlation of studies secures for the pupil concentration of study, orderly connection of thought and the development of a many sided interest.

THE "FORMAL STEPS."

To crown and complete our arch we have Herbart's great doctrine of the so called "formal steps" of instruction. The subject matter of each branch as arranged above is supposed to be divided into suitable lesson-units. In arithmetic, such a lesson-unit might be "The Division of a Fraction by an Integer;" in geography, "The Basin of a River;" in United States history, "The Battle of Gettysburg." In the teaching of the lesson, the teacher will, according to the theory of formal steps, observe and pass through the following stages successfully:

I. Preparation, that is, recalling the previous lesson and other knowledge familiar to the child as aids to apperception, indicating also what is the aim of the present lesson.

II. Presentation, the gathering of all the facts on the lesson topic in hand. The method of presenting the facts will, of course, the facts vary with the nature of the lesson.

III. Comparison, viz., of facts with facts to discover their meaning. (A fine field for the cultivation of a most useful mental power, too often neglected.)

IV. Generalization, that is, the pupil's reaching as the fruit of his own investigation, those conclusions commonly called principles, definitions, laws, rules, formulas, tc.

V. Application, that is the bringing back of the laws and principles already learned and applying them to new particula- cases in science, business, and social, political, moral or religious life. This completes the cycle. The pupil starts from in lividual facts or events, and returns again to them, but this time with power to interpret them. Higher than this no knowledge rises; greater power none can possess. Herbart's system is by no means mechanical, although thoroughly systemized and formulated. On the contrary it brings into the elementary school the charm of reality and invests each subject with greater interest. It promotes correct thinking habits, gives clearer apprehension of knowledge, economizes thought and effort, and furnishes to the pupil the broadest and best basis for future acquisitions. Herbart and his followers have given to Germany a body of over eight thousand enthusiastic teachers, who follow progressive and scientific methods in pedagogy. It is not given to one man to grasp all of truth, or to perfect any system of education, but may it not prove that Herbart, more than any other, has solved the proble:n of Elementary Education?

T

Silly Reading Books.

By SUPT. J. M. GREENWOOD, Kansas City, Mo.

HERE has been a great drop in the character of the readingbooks since I learned to read. It looks as if every author attempts to make his series sillier than his predecessors. Once it was thought that one book was enough of the childish books in a series, but now it is not an uncommon thing to find the baby twaddle running up through the Fourth Reader, and even traces of it in the Fifth. Only a few of the supplementary readers are any better. It is a general "let down" all the way through, not only in the readers, but in the arithmetics, garmmars, &c.

Educational doctors are afraid the children may actually do something; hence, all educational diet is reduced to the consistency of very thin gruel. Children get very tired doing nothing. A class f boys and girls were reading about "A Doll" the other day. Not a boy wanted to read about "dolls," and but three little girls out of fifteen had ever liked to read "doll stories." The boys wanted to read about fights and men and Indians and animals, and where people had done "good things," or said something pretty or something interesting. They liked the truthful, courageous boy or man; or the one that would help a cripple or be kind to any one. The little girls did not differ very materially from the boys, except that they did not want so much of the heroic in their reading.

After testing many classes as to their preferences, I find that children always prefer a class of literature far in advance of what can be given to them from the average readers. After a child learns the child's vocabulary of 600 or 800 words, it is not necessary to still keep pegging away on the same little words.

But to return to the first part of the allegation, namely the weak and insipid character of the pieces printed in the text-books as reading lessons:

I have a copy of “McGuffey's Eclectic Third Reader," printed in 1853. Let us open this volume published forty years ago, and glance through it. A moment with "The Little Philosopher," by Dr. Aiken, or "The Peaches" by Krummacher. Noble lessons on character building! No sentimental drivel in either. The next lesson"We Are Seven." How it lifts the soul upward! It goes straight to the heart, and leaves an impress there that all after ages never can efface. "The Song of the Dying Swan" and "Swartz the Missionary." Is there not here something in this lesson that goes far beyond any mere description of bird, or bug, or worm, or plant, or atom?

Following in close succession is, "Knowledge is Power." In this a sharp distinction is drawn as to the use of knowledge. But I need not particularize. The book is filled with choice selections. There is not a weak piece in the book. Not only this, but the Second Reader of the same series contained excellent selections. Need I name but one beginning with:- "Mother, how still the baby lies," A real gem of its kind. Such pieces as the ones I bave referred to are worth more in the formation of sturdy character, and to put the pupils into sympathetic relations with human beings than all the "Little Bug Stories" that can be crowded into a child's life from now till the "crack of doom." There is some real merit in the pieces.

In the Third Reader of this series, all sides of the child's nature are touched. He is stimulated, too, by having "The Consequences of Idleness," portrayed in the life of George Jones, while the next lesson, "Advantages of Industry" are clearly set forth in the person of Charles Bullard. Again, in "The Child's Inquiry," beginning, "How big was Alexander, Pa?" the true intent and purpose of war are shown in such a manner as to leave an impression on the child's mind in regard to the murder of one human being as compared to the killing of thousands.

Another great moral lesson in this book is entitled "Little Victories," by Miss Martineau. This lesson has given more children courage than any other one lesson that I know of in the language. Scattered through the book are enough lessons about animals to whet the appetite for something more in larger and more pretentious works. It should be remembered that a child is always more interested in reading about lions, tigers, bears, and so forth, than in counting the number of nails on each foot or the teeth in each jaw. Habits and characteristics please children most, not the number of bones in the foot, leg, or head. Details and analyses of too minute a character are always tiresome to children.

Another point. I can not see how any sincerely honest man or woman can be an atheist. With my ideas of cause and effect it appears absolutely impossible, and yet I suppose there are such persons living, but the lesson in McGuffey's old Third Reader, "The World of Chance" by Dr. Todd, is certainly one of the most perfect and complete vindications of an intelligent design in all things terrestrial that can be presented.

Yet, I suppose, the "New Educational-little pill-doctors" would claim that this is too severe for children in the Third Reader. They are very much alarmed lest they strain the children's think

ers.

Lesson 69, in this book, is entitled, "Difference Between Man and the Inferior Animals." It is a wonderful presentation. It strikes the childish imagination with a force that is simply irresistible. It is one of the best antidotes to all this maudlin, physiological psychology, which essays to find mind in the bottom of a retort, or an alembic, or in a pile of brains after death, or away down yonder in the simplest form of the cell.

So far, I have said little of the poems in this book. The last lesson, "The Dying Boy" by Mrs. Sigourney, is a touching poem indeed. I ask any candid teacher to compare the character of the selections in this book with any Third Reader of modern date, and see how vast the difference. It is folly for any one to tell me that Mc.Guffey's old "Third" was too hard for children to read in. I taught this book for three or four years and the children read well in it.

FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Before me is " McGuffey's Eclectic Fourth Readers," imprint of 1843. To say that it is solid only half expresses the truth. All the pieces are of the very highest literary merit. Here are better literary selections that can be found in any dozen of the books published for the use, benefit, and moral improvement of the boys and girls of the present generation. They are introduced at once to the beauties and elegance of thought and style. Twaddle there is none. Every lesson has an object—to toughen and to strengthen the intellectual and moral fiber of the boy or girl. The "coddling process is gloriously and sensibly eliminated. Here is a book of 323 pages filled with nutritious food. There is not a padded page in it.

All the modern reading books are projected on the plan that the child must have next to nothing to do. High, wall-eyed educators lift up their hands after imbibing inspiration from Germany, and tell us just what the child is capable of doing and of not doing. They failed to learn that in Germany the reading books, after the second reader, are modeled after the books I have been describing in this article. The "boshy" notion that the way to learn to read and to cultivate the voice, is to read the plain, natural-science infor mation selections, is about as rational as to expect to find the "Thirty-nine Articles of the catechism in C. 'Ayers' Almanac."

It was in a later edition of " McGuffey's Fourth Reader" that I read when a boy at school. I understood much of what I read, and a great deal of it caused me to think about the things mentioned. That a deep impression was made on my mind is only a half-truth. The words burnt into every fiber of my nature. The story of "The Intemperate Husband," and of "The Venomous Worm" put me on the side of "Temperance" for all time. At the same time grew up that aversion to the use of tobacco by schoolmasters which has stuck to me. In fact, it may be a little extreme, but the person

who poses as an educational reformer, and is frequently seen with a cigar in his mouth, should first reform himself or sing very low before the boys.

Another phase of the straight reading should be mentioned. A book on natural science, or logic, or mathematics, or law, or medicine, is not a text to be read for the purpose of cultivating the human voice. Such works are to be studied for the information they contain, and for no other purpose. They contain statements and discussions devoid of passion and feeling. Reading as a science and an art,—the expression of thought and feeling by utterance and action, is a different matter entirely, involving a much wider range of expression than can be brought out of any mere information subject matter.

as:

Reading matter that does not reach the emotions, the affections, the desires, and at times touch up and arouse the very loftiest feelings of the soul, lacks the essentials of good reading matter for children. No great feeling can ever be stimulated over such a lesson "Jump, little frog, Jump for Tom!" If the child takes on any feeling, it is put on for the occasion, and not because it is real. My contention is, that after the Second Reader, selections on account of literary merit should be used almost exclusively. Some. purely informatión pieces of course should be inserted, but the gems in prose and poetry ought to predominate. Neither do I object to pupils reading books of travel in connection with their geography lessons, but the class of literature in reading books, should be the best that has ever been written in the language. Tough, hard study is the only kind that ever did a boy or girl any good, and it is the only kind that should be put in the reading books.

It is through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Reader that nearly all the children of our common schools get an insight into literature, and because of this fact, if no other, should the selections be of the very highest excellence.

There is another danger that of spreading too much. It is not the great quantity of printed matter rushed over that, produces either the good reader or the thoughtful intelligent reader. With too many teachers, the tendency is to measure progress by the multiplicity of volumes read by a pupil or a class. Such an idea, if pursued, is dangerous, and a habit once contracted on this basis, leads to mental weakness and not to mental power. Light reading has this effect.

The really valuable selections to be read and appreciated, are those master-pieces which grow upon us with every fresh reading. The filling up process is a vicious one. Mental dyspepsia is worse than physical and chemical indigestion of food. Little teaching, little study, fiddle-faddle nonsense, -called educating a child, is the accomplishment of a national crime, whose enormity words fail me to portray in its true colors. The-do-little.policy is sapping all the life out of thousands of our school children to-day, under the seductive but fallacious title New Education.

Boston Examinations.

Are we really trying to turn out fifty thousand clothes-pins, of precisely the same pattern, in the Boston schools, or are we trying to make of each boy and girl the best that can be made, and to encourage as we can the particular genius of each separate child? In some transfer of children from one building to another, last summer, there were examinations of unusual strictness, and the pupils were drilled for days in advance, by what might be called mock examinations. A careful and conscientious teacher, worn out by a day spent in this drill, lamented to a friend, "Oh, it is so hard. They think so much of their writing for they'll be marked on their writing that they forget their spelling; or else they think so much about the spelling that they forget to put in the quotation marks. And some of the boys are so thoughtless and indifferent!" Upon inquiry, it appeared that the average age of these boys, who were "indifferent to the niceties of quotation marks, was eight years and a half! Is it possible to conceive of rigmarole more absurd than that involved in a system which produces such results ? EDWARD EVERETT HALE.

Boston Commonwealth.

METROS

The Editors will be pleased to receive contributions for this Depart. ment.

TH

Some Arithmetic.

By WM. M. GIFFIN.

HERE are thousands of children who if aske, "What do we get when we multiply square feet by feet?" will answer, "Cubic feet," because they have never been made to see that when finding the volume of anything, we are simply repeating a certain number of units a certain number of times. These units are to be seen in layers, each layer containing a number of rows, and each row containing a number of the units, which, by the way, are always cubes. For example, I ask, "how many cubic inch blocks in a rectangular block that is four inches long, two inches wide and three inches thick?" The child who has been correctly taught will at once think, "There are three layers of cubic inches. Each layer contains two rows and each row has four cubic inches. There are, then, in the first layer two four cubic inches or eight cubic inches and in the three layers, there are three eight cubic inches or twenty-four cubic inches." Here he sees no mystery as his product is of the same kind as his multiplicand, as it should be. If the teacher has the little cubic inch blocks with which to build up the rectangular solid the truth will be seen by the slowest boy in the class. I nearly wrote dull but I do not like that word. Many boys and girls have been called dull, who were simply slow to see a truth, and who were mentally stronger than others, the pets of the teacher. Teachers, let us study our children and be very careful on whom we pass judgment.

The reader will notice that I say two, four cubic inches and not two times four cubic inches. Because two, four cents is the language of the child and needs no explanation, while times has to be explained and then often times is not understood. If so, why will almost fifty per cent of a class say (young pupils) three times naught are three or four times naught are four? I have yet to find a child who will say three nothings are three. Again, I may say three times three apples and have the same three. I take up three apples, that is one time three apples. I take them up again and that is two times three apples. Putting them down again, I once more take them up and that is three times the same three apples. There is no objection to the use of the word times if the children understand what the teacher wishes to convey by its use.

The following question has been submitted to me. "Explain how the rules for the division of one decimal by another are deduced."

Let me answer it through the POPULAR EDUCATOR. What is division? My answer is: Dividing a number into a number of equal numbers. As, how many four apples in twelve apples? I say, after investigating, there are three four apples. I express it thus 12 apples ÷ 4 apples 3 (four apples.) 12 is the dividend, 4 is the divisor, and 3 (four apples) is the quotient. What do we notice here? (1) In division the dividend and divisor have the same name. (2) In division the quotient always equals the dividend.

I ask how many hats at $4 each can I buy with $12? I say as many hats as there are $4 in $12 which are three four dollars, hence, I can buy 3 hats. Here my dividend is dollars, so, too, my divisor is dollars and my quotient is three four dollars.

I say, I have of a pie. To how many boys can I give pie ?

My answer is to as many as there are one half pies in two fourths pies; but this is finding the equal numbers in a number. It is, then, an example in division. In division the dividend and divisor must have the same name. Then I must give them the same name which in this case may be halves or fourths. We will say fourths. Now we have ÷ 1. Surely not one whole pie, but one one half pie, hence, I can give one boy pie when I have of a pie. But, says Mr. D. the 1 is abstract, that is, I ask how many one halves in two fourths and the answer is one abstract! Oh, what bosh! Is it any wonder that so many children dislike arithmetic ?

What is true in whole numbers and common fractions is just as true in decimals. I ask, to how many boys can I give .3 of a pie if I have .30 of a pie? I answer to as many boys as there are .3 or .30 in .30 which is 1 (.3 or .30) hence, I can give .3 to one boy.

Well, if

What about this, I hear some one ask, .8÷8=? $12 $4 means, how many four dollars in twelve dollars, which it does; and if "12÷4?" means how many fours in twelve, which it does. Then "88=?" means how many eights in eight tenths. How absurd. Just as reasonably might I ask a child, "How many gallons of milk in a gill? or, How many tons of coal in one pound?" How can a child's mind unravel such mysteries? Yes, such questions are in many arithmetics. So are there questions in Alligation (alias robbing, cheating, and defrauding ones neighbor) in many arithmetics. This is no reason, however, why they should be taught. If the powers-that-be insist on teaching everything in the book, teach them, but do it in such a way as to show up many of the absurdities, thus obey orders and do a kindness to the children at one and the same time.

I have seen such examples as .88 in books but I never saw them "set to problems." "Here you are then," says Mr. D. (D stands for Doubter) "I have .8 of a pie and desire to divide it among 8 boys. How much will each boy receive ?" Bless your heart, Doubter, that is not a problem in division. Division, we have said, is dividing a number into a number of equal numbers. Also in division the dividend and divisor have the same name. In your problem the dividend is .8 pie. The divisor is 8 boys. Now, you do not mean to tell me, Doubter, that you are going to find how many 8 boys in .8 pie. Were your question how many .8 pies in 8 boys and were the time Thanksgiving, we might agree with you and write the answer X (an unknown quantity.) What you mean to ask, Doubter, is what part of that .8 pie will each boy get, or of .8? and the answer is given at once.1 Such examples differ widely from examples in division. Then let us not call them division, but some other approved name, say, for example, Partition. When a number is divided into a number of equal parts to find how many are in one part we call it partition. We notice that in partition the dividend and divisor are not alike and the quotient is always a part of the dividend, hence, has the same name.

It would be just as sensible to call the following: "What will .3 pounds of tea cost at $.3 a pound ?" a problem in multiplication as to call yours a problem in division. What is that you say? "So it is a problem in multiplication of decimals." To multiply, my dear Doubter, whether it be in decimals, Amsterdam, or Caledonia, has but one meaning, viz.: to make more numerous. The answer to this problem is as we all know $.09. Since this is much less than the multiplicand, it follows that we have not made more numerous, therefore, there has been no multiplication, as such, but both multiplication and division. We have simply taken .3 of $.3. .1 of $.3 $.03 and .3 equal 3, three hundreths dollars or $.09

Before doing any work in decimals we have had such expressions as of 20 and the children know that they must first find of 20 or 5 and then or 15. Why, then, when taking up decimals should we ignore all that has preceded them? Thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands work problems in multiplication of decimals (so called) and point off as many places in the product as there are decimal places in the multiplicand and multiplier taken together

aud never know why. This may be a good way to stuff the mind, it certainly is a very poor way to develop it. Most arithmetics are made in such a way as to rob the child of independent thought. The fellow who makes the book has all the fun and delight of dis. covery, while the children follow in his wake stuffing themselves with the authors discoveries.

S

EVERAL years ago I was given the following example by an instructor in the West Point U. S. Military Acadamy: 10-2 X3=? He fully expected that I would reply twenty-four, rather than four. But I had been so fortunate as to use perhaps the only text-book in arithmetic which, even twenty years ago, taught by example at least, though not by precept, that the use of the signs,, X, and is the same in arithmetic as in algebra. The same gentleman told me that he scarcely ever found a candidate for West Point honors who understood this simple usage and who could give a correct answer to such an example as the one cited.

Only a few years ago, in an institute of over one hundred teachers, I found that less than five per cent of them had ever learned this important lesson. Moreover, most of the text-books in arithmetic ignore or evade the question altogether, although a few of the best ones emphasize it. Simple though the matter be, one who is untaught in regard to it can hardly fail to err constantly in his practice.

are

All that is needful to correct usage is to remember one thing, i. e., that the parts of an example separated by the signs + and wholes (technically called terms) and are to be treated as such. Two days ought to suffice for an average child under a wide-awake teacher to master this usage. If the text-books of a class are incorrect, let the teacher take all these and insert pencilled corrections. However, very few marks of this sort will be found necessary. There will then be no difficulty in the following examples: 152 × 3 = 9

It is a very great advantage to any child to have mastered the use of vinculum and parenthesis in simple examples before he comes to the more complex use in algebra. Of course every competent teacher will always look over carefully all examples given classes to see that no negative results occur.

In many primary and intermediate grades, I have seen long columns of work on the boards with the understanding that the nnmbers and processes are to be taken in the order written; but any teacher who gives her class such an example as 10-8 x 2 and teaches that the answer is fourteen rather than four not only proves himself ignorant of correct usage, but, what is worse, gives his pupils a bad habit that is not easily overcome.

Every teacher of algebra knows how difficult it is to overcome in his pupils this habitually incorrect use of signs. I have known repeatedly of pupils failing in state or other examinations, because in the excitement incident to being under test, the habit of years was far stronger than the influence of a few weeks' teaching. Ex. amples of this probably occur at every examination given in algebra wherein the matter under discussion enters into the test. If it be true that algebra is universal arithmetic, the two must harmonize.

Out of a class of forty, only three or four had them right. Then I asked the children to erase everything from their slates, and dictated the following:

1. Count the number of decimal places in the divisor.

2. Count the number of decimal places in the dividend.

3. Notice whether there are as many, or more, decimal places in the dividend than in the divisor.

If there are as many, or more, then divide at once. b. If there are not as many, annex ciphers to the dividend

to make the number the same as in the divisor, then divide.

4. To find out how many decimal places to point off in the quotient, subtract the number of decimal places in the divisor from the number in the dividend.

5. If there are not enough figures in the quotient to point off the right number, prefix enough ciphers to make up the number. Then I put upon the board an example, as 2.6)8.06( and had the class read No. 1, and a child give the answer. It was necessary to stop here for a drill on counting decimal places, after which I called for No. 2, from the class, and the answer from a child. Then followed special emphasis upon the fact that the next thing to do was not to do, but to stop, to notice, to look, to think, to decide, then, choose between a and b.

When the division was finished, No. 4 was read by the class and answered by one child. If necessary No. 5 followed. After considerable work on the board, I dictated a number of examples in this way, for instance:

"Divisor, .26. Dividend, 806."

After allowing necessary time, "Pencils down. Read No. 4, and if necessary, No. 5."

This, of course, has been silent and individual work on the part of each child, and helped to lead them into the right order of working.

After looking over this work, I dictated three examples similar to those with which the lesson began, and instead of three or four right, there were only that number wrong.

At the next writing lesson this set of rules was copied correctly from the board on paper, each paper to be kept in the cover of the arithmetic. Following for several days this class work, each child thereby reading and following his own rule, I have proved by results that the time was well spent. It gives the child explicit directions as to just what he is to do, and avoids the vagueness of the ordinary rule in leaving out wholly the bewildering as many as," and "exceeds."

lesson in science adds to the vocabulary of the child and he sees each new word used in a way that leaves no doubt as to its meaning. Besides, the study of the sciences cultivates habits of close and accurate observation. As a test of accuracy the pupils may be required to draw a diagram representing the different parts of the worm. It should appear as follows and the teacher may set the example by placing the drawing on the board:

DRAWING No. I.

Examine the work of the pupils and you will find that nearly all have drawn neatly and accurately, but one boy was a little careless. His work appears like this:

DRAWING No. II.

Show him that he has represented three segments between the true legs and the clasps, while the fact is there are never but two. Artists must represent things exactly as they are. This boy will be more careful in the next lesson.

T

The Study of the Sciences.

By C. A WOODARD, Prin. Schools, West Troy, N. Y.

HE larvae of the butterfly are disagreable and repulsive things to handle and examine, but science taught in any other way than from the real objects would be productive of no other results than the acquisition of a quantity of uninteresting and unimportant facts. Here, then, is an opportunity for the teacher to exercise his ingenuity. It is necessary that he should have a sufficient number of specimens to enable him to supply each pupil, and these specimens must be so arranged as to remove the obstacle in the way of success arising from the natural and excusable aversion which nearly all people entertain at the idea of getting on too familiar terms with a "worm."

A good way to prepare such specimens for class work is to obtain a piece of glass tubing of the proper size (such as used in chemical work); cut it into pieces a little longer than the specimen to be preserved; force the caterpillar into the tube; fill with alchol and seal up the ends. Specimens prepared in this way may be kept indefinitely and all the exterior parts of the body may be examined without difficulty and without any of the feeling of disgust which otherwise would interfere with the successful progress of the work. A LESSON ON THE CATERPILLAR.

Material: Pass down the specimens to the pupils for examination. The pupils have been taught to make observations in a certain order, first noticing the general outline of the object. Develop well-worded statements for each idea brought out. The first statement then in this lesson will be in regard to the general appearance of the caterpillar. Require a pupil to write it neatly on the board. Give the term "caterpillar" and caution them against using the term "worm" in this connection.

The caterpillar should now be examined in detail, noticing first the head. This should be studied with great care as to shape; size, compared with the rest of the body; eyes; mouth and other parts. The remainder of the body should then be taken up with equal care, noticing its division into parts called segments; the number of these segments; the legs with reference to position, number, shape and uses, all this to enable the pupils to make comparisons when they come to study the butterfly, and also to give them a better idea of the wonderful changes that occur during the chrysalis state. If a clear and grammatical statement is obtained for each idea as developed the children will need no better language lesson. Every

Natural History in the Schoolroom.

A teacher wishing to give out a natural history subject for a composition gave the subject "Ants." The following is the result

of one boy's effort:

Ants.

There is many kinds of Ants My ant Mary Jane is one of these kind. Sue is genlly good natured and when she comes to see My Mother she brings me five cents worth of peanuts and tells me Why James how you've growed but when I go and see her and don't only just wawlk on the Carpit without Cleening my boots she is orfly mad. Ants like to give you Advice and scold at you like everything but their Hart is in the Wright Plaice and once I found a Ants nest in the woods I poked it with a stick and a Million Ants ran out after me and Crawled up Inside my Pants and Bit me like Sixty. Ants nests are good Thing not to Poke with a stick Ants are very Industryous in Steeling Shugar. I forgot to say that my Ant Martha lives in Main she has a boy of just about my Aige and He can stand on his Hed Five minits and how Do you suppose he can do it. I Do not think Annything more about ants at present. - North Carolina Teacher.

Hygiene (?)

To the Editor:- May I call your attention to a point that has been forced on my attention and ask you to kindly explain the present condition of affairs?

It seems to me that in the schools and educational periodicals where " Physiology and Hygiene" are mentioned, we find some Anatomy and some Physiology, but no Hygiene.

In your issue of March, '93, I find "Professional Examination Questions" from New York (on page 248). Under the heading Physiology and Hygiene, in eight questions I find three only on Physiology, and none on Hygiene; and the only really practical question in the eight is the fifth- and possibly the seventh. I should be glad to know the object in view in teaching Physiology and Hygiene (?) in this way, for I confess I don't understand it. Trenton, N. J. H. B. BOICE.