don't remember that the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620, that Jamestown was founded in 1607 and that Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603 I shall weep.' Such teachers spend their time upon non-essentials, upon facts that are not of their grade and use terms in their teaching that are different from those for which the children are prepared, or to which they are going. They not only waste the time and energy of the pupils there by keeping them from interesting material that might be of great value, but are hampering the pupils in their work in the future by making it necessary for them to re-learn what they have once learned, in order that these facts may fit the more advanced subject. This is especially noticeable in English grammar.

Take, for example, the classification of sentences. As to form they are classified-simple, compound and complex. They are also classified in another way as well, viz., declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamatory, to which some grammars apply the term use; others meaning; and others, use or meaning. These same grammars that classify as to meaning, in the next paragraph say that an interrogative sentence is used to ask a question. More mature minds know that use refers to purpose and that meaning refers to purpose. But children do not distinguish this. The natural statement that a child would make would be, "If a sentence means to ask a question, why doesn't it do it?". Why, then, should sentences not be classified as to use? Why not use terms that the child can understand easily? Why not say that sentences are classified as to form, as stated above, and as to use. Then why not say with reference to, "Flowers bloom in the spring," that it is a declarative sentence because it is used to state a fact? Why not say that, "Who wrote Evangeline," is an interrogative sentence because it is used to ask a question?

As another illustration let us take clauses. Clauses are classified in some grammars as independent and dependent; in others as main and secondary, and in others as principal and subordinate. Any one of these terms is satisfactory in itself, but when the pupil takes up the study of Latin, German or French, he must use principal and subordinate as terms to distinguish clauses, for in those languages the other terms, independent and dependent are not used.

Phrases are classified as to use, kind and form. If we classify

sentences as to meaning, is it logical to classify phrases as to use? If we classify sentences as to use why not classify phrases that way as well? They are used as adjectives, adverbs and substantives. As to kind, some grammars say they are simple, compound and complex; and as to form the same grammar classifies them as prepositional, infinitive and participial. If sentences are classified as to form, simple, compound and complex, how can phrases be classified as to form, prepositional, infinitive and participial? The distinguishing characteristic of phrases is that one is a substantive, introduced by a preposition expressed or understood, another is made up of a verb usually introduced by "to," and a third is a verb or participle. Form, in the classification of sentences or phrases, means arrangement. Therefore, the arrangement of prepositions in sentences makes them simple, compound and complex in form and the arrangement of words in phrases makes them simple, compound and complex and not prepositional, infinitive or participial. If this is so the latter terms indicate the kinds of phrases.

Another point that will confuse the child is that of a sentence containing a clause used as a substantive. The old, familiar sentence illustrates the clause as a subject: "That the earth is round is believed by all men." Shall we teach the child that this is a complex or a simple sentence?

By way of development, let us take the following: "Swimming is good exercise." "To swim is good exercise." In the first sentence "swimming" is a verbal abstract noun substantive subject of the verb is. In the second sentence "to swim" is a simple infinitive phrase used as a substantive. In the sentence given above, "That the earth is round," is a clause, a noun, a substantive, subject of "is believed," and the sentence is, therefore, simple. It might be well to say, in order to satisfy all requirements, that the sentence is simple declarative, having a clause as the subject.

Still another confusing point is the mixture of terms as in the following groups: (1) predicate nominative, attribute complement, predicate noun, predicate adjective, attribute. (2) object, direct object, object complement. (3) Objective complement, indirect object. Present this array of terms to a class of children or use them in a grade or even part of them, or use more

than one set of them in the eight grades and the result will be not only discouragement on the part of pupils and teachers, but also an enormous waste of time and energy. The teacher who uses attribute complement, object complement and objective complement, will find that pupils have difficulty in distinguishing them. It is well then to save time and energy by using terms that are easily distinguished.

Gender is another of the lesser items that should be mentioned, not because of the difficulty but because teachers forget that genders in grammar are attributes of words rather than of persons, animals or things, and that sexes are attributes of living things and not of words.

In the classification of pronouns there is the most heterogeneous mass of conflicting terms that overlap adjectives and each other, that can be found in the grammars. It is the same with adjectives. There seems, however, no reason why all pronouns cannot be included in the following classification: personal, relative, interrogative, demonstrative and indefinite. Adjectives are most readily classified as descriptive and definitive, with the usual sub-classes of definitives.

Verbs present difficulties in the regular and irregular terms set over against the strong and weak. For years we have been trying to throw off the potential mode and are succeeding in a fair way to do so. But the most confusing of all verb terms are the names given to the tenses. In all there are eighteen names for six tenses. If we use the present, imperfect, future, perfect, pluperfect and future perfect, the pupils will not be obliged to relearn the corresponding tenses in Latin, German and French. If the pupil never studies foreign languages it does not matter. He may as well use these names as any.

And so we might go on enumerating various terms that seem to be a waste of time, not in themselves alone, but when combined with others that must be reconciled to them.

We, as teachers, must realize that there is much to be done, much that we must do, much that we must cover thoroughly, in order to have our classes well grounded in principles that are carried more into detail in following grades. It is so not only in English and English grammar, but also in other subjects, arithmetic, history and geography. If we realize this speedily,

if we get out of the beaten track of those who have gone before, and remember that some at least of our colleges can teach as well as we can or better, and are as desirous for the welfare of the pupils as we are; and above all remember that one cannot teach every subject completely in one grade, we will soon see that pupils do better, that our minds are freer from care and that those who teach principles and devote spare time to details, are the ones whose results tell when the students have advanced to higher work.

The Lengthening Days

JULIA HARRIS MAY.

The days are growing longer.

I can see the sunbeams shine
Over the hill-tops stronger,

In the widening crystalline.
Above the low horizon

New glory doth appear.

The days are growing longer

And the spring time is drawing near.

The days of your life grow longer,

The happy busy days.

Your hands are growing stronger

As you come to life's midways.

Yes, the Sun of your hope must be clearer,
When the sorrows are taking wing,

For the spring-time of joy is nearer;

Do you hear the Robins sing?

Moral Training of Private-School Boys

CHARLES K. TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

HE subject of this article is a little misleading. It intimates that there is, generally speaking, moral training in our private schools, an erroneous conclusion, for that is the one kind of training that is not given, except in extremely few instances, and then usually in an impractical manner, and without much effect. It seems strange that this should be so, that is, strange on the surface, for one would naturally place morality before mentality, and moral training before mental training, yet, despite what the many, charmingly written school circulars say, moral training is only conspicuous by its absence. And as it is a generally acknowledged fact that moral training is also absent in the average American home, the basic cause of the wave of juvenile vice that is sweeping the country is laid bare.

It may be interesting to study the conditions in several typical schools, so that the point which the writer wishes to make will be made clear. So eight schools will be studied in brief detail. Three of them are boarding schools exclusively, one a so-called "expensive" school, one an average-priced school, and the other an inexpensive school. Three of them are day schools, taking no boarders, and these schools are good examples of their type. The other two are schools which take both boarders and day pupils.

Boarding school number one: The school is under a denominational control, practically all the boys and a majority of the faculty belonging to this particular denomination, yet, until very recently, in this school the subject of practical morality was ignored in toto. There were religious meetings in the school, and services of one kind or another, but neither in these, or elsewhere, were moral subjects mentioned, much less discussed. And yet, as far as one could see, all was well within the school, and the boys seemed as well behaved as boys generally are. Then it so happened that a member of the faculty, who had taken a deep