seed-thought and that insight into life are more highly esteemed, more studied, and more fully applied to-day by American scholars than by those of any other nation. I cannot interpret that fact to our discredit. If Germany has seen fit to turn her face, in part at least, toward some gods which others can but consider false, and away from the wisest of her teachers, this will but fasten our hold the stronger on those truths of which we seem so sure. One criticism which is made in a construc- Is the tive spirit upon the work of the kindergarten kindergarten is that it often exalts the letter above the spirit; that it tends to make static, definite, and permanent the forms of procedure, kinds of material, and methods of intellectual, moral, and social development, which are not ends in themselves, but rather rungs of a ladder by which the child-spirit climbs to a higher viewpoint from which outlook on life becomes broader and richer. There is basis for that criticism. One danger in which the kindergarten has stood lies in what may be called the worship of literal form as distinguished from exaltation of the spirit, which clothes itself in ever-varying forms. How has that come about when the real spirit of Froebel, like the real spirit of Hegel, is so clearly and surely a principle of development? There is only one answer to that question. It is because in some parts of this country the kindergarten movement, appealing to the philanthropic instinct of men and women not highly trained to think, has furnished them with educational material which they have seemed to understand, and with which they have too often been satisfied. In other words, the sure method of escape from that particular lowering of the tone of kindergarten thought and practise lies in the one thing which the kindergartner most needs to-day-wider scholarship. It is too often supposed that because the kindergarten teacher is dealing with the very young child, an emptiness of mind coupled with amiability of disposition will suffice to direct the child's spiritual development. A stupid person may perhaps direct education at that stage where some adequate consciousness of the subject-matter is had by the pupil himself; but no wisdom is too great to deal with the young child, who can approach his subject-matter through symbols only. What is most needed to-day in this work is a higher standard of excellence in the training of kindergartners. I mean a broader general preparation, a more wide-spread conviction as to the importance of thorough preparation. The resources of literature, science, art, and music must be drawn upon to the largest possible extent. It is all well enough to learn, partly by instruction and partly by a period of apprenticeship, something of the mode of kindergarten procedure. But unless that procedure be inspired and illuminated by a grasp upon general culture and modern scientific information, nothing but a formal and barren education will result. Too many low-standard kindergarten training-classes are at the bottom of some of our faults. They have low standards of admission, low ideals of training, and are too often satisfied with training in technic and form, trusting that time will repair the damage or experience remove it. That kindergarten teacher who is not constantly and continually a student, and a student along those great lines of human effort which I have named, will sooner or later dry up her inspiration at its source. First of all she must have scholarship, not only in entering upon the work, but afterward as well; a constant and broader study, which is truly philosophic, because comparative, and because it puts itself under The kindergarten not a separate institution the guidance of the best teachers; one which is also practical in the highest sense because it brings its resources to a focus every morning in the kindergarten room. Another criticism which is sometimes made, and with which my observation leads me to find myself in sympathy, is that the kindergarten is often attached in an external manner to an organic scheme or school system, and is not conceived as an integral part of one process of child development. It was easy for such a condition to come about, because the kindergarten, in its inception, represented ideas. which were wholly strange to the schoolmaster's mind. The kindergartners were, therefore, thrown back upon themselves, and incrusted themselves with a shell for protection. It is now necessary for us to make sure that the shell does not stiffen and harden, making growth impossible. It is easy to mark off in large periods all development of the human mind. It is easy enough to mark off in large periods all growth of the human body. But who ever saw the body or the mind grow? The subtle process goes on before our eyes, wholly unseen, unobserved. It does not obey any arithmetical law; it is not subject to precise measurement or to scientific observation. We gather up those things which we call marks of progress and dwell upon them, but we are unable to put our hand on the point where one stage passes into the other. Therefore the educational scheme which tries to base itself upon hard-and-fast periods is false to the vital principle of growth. It is impossible to say how many years are necessary, in every case, for kindergarten instruction. I am confident that in the case of some children the symbolic period may be passed in one-half the time that other children may take; and we, believing in the principle of individuality and preaching it to others, must not fail to apply it to ourselves. This means that the child must be released for the elementary school as soon as he is ready for it but no sooner-so far as we are able to observe and know. I am inclined to resist the contention that the kindergarten is a course of study. I have no objection to "courses of study," in the sense in which the term is often used; but I object very much to the theory that the child who is able to take the third step must not be allowed to take it because he has not taken the second. I do not believe in holding a |