on. The teachers, on the other hand, said there was no real reason why they should play anyway. They had time enough to play after school. While they were at school they ought to "behave themselves". Now, right at this point comes the tragedy. The teachers do not want to play. They would rather keep quiet, and either rest or visit with one another. They can not understand why the children should not be willing to do the same. These particular teachers feel that the chief reason the pupils do not keep quiet is because they are heedless and mischievous. If they were well-disposed, they could control themselves, and keep from getting in the mud.

Probably the majority of grown people do not appreciate the absolute necessity of a child expressing himself in a manner quite different from that of the adult. Adults are usually pleased to visit with one another, because they have interests that can be shared by mere talking. But nature has not prepared a third- or fourth-grade child so that he can enjoy his social relations in the way in which an adult does. Nature says to him: "Play; don't simply talk to your comrades, but run with them, compete with them in fleetness of foot, and in other ways." In a certain sense, a child has little power to control himself when nature is insistent. He must follow the lead of his impulses to a great extent.

Temporarily, of course, he may restrain an impulse; but it is extremely difficult to get a school of five hundred pupils to restrain their play tendencies during an intermission of fifteen minutes.

What should have been done in this situation? Should the pupils have been punished for lack of Positive methods thoughtfulness? Should the teacher in discipline have anticipated what was likely to happen, and have suggested activities which would have prevented this catastrophe? It certainly seems that the blame must be laid upon the shoulders of the teachers. Perhaps it was justifiable to inflict this penalty in order to develop in the child a sense of responsibility; but how much better it would have been all 'round if the occasion for it had been avoided. It can be said unqualifiedly that the control of a large body of pupils can never be successful by the employment of negative methods principally. If there is no opportunity for the use of positive means in providing for legitimate activities, then it would seem to be wiser to ignore some sorts of conduct, which under other conditions would not be tolerated. At any rate, to enforce discipline from the point of view of the adult alone is a serious mistake. The supreme concern of the teacher must be to get the child's point of view, and to work out his discipline accordingly, though not of necessity

conforming fully to the child's view on any occasion. But whatever methods of discipline are employed, it is safe to say the least successful will be mere negation of the natural tendencies of the young, and of boys especially.

1

CHAPTER III

FAIR PLAY IN THE SCHOOL-ROOM

In a prosperous city of the West, there is a public school building situated at the intersection of A typical case re- two busy streets. There is alquiring correction most no playground space attached to the school for the use of either the boys or the girls. On the opposite side of the street from the building is a narrow border of lawn, which the street commissioner has ordered should be kept free from trespass by the pupils. Early in the year he instructed the principal of the school to warn the' children against encroaching thereupon, and so the principal sent word throughout the school that any pupil found on this forbidden spot would forfeit his intermissions. Now, there is in the sixth grade of this school a boy who is fond of games and plays with his fellows, and who likes to be in the thick of things whenever he can get the opportunity. Further, he is so constituted, as might be expected, that he must have a considerable amount of vigorous out

door exercise constantly in order to avoid more or less serious physical disturbance.

Shortly after the principal issued her manifesto regarding the grass-plot, this boy was caught trespassing by one of the teachers. Other boys were very near the danger line, but he was the only one who had actually offended. He was told by his teacher that he could not leave his room during any of the recesses for a month. He declared that he was not to blame for his apparently disobedient act; the boys had pushed him against his will on to the lawn, which statement was, in all likelihood, true, for the boys with whom he played were pretty rough and fond of adventure. Quite thoughtlessly they wanted to see what would happen if they could get this boy caught on forbidden ground. However, they did not feel moved to acknowledge that they were at fault; and there was really no occasion for them to confess that they were guilty, for the teacher did not ask them, and the spirit of fair play was not highly developed in the school.

After the boy had lost his recesses for two or three days, his parents realized that if this penalty should be long continued it would work ruin to the health of the victim. So they remonstrated with the teacher, but the latter resisted their petition for clemency, saying that the boy had broken a rule of