THE FLOWER OF THE FAMILY
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in
action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the
beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!"
"Sure, He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused."
--SHAKESPEARE.
"The apostolic of every age are ever calling for a higher
righteousness, a better development of the human race, a more
earnest effort to equalize the condition of men."--LUCRETIA MOTT.
"To every period its leaders: and the rise of every leader is
according to his watching for opportunity; and the chief quality
of leadership is the jewel of equity, by which alone the obedience
of men is justified."--ARAB SAYING.
"He presses on before the race,
And sings out of a silent place.
Like faint notes of a forest bird
On heights afar that voice is heard;
And the dim path he breaks to-day
Will some time be a trodden way.
But when the race comes toiling on
That voice of wonder will be gone--
Be heard on higher peaks afar,
Moved upward with the morning star.
O men of earth, that wandering voice
Still goes the upward way: rejoice!"
--EDWIN MARKHAM.
=The Proportions of Genius to the Mediocre.=--In Dr. T.S. Clouston's
suggestive book, _The Hygiene of Mind_, he estimates that at least
four-fifths of the human race are legally "sound" and of average
capacity. Of the remaining one-fifth who are "unusual" he and other
investigators name only one-tenth of one per cent, as entitled to the
distinction of "Genius." Clouston adds to this a class of "lesser
genius," often extremely useful to the race but often personally
unhappy from ungratified ambition or lack of temperamental balance. He
lists "reformers" for the most part in this class and "inventors who
do not succeed." He also specifically indicates a class of "all-round
talent" from which successful social and political leaders are drawn
and heads of big business and administrators of large enterprises in
educational fields. Dr. Lester F. Ward, on the contrary, believed that
we estimate the rate of genius and potential genius far too low and
that special talent is vastly more common than the usual observer
thinks. He says, "What the human race needs is not more brains but
more knowledge." In his clarion call for the better education of all
people of every race and condition, he affirms his faith in
environmental opportunity and a finer personal development as the
chief things needed to send the race onward. Professor Woods, of
Dartmouth College, writing on "The Social Cost of Unguided Ability,"
confirms this conviction of Doctor Ward.[11] He declares that "for ten
men who succeed there are probably fifty more who might succeed with
adequate development and specialization of effort." He shows how
"education as an agency in the selection of personal ability fails
because of undue abbreviation of the period of training for most
individuals and the omission of elements of training of real
significance for the purpose of adjusting individuals to the specific
task." When we note that before the fifth elementary grade is reached
there is a drop in attendance showing only 80 per cent. of those found
in the second grade, and in the sixth grade only 66 per cent., and in
the seventh grade only 50 per cent., and in the eighth grade less than
40 per cent. remain of those entering the first and second grades, we
see good reason for his statement. When the high school statistics are
added, with the drop year by year in attendance until at graduation
only one in fourteen pupils remains to the end, we feel that this
author is right when he says that "Society suffers less from the race
suicide of the capable than from the non-utilization of the
well-endowed."
[Illustration]
=Eugenics.=--When Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin and one of
the first to apply to human beings the ideas of "selection for better
breeds," published in 1873 his article on "Hereditary Improvement," he
used the word "Stirpiculture" as indicating the application of
evolution to the method of improving mankind by the selection of the
superior in the process of reproduction. He later changed the
designation to "Eugenics," which is now held as the term best applying
in this connection. In 1891 Dr. Lester Ward himself said, "Artificial
selection has given to man the most that he enjoys in the organic
products of earth. May not men and women be selected as well as sheep
and horses? From the great stirp of humanity with all its multiplied
ancestral plasms--some very poor, some mediocre, some merely
indifferent, a goodly number ranging from middling to fair, only a
comparatively few very good, with an occasional crystal of the first
water--why may we not learn to select on some broad and comprehensive
plan with a view to a general building up and rounding out of the race
of human beings?" So keen an observer and philosophic thinker as
Doctor Ward, however, could not long accept the first allurement of
this idea. He soon began to show with his convincing power that "the
control of heredity is possible only to a master creature. Man is the
master creature of the animal world. Society is the master of its
defectives. But normal people are their own masters. Any attempt on
the part of society to control the choice of partners in the marital
relation would be tyranny." Recognizing the need for "negative
eugenics" fully, and declaring in its name that "mental and physical
defectives of society should be kept from perpetuating their defects
through propagation," he insisted that "eugenists must recognize and
admit the enormous force of personal preference" in marriage.
Doctor Ward gives a figure--as above--which might be used to indicate
the conclusions of Galton, in his _Hereditary Genius_, and of Ribot
and others. Doctor Galton himself gave in his volume on the _Social
Order_ a chart somewhat more discriminating. In any case, however, the
eugenists must depend upon the mass of the mediocre for a supply of
geniuses and those of exceptional talent and depend upon the process
of reproduction for securing that supply. Doctor Ward, on the
contrary, looks to education, controlled and improved environment, and
the stimulus for all people to be gained from more scientific
knowledge more widely distributed. In his famous article, entitled
"Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics,"[12] Doctor Ward says that
"eugenists tend to emphasize unduly the intellectual qualities" and
"manifest more or less contempt for the affective faculties."
"Nature," he thinks, "is far wiser and seeks to prevent all extremes."
He also reminds us that "much that is called genius is pathologic and
linked to the abnormal and the insane." Perhaps few would agree with
Doctor Ward that "genius is scattered somewhat uniformly through the
whole mass of the population and needs only favoring circumstances to
bring it to conscious expression." But that thought challenges
attention. He would improve mankind, first, by getting rid of error
through the full use of demonstrated scientific knowledge and, second,
by a "nurture" in accord with the laws of progress.
=Euthenics and Eudemics.=--The pioneer treatment of "Euthenics," or
"The Science of Controllable Environment," with its "Plea for Better
Living Conditions as a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency,"
was given by Ellen H. Richards in 1910. Doctor Ward, in alluding to
this, reminds us that "there is a tendency for the avenues of progress
to become choked and normal upward movements checked" and that "we
must at all times take vigorous action and in the direction of the
betterment of the human race." In respect to "Eudemics," or the
doctrine of the welfare of the masses of the people-at-large, Doctor
Ward uses the term first suggested to Doctor Dealey, of Brown
University, by Doctor Koopman, Librarian of that University, with
approval, and gives it a meaning of the greatest social helpfulness.
In his view it is not a misfortune that society is being to so great
an extent recruited from the so-called "lower classes." If there are
signs of decadence anywhere, he thinks, they are not in the
"proletariat;" they are among the "pampered rich," not the "hampered
poor."
=New Types of Genius.=--Again, his plea is for universal education in
real knowledge and true inference from facts of life and a universal
sharing of the really best things to secure a just quota of genius and
talent from all classes. It seems clear that we are not obliged to
limit our hopes for "flowers of the family" to the few at the top of
the social pyramid. For the testimony of history agrees rather with
Doctor Ward than with the extreme eugenists, and we have often had
arising from the common life splendid examples of human capacity and
achievement. When the eugenists list their double columns of those
whom humanity takes pride in and those of whom humanity is ashamed it
is most often from the degenerative or defective members of society
that the second list is taken. From the great common life of average
condition, neither too rich nor too poor, too cultured nor too
ignorant, for "human nature's daily food," one rises now and then to
leave a mark high up on the list of great ones of the earth. Hence,
humble fathers and mothers can build magnificent hopes on the newborn
baby of their love. It is to be considered also that there is
difference of opinion as to what constitutes genius and what may be
called exceptional talent. One sociologist thinks that there are but
three really important classes of men, namely, "Mechanical Inventors,
Scientific Discoverers, and Philosophic Thinkers." Another type of
judgment may consider that genius shows itself almost exclusively in
those creative minds that give us great music, great pictures, great
sculptures, great temples, and great books of poetry, drama, and the
novel. Another type of mind, now growing fast among us in this
machine-dominated industrial era, may find genius the most appropriate
name for the master engineer or business-builder who rules a wide
realm of successfully administered economic order. There is, also,
although it is not often bold enough to claim loud voice, a small
section of those who look for supreme excellence in religious or
ethical attainment, a line of genius in mastery of the Way of Life.
Certainly serviceable goodness, that which does big things for others'
safety or help, may be given some place among the specially talented.
For example, the little French girl of nine years of age who, bereft
of her mother by the accidents of war, has brought up almost unaided
five little brothers and sisters, the youngest only seven months old
when her task began, and for two years, it is said, washed, cooked,
and dressed her charges, and "saw to it that those old enough went to
school where she went herself and took prizes for her scholarship,"
might well be called one of the "unusual." The prize of 500 francs
awarded this "little mother" after two years of such able family
engineering and personal care of those dependent upon her shows that
some people at least rank those with ability to do social services and
the high purpose to achieve the best possible for others' welfare as
having a place In the company of the specially talented.
In an inconspicuous book called _The New Party_, edited by Andrew Reid
and containing selections from many "labor" leaders, these words
occur: "We have had politics for politics' sake, religion for
religion's sake, science for science's sake, literature for
literature's sake, art for art's sake: we want politics for justice,
religion for right, science for happiness, literature for love of
humanity, and art for the social pleasure of all." Those who can thus
translate the separate achievements of mankind which taken at the top
have won the title of works of genius are beginning to be seen above
the human horizon as among the great of earth.
It is still, however, as of old, the man or woman who has a special
gift of voice or pen or brush or sculptor's tool or command of
instrument or ability to compose music or to write literature fit to
live forever, or build temples that command wonder and admiration, or
who in some form of creative activity makes his mark upon history, who
is most often spoken of as a genius. It is now only a little while
since we began to add to this list the scientific, the commercial and
the political genius. The military genius has held a place for ages,
but his specialty is losing standing as a social asset, and we can
foresee a time when he must learn constructive rather than destructive
methods of action in order to qualify for the "Hall of Fame."[13]
=Only Men in Lists of Geniuses.=--Genius along any line has for its
topmost reaches the names of men only. Few women have even attained
the secondary place of the talented. When we remember that higher
education for women is a child of less than a hundred years' growth,
and that all the higher walks of achievement in the intellectual, the
political, the scientific, and the industrial field have been
masculine monopolies in custom and even in law for ages after men had
opportunity of specialized development and work, this is not a sure
proof of the intellectual and vocational inferiority of women. Until
women have had several centuries of equal education and freedom of
activity with men no one can tell what they can do in any special
line. It is therefore idle at this date for any one to argue either
for or against the possibilities of a more balanced list of the sexes
in those at the top of human achievement.
What we are now beginning to be sure of is that all talent is
precious, all special power a social asset, all leadership to be
conserved, and all real genius a priceless treasure--hence, that all
children who are gifted, whether boys or girls, shall be developed to
the height of social power. This means that although every gifted
child is born in a private family, society must see to it that its
chance for right nurture and fitting education is not limited to the
resources of any private family, especially to those of the poorer in
economic power.
Galton estimates two hundred and fifty in a million as in the
"distinguished class," If, as Doctor Ward and others think, many more
might be able to qualify for that position if favorably situated, then
society, which is the loser by every undeveloped person, must learn to
know the possibilities of children as indicated by scientific study
and lessen the present waste of potential talent. Dr. Carl Kelsey says
"Heredity determines what a man may become, but environment determines
what he does become." This is not entirely true, perhaps, since many
noble and wise have risen from untoward surroundings, but it is
largely true.
=Social Need to Learn What Children Are.=--If society is to really set
about the business of getting from the mass of mankind all the
intellectual and moral power and all the real leadership that may be
available for social uses, then surely we must learn first to know
more about all the children in every family. How can this be done? In
many cases children are slow in development and may have powers quite
unsuspected until the time for most skilful cultivation has passed. In
many cases parents are so partial that "all their geese are swans." In
other cases the nervous excitability may be such that precocity leads
to overstimulation and later there is arrest of development, and the
promising bud does not develop into the flower of the family. In any
case, the parents alone can not, as a rule, attain full comparison and
due balance of judgment even between their own children and certainly
not as between their own and the children of other parents.
="Charting Parents."=--There is, to be sure, a new plan of "Charting
Parents" to find out what they are able to do and what they are
actually doing in the moral training and physical care of their
children. "The Parents' Score Card," prepared by Dr. Caroline Hedger,
of the Elizabeth McCormick Memorial Fund, and published in the
_Woman's Home Companion_ of March, 1922, aims to enable fathers and
mothers "to size themselves up as parents." The points to be noted and
on which parents have a rating as good, bad, or indifferent, comprise
those concerning "physical defects attended to," "adequate supervision
of athletics and recreation," "regulations concerning the below-weight
or nervous child," on "team-work in parents" (whether they pull
together or apart in the discipline of the child), and some very
drastic examination points on "fault-finding," "lying to child,"
"punishing when angry." The chart deals, in general, with the
character influence of the parent. It is said that only one child in
three hundred had a perfect "score card" in an investigation of a
large number of children, and hence only a small proportion of parents
could be supposed to measure up to all the requirements of the
parent's outline of duties.
This new device of putting parents to the test is being adopted in
many differing ways by health boards, by school boards, by children's
courts, by church committees of investigation, and by the
superintendents of charitable agencies. This all means that a standard
of child-life is being attained, a measure of the normal, divergence
from which is an indication of the abnormal, either in capacity or
condition. This is a wholesome movement, although sometimes carried
out in unwise and unsympathetic ways. This should enable parents to
find out if they have average children and what to do with defects
that are remediable. This is also one of the ways by which we measure
the social need to help parents who are themselves handicapped in any
way to do their duty by their children.
What we need, however, is more than this--we need some definite
knowledge of what sort of children we have in one generation with
which to build the next generation. We need to be able to take account
of our social stock as we go along. To do this the home must be
supplemented specifically and adequately by the school. In the school
we have opportunity of wide study of varying types, of comparison of
differing rates of progress, of getting at actual knowledge of actual
quality and capacity in a child as related to the like in other
children. This investigative function of the school has been used for
the most part to ascertain what children were defective. This is
useful. We need, also, to use it with far more ingenuity to ascertain
what children are most promising and most likely to dower the race
with special gifts.
=New Observation Records for Children.=--A very important "Observation
Record for the Selection of Gifted Children in the Elementary Schools"
has been drawn up by Julie A. Badanes, which has been published with
an introduction by Dr. Saul Badanes. In this introduction it is well
said that "the idea of establishing a norm for every school year" is a
new one. The measurement of intelligence by Binet dates only back to
1905. In the treatment of the "Intelligence of Pupils," Meumann
declares "that the problem of measuring the intelligence of school
children is the basic problem in education." Recently William Stern
has dealt at length with "The Selection of Gifted Children in Public
Schools" and with related elements of investigation of the
intelligence of children. William H. Allen, in his book, _Universal
Training for American Citizenship_, has, as Doctor Badanes notes,
given a chapter to the "Training of the Specially Gifted." We are all
concerned with growing earnestness in the problem of getting in
democracy the leadership which all social organization requires. It
is, therefore, of the most intense interest to all thoughtful people
how the flower of the family is nurtured and in what manner it is made
to bloom.
This "Psychological-pedagogical Observation Record," which has been
devised as an aid in finding out if a child is specially gifted, and
if so in what way its gifts should be developed and how it should find
its way to achievement, is very suggestive. Any parent might well
study its itemized outlines for help in effort to understand the child
that is unlike the average. The "Record" requires attention to the
"general condition of the senses and nerves," to "memory and power of
learning," to qualities of "imagination," to strength and expression
of "emotions," to facility in "language," to "manner of work," to
"relation to home and community life," and in respect to "adaptation
to new demands." These things are vital not only to know about and
understand as respects one personality but to compare on the same
basis a number of personalities in order to get a ranking that is just
and useful for guidance in education. Suppose a father and mother feel
sure that a child of theirs is one of the exceptional, the gifted,
perhaps of great talent, even possibly a genius in the making. They
may get much help in arriving at sober judgment by many books and
treatises now available. But far clearer would be their own approach
to the matter in hand if they could study some such chart as is here
alluded to and get a clear direction as to what to look for and how
to measure what they find. If such parents, however, would be really
assured in their first appreciation of their child they need the
coöperative observation and fuller opportunity of comparison which a
teacher of a school, who is herself or himself a good psychologist,
can place at their service. All of us can see our own children at
their best; few can justly estimate what the power of that best may be
in a competitive world.
=What to Do with the Specially Gifted Child.=--The child may be one of
the few elected to leadership in some field. All who watch and study
and understand may agree that it is the gift of its birthright. Then
what is there to do? The question often arises, Shall the other
children in the family be given less opportunity in order that this
gifted one may have the larger chance which genius and great talent
really demand for fulfilment of promise? There was no doubt of the
answer to this question in the minds of those who believed that a
special gift carried with it special privilege provided the special
gift discovered were of a sort understood by all. For many generations
a boy feeling a "call" to the ministry of religion as rabbi, priest,
or preacher would be sure to have, if necessary, all the resources of
his family at his command and all possible aid of friends even at the
sacrifice of the elementary education of his brothers and sisters. In
the same way in a more limited circle the child who could do any
creative work of imagination in art would be considered entitled to
any self-sacrificing devotion of other members of the family which
might be needed to carry forward his work. In a larger way many have
looked upon all higher education as solely for those who have shown a
power of potential leadership. Not long ago the old saying was
revived: "Colleges are for the exceptional individuals who may become
the world's intellectual élite." On the other hand, the growth of
State Universities and of many forms of adult education, and the
offering of college courses in the evening to those employed in
earning-work during the day, show that the opportunities of culture
are more and more made free to all and that the conviction is growing
that it is not alone leaders who should be educated but that the
common life must be raised in mental and moral power in order for true
leadership to work effectively for the advance of social well-being.
In the family the genius or near-genius is likely to get all that
should be its privilege and often more. And this not only from pride
in his talent and from desire to give that talent its proper chance of
expression but because genius and near-genius have often a
self-protecting and self-acquiring quality that make sure of much
unselfish care from others. If, as has been said, "The genius is
composed of a man, a woman, and a child," and there is much in life to
give color to that idea, then it is easy to see why the flower of the
family so often gets the larger share of every family advantage and
when the family resource fails is sure to find friends and helpers on
every side to help on his development. This is not unjust provided the
talented member can serve well in this specialty. The great trouble is
that many think themselves geniuses and find others, in youth at
least, to confirm their judgment of themselves, who are only a trifle
above the commonplace. This leads too often to selfish claims upon
others that tire even the family affection. It would be well on this
account, if no other, if every child could be wisely and adequately
diagnosed in respect to mental power so that fewer mistakes would be
made in confounding greatness with showiness or creative power with
mere discriminating taste.
If the family really cuts off the education and vocational
opportunities of the less gifted below the point required for average
success in life, in order to give greater advantages to the gifted
one, it is an injustice. The mediocre have their innings now, and it
is one of the great demands of democracy, both within and without the
family, that the commonplace shall not miss its chance for learning
how to serve and enjoy the best it can. The family life must be for
all, the one place in which no life is wholly sacrificed to another
life.
What, then, shall be done for the gifted whose talent, like that of
music, for example, means a high demand for expensive culture? The
answer we are beginning to give is that social agencies shall aid the
parents in securing that culture. Aristocracy had its "patrons" for
artists. Democracy must have its special educational aids for the
gifted. Already that demand is being met in countless ways that will
readily occur to all. Meanwhile, there is the public school organized
to meet the needs of the "average child." At first the grade-system
had a Procrustean bed that made it impossible to meet the needs of
those below the average and almost as difficult to meet the needs of
those above that average. We started special schools and special rooms
for those subnormal, retarded, slow, or specially difficult to manage.
Now we are beginning to consider how we can best make the
tax-supported public school serve the interests of the specially
gifted. The first thing we see clearly now is to find out which
children are exceptional on the upper side, and for that the newly
devised forms of scientific observation and measurement may be useful
if care is taken to mix every formula with common sense, patience, and
human sympathy. The next essential is to decide whether the children
who can go faster shall be passed along through the grades by special
arrangement more rapidly or whether they shall be kept on the regular
track of school promotions and be given extra lessons to "enrich their
curriculum." The part of wisdom, it would seem, is to find out what
kind of gift the exceptional child has and hasten his regular course,
or add to it, in accordance with his type of talent. If he is to be
one of those who are to mix with men and lead others in professions
that demand administrative and executive power, the chances are that
he should have the regular course in the usual order and add studies
that will early give him the facts of practical life and an
acquaintance with many phases of political, business, and scientific
activity that would serve in such work as he is likely to find to do.
If, on the other hand, the gift is creative, and the career nature has
seemingly marked out is one where the impulse will come from within,
and some special technical training can alone give that impulse
expression, then the chances are that the sooner such a child "gets
through with school," emerges from formal education into his own
atmosphere and his own free alignment with the masters in his own art,
the sooner he will really begin to be educated for his task. It seems
to be true that the more a human being is set apart by nature for a
specialty of art the less he gets from all teachers save those in his
own field of interest. It seems also true that the wider a human
being's range of dealing with other human beings in business, in
politics, in religious organizations, in educational work, the surer
it will be that "all is grist that comes to his mill" and there can be
no study that is at all worthy that fails to enrich his mind. Hence,
the new tendency to examination for the sake of finding out the
specially gifted children and giving them the special opportunity in
education which they need and will profit by, must be one guided
toward details of differing gifts as well as toward quantitative
power.
=Genius Universal in Nature.=--If any family has in it a real genius,
that family shines forever in the reflected light of its choicest
treasure. Yet a genius belongs to no family, even to no country. Such
belong to the world. Mary, we are told, "pondered the things in her
heart" which marked the boy Jesus out from all the other lads who
played about the carpenter shop of Joseph. And it is not alone poetic
imagination that shows her as troubled as well as humbly proud at the
testimonies of His coming greatness. Many other mothers of those
destined to high achievement have had misgivings as the shadow as
truly as the sunlight of that greatness passed across their vision.
For true greatness is solitary and often dedicated to tragedies of
experience. The family life may be the only refuge from a
misunderstanding world while the hero lives and only after death may
the high quality of his service be known to all.
=Genius Its Own School-master.=--The most comforting thought to
parents who have children "different" and perhaps different in ways
not yet appreciated by the world around them, is this: nature, which
takes care that we shall not have too many geniuses and doubtless will
still take such care when we grow wise enough to give all the children
a chance to prove whether or not they are geniuses--nature sees to it
that the most gifted among the children of men carry within themselves
their own school-master. If the regular lines of education do not suit
their needs they promptly emancipate themselves from the useless
pedagogy, and going after what they personally demand for inner
nourishment, get it at all hazards. Sometimes, not infrequently, all
the gifted child needs is a library and a chance to be free, or a
studio and the companionship of an artist and just his own sort of
training, at the time he can best appropriate it.
=Varieties of the Gifted.=--Happily all the flowers of the family are
not geniuses or specially talented. Some are just beautiful to look at
and yet unspoiled by flattery. It is a great gift of nature to be able
to give happiness just by allowing people to look at one! The contour
of the face, the turn of the head, the light in the eye, the freshness
of the complexion, the grace of the movement, and the sweetness of the
voice all go together, if the manner and the feeling only match the
coloring and the form, to make it well worth while just to be alive.
And some flowers of the family are not beautiful but charming, those
of tact and graciousness and understanding of others and consideration
and unselfish behavior. These are they of whom one has said, "The
charm of her presence was felt when she went, and men at her side grew
nobler, girls purer, as all through the town the children were gladder
who pulled at her gown."
Some flowers of the family bloom late and come to their beauty only
when some disaster threatens destruction of the home or some sorrow
wrecks its happiness. Simple, plain, unassuming, neither very wise nor
very strong in other matters, they have a heart that can love with
such intensity that it warms the coldest spot and is the refuge most
sought when misfortune appears.
And sometimes the flower of the family is but a memory of one who
early passes on. Emerson sang in his beautiful "Threnody":
"The gracious boy, who did adorn
The world whereinto he was born,
And by his countenance repay
The favor of the loving Day,--
Has disappeared from the Day's eye;
Far and wide she cannot find him;
My hopes pursue, they cannot bind him.
......................................
Nature, who lost, cannot remake him;
Fate let him fall, Fate can't retake him;
........................................
the feet
Of the most beautiful and sweet
Of human youth had left the hill
And garden,--they were bound and still."
It is of such that affection speaks most tenderly.
QUESTIONS ON THE FLOWER OF THE FAMILY
1. How far should the general family life be burdened for special
development of the genius, the near-genius, and the specially
talented member?
2. What added social provisions should we seek to secure to aid in
the self-training of the specially gifted?
3. What type of education may lead more surely to the discovery of
talent and special faculty in the mass of children?
4. Should the chief aim be to bring the subnormal or backward up
to grade or to give a free and helpful range of opportunity to
natural qualities of leadership? If both should be aimed at
equally, how can the public school aid in the double task?
5. A suggestive list of Books for Parents, issued by the
Federation for Child Study, headquarters at 2 West Sixty-fourth
Street, New York City, includes several of special value in
determining the mental powers and special requirements of
children diverging from the average quality and capacity. Read
at least one of the books indicated and compare local
provisions for examination of children with those advocated as
desirable.
FOOTNOTES:
[11] See _American Journal of Sociology_ for November, 1913.
[12] See _American Journal of Sociology_ for May, 1913.
[13] See chapter on "Democracy and Distinction," in _Social
Organization_, by C.H. Cooley.