manual, "easy expressive oral reading in rich, well-modulated tone."
It is true that other aims are mentioned, such as enlargement of
vocabulary, word-study, understanding of expressions and allusions,
acquaintance with the leading authors, appreciation of "beautiful
expressions," etc. Properly emphasized, each of these purposes is
valid; but there are other equally valid ends to be achieved through
proper choice of the reading-content that are not mentioned. There is
here no criticism of the purposes long accepted, but of the apparent
failure to recognize other equally important ones. The character of
the reading-content is referred to only in the recommendation that
in certain grades it should relate to the seasons and to special
occasions. Even in reference to the supplementary reading, where
content should be the first concern, the only statement of purpose
is that "children should read for the joy of it." Unfortunately, this
mistaken emphasis is not at all uncommon among the schools of the
nation. How one reads has received an undue amount of attention; what
one reads in the school courses must and will receive an increasingly
large share of time and thought, in the new evaluation. The use of
interesting and valuable books for other educational purposes at the
same time that they are used for drill in the mechanics of reading
is coming more and more to be recognized as an improved mode of
procedure. The mechanical side of reading is not thereby neglected. It
is given its proper function and relation, and can therefore be better
taught.

So far as one can see, Cleveland is attempting in the reading work
little more than the traditional thing. The thirty-four per cent
excess time may be justified by the city on the theory that the
schools are commissioned to get the work done one-third better than in
the average city. The reading tests made by the Survey fail to reveal