kept in mind, it would accomplish its largest service. The time that
the author spent in Cleveland was mostly used in observations in
the schools, in consultation with teachers and supervisors, and
in otherwise ascertaining what appeared to be the main outlines of
practice in the various subjects. This was thought to be the point at
which further constructive labors would necessarily begin.

The recommendation of a thing in this report does not indicate that
it has hitherto been non-existent or unrecognized in the system.
The intention rather is an economical use of the brief space at our
disposal in calling attention to what appear to be certain fundamental
principles of curriculum-making that seem nowadays more and more to be
employed by judicious constructive workers.

The occasional pointing out of incomplete development of the work of
the system is not to be regarded as criticism. Both school people and
community should remember that since schools are to fit people
for social conditions, and since these conditions are continually
changing, the work of the schools must correspondingly change. Social
growth is never complete; it is especially rapid in our generation.
The work of education in preparing for these ever-new conditions can
likewise never be complete, crystallized, perfected. It must grow and
change as fast as social conditions make such changes necessary. To
point out such further growth-needs is not criticism. The intention
is to present the disinterested, detached view of the outsider who,
although he knows indefinitely less than those within the system about
the details of the work, can often get the perspective rather better
just because his mind is not filled with the details.