educational quest. The child studies arithmetic, is subjected to an
examination that may represent the bent or caprice of the teacher, manages
to struggle through seventy per cent of the answers, is promoted to the
next higher grade, and, thereupon, starts on his journey around another
circle. And we call this education. These processes constitute the
mechanics of education, but, in and of themselves, they are not education.
One of the big problems of the school today is to emancipate both teachers
and pupils from the erroneous notion that they are.

The child does not go to school to learn arithmetic and spelling and
grammar. The goal to be attained is far higher and better than either of
these or all combined. The study of arithmetic may prove a highly
profitable means, never the end to be gained. This statement will be
boldly challenged by the traditional teacher, but it is so strongly
intrenched in logic and sound pedagogy that it is impregnable. The goal
might, possibly, be reached without the aid of arithmetic, but, if a
knowledge of this subject will facilitate the process, then, of course, it
becomes of value and should be used. Let us assume, for the moment, that
the teacher decides to set up thoroughness as one of the large objectives
of her teaching. While she may be able to reach this goal sooner by means
of arithmetic, no one will contend that arithmetic is indispensable. Nor,
indeed, will any one contend that arithmetic is comparable to thoroughness
as a goal to be attained. If the teacher's constant aim is thoroughness,
she will achieve even better results in the arithmetic and will inculcate
habits in her pupils that serve them in good stead throughout life. For
the quality of thoroughness is desirable in every activity of life, and we
do well to emphasize every study and every activity of the school that
helps in the development of this quality.

If the superintendent were challenged to adduce a satisfactory reason why