courage to proclaim it or not. Just why it has not been written into the
course of study is inexplicable, seeing that it is fundamental in the
educational process. It is far from clear why the superintendent permits
teachers and pupils to go on their way year after year thinking that
arithmetic is their final destination, or why he fails to take the
tax-payers into his confidence and explain to them that appreciation is
one of the lode-stars toward which the schools are advancing. In his heart
he hopes that the schools may achieve appreciation, and it would be the
part of frankness and fairness for him to reveal this hope to his teachers
and to all others concerned.

It is common knowledge that business affairs do not require more than ten
pages of arithmetic and it would seem only fair that the study of the
other pages should be justified. These other pages must serve some useful
purpose in the thinking of those who retain them, and, certainly, no harm
would ensue from a revelation of this purpose. If they are studied as a
means to some high end, they will prove no less important after this fact
has been explained. We may need more arithmetic than we have, but it is
our due to be informed why we need it; to what use it is to be put. These
things we have a right to know, and no superintendent, who is charged with
the responsibility of making the course of study, has a right to withhold
the information. If he does not know the explanation of the course of
study he has devised, he ought to make known that fact and throw himself
"on the mercy of the court."

In these days of conservation and elimination of waste every subject that
seeks admission to the course of study should be challenged at the door
and be made to show what useful purpose it is to serve. Nor should any
subject be admitted on any specious pretext. If there are subjects that
are better adapted to the high purposes of education than the ones we are