the percentages as reported above, or that the percentages are based on
the total number in the given subjects, with the exception of one
school. Moreover, it is certain for at least some of the schools that
neither the failures of the drop-outs nor the pupils who were in the
class for less than a whole semester were considered in the percentages
above. So far, however, as these comparisons may be justified, the
suggestion made in Chapter I that the schools included in this study
are doubtless a superior group with respect to failures appears to be
strengthened by the comparisons made above.

It becomes more apparent, as we attempt to offer a statement of
failures as taken from the various reports, that they are not truly
comparable. The bases of such percentages are not at all uniform. The
basis used most frequently is the number enrolled at the end of the
period rather than the total number enrolled for any class, for which
the school has had to provide, and which should most reasonably form
the basis of the percentage of failure. Furthermore, the failures for
pupils who drop out are not usually counted. Yet, in most of the
reports, the situation is not clearly indicated for either of the facts
referred to. Still more difficult is the task of securing a general
statement of failures by subjects, since the percentages are most
frequently reported separately for each class, in each subject, and for
different buildings, but with the number of pupils stated for neither
the failures nor the enrollment. The St. Paul report[8] is an exception
in this regard.

To present the full situation it is indeed necessary to know the
failures for particular teachers, subjects, and buildings, but it is
also frequently necessary to be able to make a comparison of results
for different systems. Consequently, in order to use the varied reports