In fact,

both common fractions and percentage with weights and measures. every problem has to do, or ought to have to do, with distance, time, and quantity. Every schoolroom bears conclusive evidence of the progress in the direction of unity in our methods of instruction. Every exhibit of the work done in a school, or a system of schools, brings this idea to the front.

In this discussion I have used the terms correlation, association, and unity to suit my own preference. The philosophers can settle at their own convenience fine questions of distinction that have been thrust before us during the last two years. As teachers, we are interested in the business side of this question. With a few axioms upon which we can confidently rely, it is our duty and privilege to put theories that we have accepted into practice, ever holding ourselves ready to review both our method and our theory.

DR. CHARLES A. MCMURRY, The University of Chicago.-Referring to the discussion by Superintendent Carroll of Worcester, he admitted that correlation has nothing new to offer, but it has something tremendously old for American teachers to realize. He referred at some length to Mr. Carroll's illustration concerning Buffalo, and claimed that the things a teacher would not be found able to impart are just the things which we have a right to demand of the teacher. The work begins and ends with the teacher. The trouble is that the teacher does not recognize the value of relations, and in the illustration of Buffalo the whole point of the illustration is dependent on the relations of Buffalo to the environment referred to by the speaker. The teacher must recognize the value of these relations, and then the child will understand what he is taught. The teacher must know that Buffalo has the very relations which have been pointed out. Indeed, the seeing of relations is the most important work with which teachers and superintendents have to do in their work of teaching. He further said that teachers are required to reconcile two apparently contradictory ideas, those of isolation and correlation. Dr. Emerson E. White said that one excludes the other. It should be the purpose of the teacher to show that one does not exclude the other; but that they may be harmonized. To some extent each study must be isolated in order that a beginning may be made in the understanding of that subject; but afterward it must be taught in its relations with all other subjects in order that the understanding may be complete. The difficulty which the teacher experiences is in seeing the necessity of bringing these apparently opposing principles not only into reconciliation, but into such relations that their combination gives greater strength.

Dr. White has said that isolation is the fundamental principle of the course of study. Mr. McMurry endeavored to show the untenable character of this statement by comparing the school curriculum with the family. To some extent isolation here seems to be the principle. The father must attend to his daily work by himself, the child must go to school, and the mother must attend to the home duties; and yet isolation is not the fundamental principle of the family. The fundamental idea of the family is unity. In a similar manner there is a conception of a school course in which each study must be considered by itself but this is only a partial conception. The faculties of the mind must be associated, and there must be a linking together, a concentration of all the powers to the producing of a good result, and when this is accomplished the mind is working under the most favorable auspices.

There is a practical difficulty in the mixing of studies which is apparentl involved by correlation. Many teachers make serious and numerous mistakes at this point. The reason is that they do not grasp the principle of correlation.

It is a great principle and cannot be handled thoughtlessly. The teacher must recognize that all topics are not of equal importance. It is absurd to suppose that they must be mixed up in a recitation on the assumption that they are of equal importance. In every recitation relations must be seen, and some controlling idea is necessary to give unity to the recitation, and in the grasping of this conception the whole method of instruction is involved. The true method of employing correlation cannot be settled in a moment; it is the product of careful thought.

DR. W. A. BELL, of Indianapolis, Ind., announced that he thoroughly agreed with what had been said on both sides. He, however, desired especially to enforce the last statement of the last speaker. There must be a certain thing to be sought in a recitation, a certain point to be reached. There must also be a knowledge of related matters which are to be brought into the recitation to reinforce the central purpose. The trouble is that people only get a general idea of this subject, and many teachers, instead of having a central idea and being willing to exclude what does not hold an important relation to that idea, try to make use of everything related to what they are teaching, and the result is a failure to leave clear impressions.

If the chaotic teaching of some teachers who have got this erroneous idea is to be the only alternative with the present method of teaching in which subjects are isolated, it would be better to go back to the isolated method. It requires on the part of the teacher a great deal of courage, in teaching geography and involving the historical relations of the topic taught, to use only what is necessary, and to resolutely cut out what is not. The danger to which this subject of correlation is exposed is dissipation. We must have associated ideas in the recitation, but these ideas are to be introduced only so far as they are necessary to the clear presentation of whatever the teacher has in mind to present.

DR. F. M. MCMURRY, in closing the discussion said: I think that comparatively little progress has been made during the past year in regard to the subject of correlation. But if the remarks of this afternoon are representative of opinions in general, there is much hope for the future. Four obstacles have stood in the way of co-ordination First, the doctrine of co-ordination; second, that there is a necessary sequence within each study; third, the danger of artificial relationships among studies; and, fourth, the danger of mixing studies. We seem agreed that the doctrine of co-ordination does not necessarily stand opposed to correlation. We can grant that Dr. Harris is right in his assertion of five co-ordinate groups of studies, and at the same time believe heartily in close relationships among them. Second, as to the sequence within each study, Superintendent Carroll removes that difficulty by declaring that there is no necessary order of topics, even in arithmetic. We see, then, these two hindrances set aside. As to the third point, it is true that there is always danger of establishing superficial relationships among subjects. But that danger will be removed to a considerable extent if we endeavor to correlate, not by days and weeks, but by months and by terms. Fourth, the much dreaded mixing of studies can also be avoided if we take pains to introduce a topic by related experiences in other studies, and in advance work to subordinate entirely the thoughts from other studies to the aim of the particular study under consideration. The mixing of studies, in other words, can be largely avoided if we fix a definite aim in mind for each recitation and hold to it closely.

VERTICAL WRITING.

BY MISS ANNIE E. HILLS, DIRECTOR OF PENMANSHIP, SPRINGFIELD, MASS. Probably no topic has provoked more frequent discussion or aroused greater diversity of opinion in educational circles than vertical writing. While some have denounced it as a passing fad, or a worthless innovation which ought never to be seriously considered as a rival of the orthodox, slanting hand, others have claimed superior advantages for it. Its friends have increased in numbers, and at the present time almost all the more progressive cities and towns in the country have made or are about to make, a trial of it. In many places where it has been introduced into a few schools the experiment has been so satisfactory that it has been adopted in all the schools.

Vertical writing is not new, as up to the middle of the sixteenth century nearly all handwriting was upright. In its earliest and crudest. forms writing was vertical. Specimens of the Roman cursive hand of the fifth century show a decided slope.

In the year 600 the Greek uncial hand changed from the round to the oval style and many of the letters were compressed into a narrow shape. In the seventh century this hand began to slope to the right and continued in use through the eighth and ninth centuries. With these two exceptions old manuscripts all exhibit a vertical down stroke. In old cuts and pictures the position shown is erect and straight, the book or parchment being directly in front of the writer. From the twelth century to the time of the introduction of printing there were two well-defined and distinct styles of writing-the set book hand and the cursive. The set book hand filled the place now occupied by printed books, the writing being regular, the lines kept even by ruling, and pages provided with regular margins. The cursive hand, in which the letters were fundamentally the same as in the set book hand, was used for correspondence and business purposes. The set book hand disappeared when printing came, but the cursive necessarily remained. Up to this time the style of letters used in the cursive hand had been largely influenced by the set book hand, but later took on a more flowing style.

It is very interesting to know that handwriting, like every other art, has its different phases of growth, perfection and decay. A particular form of writing is gradually developed, then takes a finished or caligraphic style and becomes the hand of its period, then deteriorates, breaks up and disappears, being meanwhile superseded by

another style which is either developed from the old, or introduced independently, runs the same course, and in its turn is displaced by a younger rival. So in changing from slanting to vertical writing history is only repeating itself.

The slanting or Italian style of writing was invented by Aldus Manutius of Venice, early in 1500, and was dedicated to the Italian States. It spread to France and England when Queen Elizabeth changed her upright style to the sloping, and slanting writing then came into fashion in England. German writing succumbed to the new fashion at about the same time. As the art of flourishing was more readily developed with the sloping style, the simpler strokes of the vertical were abandoned by the writing masters in their preference for more artistic and complicated forms.

No serious attempt has ever been made to revive the discarded and forgotten vertical until about ten or fifteen years ago, when it was found that in Germany, France, and England, spinal curvature and short sight were becoming so general among school children, and were increasing to such an alarming extent, that special inquiry into the cause seemed imperative.

First, it was thought that the teachers were to blame, that they were careless about the positions of the pupils; but it was proven to the contrary, for bad positions were prevalent where the teachers. were the most careful and painstaking

A crusade was next made against desks and seats; the former were too sloping or otherwise, or were not adjustable, so they bought desks that were adjustable, with broader seats, but still the bad positions of the children remained. The question of light was next considered, but when that was remedied the positions of the children were not, improved.

Attention was at last directed to, the positions of the children while writing, and the unanimous opinion of the numerous experts engaged in the invesigations was that slanting writing was the undoubted cause of the injurious postures of the pupils while writing. Some people say this is nonsense. I thought so until I began to study up the matter, and then I changed my mind.

Eminent surgeons in France and Germany say that shortsightedness is developed almost exclusively during school life, as is also scoliosis or lateral curvature of the spine, and statistical inquiries prove that it is not because these diseases occur at this particular period, but that the cause is due to the bad positions of the children while writing. It is also stated by an eminent surgeon (Eulenberg) that 90 per cent. of the curvatures of the spine which do not arise from some special disease is developed during school life, from the

ages of six to fourteen years. The International Congress of London and the Imperial and Royal Council of Hygiene of Vienna favored vertical handwriting on hygienic grounds. The school board of London recommended that upright writing be introduced in elementary and secondary schools, and generally taught, because it had clearly demonstrated to them by its adoption the injurious postures productive of spinal curvature and short sight are to a very great extent avoided. The.French Academy of Medicine favored upright writing for the same reason. The Supreme Council of Hygiene of Austria decided that upright writing obviates one cause of spinal curvature. Doctors Berlin and Remboldt for the Wurtemburg government proved that the position that children were obliged to take in the sloping style causes the head and one shoulder to droop and the spine to curve. Dr. Javal, the Minister of Public Instruction in France, says: "Doubtless a pupil may hold himself badly even while writing the vertical hand, with the paper straight in front of him, but he can hold himself well, whereas, with the present way of teaching the slanting hand, it is a physiological impossibility."

It might be well to say here that, while vertical writing does improve the position of the pupils without so much care on the part of the teacher, it is often found that children sit very badly even when holding their papers in front of them; this is especially true where the discipline is lax.

Dr. Edward R. Shaw, dean of the New York University School of Pedagogy, says: "In visiting schools abroad, by actual count, the percentage that sat in a good position was not greater than the percentage in this country where the slanting writing is being used."

Dr. Paul Schubert, in a very interesting lecture delivered before the Society of Public Hygiene in Nuremberg, says: "The danger in the slanting writing lies in the fact that there seems to be no means of keeping the copy book in any fixed position; that there seems to be an almost irresistible tendency for turning and pushing the copy book till the body is twisted in a dangerous way. This position is not only bad for the spine but very injurious to the eyes. If you do not believe this, try an experiment. Take a book and hold it in this way and try to read for two or three minutes. The position of the pupil at the desk is governed largely by the position of the paper on the desk; as the paper is turned, the pupil is drawn around by it as the steel is drawn by the magnet.

Notice that in the best school in slanting writing the heads are slightly twisted. You may be surprised to find, if you have never tried the experiment, that when you ask the children to turn their books around in front of them, taking the position for vertical writing,