were modified to suit the slow group: review, preview, drill, study period, socializing the recitation, character and amount of lesson assignmentall kept in mind the mental level of the group with which the teacher was dealing. Teachers became decidedly more sympathetic and patient in their attitude toward groups of pupils of mediocre ability than with those whose slowness was made conspicuous by contrast with others of marked ability in the same group.

The opinion of the faculty generally inclined so favorably to the idea of grouping pupils according to working ability that before the close of 1921 school year letters were sent to the principals and teachers of all contributing schools requesting such information as they might have, whether as the result of intelligence tests or from their observation and ratings during the year, and to give a general average of each prospective junior high school pupil under one of the following terms: very good, good, average, poor and very poor.

Present junior high school accommodations in Harrisburg provide for approximately 2600 pupils. This limitation necessitates the exclusion of the 7-B grade, which with us is the first semester of the seventh year.

Then, too, since mid-year promotions can at present only be made within the schools, the pupils attaining the 7-B grade in September are not admitted to the junior schools until they have reached the 8-B grade. Two grades, therefore, are admitted to these schools in September, the 7-A and the 8-B.

Since there is no choice of course open to seventh year pupils, grouping according to such information as may be furnished is a simple matter; as are also such changes as may be found advisable after some experience with these new pupils, provided the particular group or groups to which such transfers should be made are not already up to the limit of our seating capacity, which is forty for each room. One hundred and ninety-four seventh year pupils reported in September, which was an average of about thirty-nine to each of the five sections. All these were grouped on the basis of information received from teachers.

The problem of homogeneous grouping in the eighth grade is not quite so simple for the reason that in the eighth year all pupils are obliged to choose one of the three courses: the academic, the commercial, or the manual arts. Three hundred and twenty-six pupils were admitted to these eighth year courses, one hundred and twenty-nine choosing the academic, with Latin as an elective, thirty-seven the academic with French as an elective, one hundred and twenty-nine the commercial course and ninety-four the manual and household arts course.

As will be noticed from the numbers some latitude was afforded in grouping these pupils according to their mental level, except in the case of those electing the French Academic Course, thirty-seven being

only enough for a single group. After about two months' trial the parents of several of those electing French requested a change in their course, and another was persuaded to make a change. Among the thirty-two that remain in this group there is considerable variation in ability for which we have no immediate remedy.

In preparation for this discussion, however, a rather careful study has been made of the five 7-B groups before referred to. These have now become 8-B, and are known as sections 8-B1, 8-B2, 8-B3, 8-B4, and 8-B5.

A rather small proportion of these one hundred and ninety-four boys and girls was rated as superior, or very good; not sufficient in number for one unit group. But those thus rated, with others rated as "good", were placed in 8-B1. Others rated as "good", together with some rated as "average" had to be taken together to make up 8-B2. The third group was made up entirely of those rated as average pupils. Other average pupils, together with a few rated as poor, constituted 8-B4, and the remaining poor and very poor pupils were placed in 8-B5.

A serious weakness in making this classification was the lack of definite information as to variations in those rated good, average and poor. This was our first attempt at any such classification, however, and we expect to improve on it very much in arranging for the coming year. Under the circumstances the best we could do was to make changes as soon as discoveries seemed to justify them. Not a great many were made, perhaps not more than ten during the year. Breaking up newly formed class relationships during the year is not looked upon with favor by pupil, or by the parent whose co-operation we must have. Added to this consideration was the other even weightier one-that no pupil had any idea why he was placed in 8-B1 or 8-B5, and teachers were cautioned against making any reference to the classification of pupils according to ability. In the regrouping of eighth year pupils during the second semester of the preceding year a fixed standard was established up to which a pupil was obliged to measure in order to get into one or the other of the two select groups. It was an award to those who had shown themselves willing to work; not all were of exceptional ability.

Perhaps if it were known in the grades, as it eventually will come to be known, if the practice is continued, that good work will be of advantage in classification in the junior schools, it might be an added incentive to many pupils to do much better work.

But I have digressed somewhat from my subject, and return to it to make some comparisons in age, rating, amount of work done by the pupils of these respective groups, and the teacher's attitude toward this principle of grouping and her methods of accommodating herself to their varying mental levels.

In asking for this discussion it was suggested by those arranging the program that evidence of an authoritative character on ability might be furnished, in addition to our experience of eight months, by an intelligence test. Accordingly The Illinois Examination Test Number Two was given to the five 8-B groups. The results of this test are most interesting, much of the information gathered from it serving as corroborative evidence, some of it otherwise.

It is scarcely pertinent to the subject under discussion to go into details with respect to the data gathered, but because of its interest the giving of some of it may be pardoned, though it bears slight, if any relation to the "variation in treatment of different groups."

As might be expected the test showed a considerable variation within groups as well as between groups. This is shown in Table 1. For example, Table 1 in 8-B1, the group of brightest pupils, classification according to the test is as follows: genius or near genius, 2; very superior, 6; superior, 5; normal, 22. The average chronological age in this group is 13 years 4 months, the mental age 15, or 1 year and 6 months above the chronological age. In 8-B2, the second group in the order of ability, the test classification is 1 genius, 2 very superior, 3 superior, 23 normal, 7 dull and 2 on the border line between the dull and feeble-minded. However, in the opinion of the teachers who had these pupils last year, as well as in the opinion of those who have them now, none of this group is even dull. The average class standing for the two pupils classed as near the border line is 77 and 79 respectively. All those in the so-called dull group have an average class rating of 80 to 84. Relatively, however, the test grouping is nearly correct. The chronological age of the 8-B group is 13 years 7 months, and their mental age 13 years 4 months.

The test groupings of the pupils in the three remaining sections is shown on the accompanying chart, and is approximately correct within the groups as compared with class work, but does not correctly represent the variations in the average mental level of the different class groups.

But I still have said nothing about "variation in treatment of these different groups."

When schools opened last September the basis of the classification of pupils in the seventh and eighth years was explained to the entire faculty, and some rather definite plans for the different groups were agreed upon. It was decided that no attempt would be made to gain time; rather that the work in each subject should be broadened and enriched for the best sections. Group meetings of the faculty were called to discuss the aspects of the varying problems in the group of bright and slower pupils. For the teachers of English it was decided that only the most obvious and fundamental distinctions in grammar should be taught to the slow groups, while many of the finer distinctions should be required of the more capable groups; that in literature, if some of the work listed for a grade did not awaken a responsive attitude in certain groups, find something that would, and pass the other by for the present. In arithmetic the caution with slow sections was to be patient, go slowly, spend much time in drill, explanation and review. In history most attention was spent upon the great outstanding facts, and the range of reading was less discursive. Teachers spent more time in lesson assignments and interpretations in reading and studying with pupils, than in the better groups, in which pupils were given a wider range of reading and freer play to originality and individual initiative.

However, initiative is encouraged everywhere to the limit of the teacher's and pupil's ability. But maximum and minimum assignments of work with minimum and maximum amount of help from the teacher is the practice of teachers with the good and poor groups respectively. We have laid considerable stress on the socialized recitation but little of this is possible in the poorer groups, except under sympathetic guidance by the teacher. Indeed much of the success of such a plan of grouping depends upon the attitude of the teachers toward it. Our teachers are thoroughly in accord with the plan and are decidedly more patient with a group of slow pupils than they are inclined to be with a few slow pupils in a group of much more capable pupils.

Our experience under this plan of grouping pupils is so limited that I have very reluctantly undertaken this discussion. But we are thoroughly committed to it, and expect to make our classifications for next year on decidedly more definite information and expect with it at more sympathetic and intelligent handling of the problems involved by the teachers.

CONFERENCES OF TEACHERS

Elementary Teachers

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

A. DUNCAN YOCUM, University of Pennsylvania

In introducing those who are to take part in this program two ideas are prominent in my mind: the first, that Philadelphia, which has shown so enthusiastic a willingness on occasions such as this, to receive what is best in other school systems and institutions other than our own, has much that is good to give in return; the second, that a definite, detailed and concrete exemplification of method is an essential factor in a course of study and a fundamental aim in efficient supervision.

Some years ago I heard a well-known Philadelphian, at that time prominent in his criticism of school affairs, tell of a number of "new" and worthwhile things of educational significance he had seen on a recent trip to Europe. I had the satisfaction of asking him in after-discussion, whether he knew that each of them was being as well done or better done, at points in America which I was able to designate. Philadelphia school people often have the same experience without often enough pointing out in local public meetings and in the local press, that Philadelphia has an educational leadership of her own and often makes important contributions to essential phases of educational betterment. It is from this point of view that Dr. Boyer is planning a larger participation by Philadelphia teachers in the model instruction of our summer Observation School, and it is from the same angle that Dr. Gerson has been asked to give our Schoolmen's Week audience a glimpse of a characteristic phase of Philadelphia work.

What he is about to talk about and have exemplified, illustrates the second thought that I have in mind this afternoon. When at the New York and Indianapolis meetings of the Department of Superintendence, I reported for the Committee on Superintendents' Problems of the National Council of Education, on Common Efficiencies for Courses of Study, in the symposiums and round-tables there was general agreement upon the importance of a detailing of the course of study and an equally detailed exemplification of the methods essential or most efficient in the attainment of its objectives. This afternoon you will have presented to you the highly efficient and, in many respects, unique way, in which the Philadelphia school curriculum committees and Philadelphia school supervision are emphasizing method. I take great pleasure in introducing to you Dr. Gerson, who will talk to you about "The Philadelphia Plan" and preside over the remainder of our program.

"THE PHILADELPHIA PLAN" OF TEACHER IMPROVEMENT -DEMONSTRATION LESSON AS DEVISED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF TEACHERS IN SERVICE

ARMAND J. GERSON, Associate Superintendent of Schools, Philadelphia This afternoon's program is built around the teaching of a demonstration lesson, illustrative of a plan for teacher improvement which has been worked out in Philadelphia during the last two years. The demonstration lesson as a device to train teachers in service has been recognized for a long time, but we feel that in Philadelphia we have taken a sig

(253)