calls for a good degree of originality and, therefore, lies largely
outside the field of imitation. In the second place, the long-
continued following of a leader, instead of fitting one to lead, may
directly unfit one for that responsibility. In the case of the
geography class it had been the leader who had determined how each
lesson should be attacked; who had exercised resourcefulness in
meeting unexpected obstacles; who had assumed responsibility for
deciding what the crucial questions were, and when the answers were
correct and complete; and who had supplied the energy that made things
"go." Under these circumstances, could it be expected that these
children, in their teacher's absence, would exhibit these same
qualities? Hardly. One does not learn to make an independent plan, to
show resourcefulness, to carry responsibility, and to supply motive
for effort--in brief, to take the initiative--by having some one else
perform these tasks for one. In other words, dependence is not the
preparation for independence. Indeed, great skill on the part of a
teacher in these respects almost precludes such skill on the part of
pupils. If allowed prominence year after year, it so undermines self-
reliance that one's helplessness when alone is greatly increased. The
children of the geography class had had nearly five years of training
in leaning on some one else, so that it was extremely difficult to
make them stand alone. They were like common soldiers especially
trained to obey their officers, yet expected to maintain their former
efficiency when suddenly left without officers. They were even more
helpless in the school-room, in the presence of a leader, than
outside.

By overlooking the difference between studying with a leader and
alone, therefore, the teacher overlooks initiative, and in consequence
she not only fails to develop that power, but she may easily undermine