followed copy faithfully, whether she got standardized results. The
tendency of supervision is to produce the same attitude of the
teacher. The success of the teacher is graded on her scholarship, her
culture, her standardized attainments, her questioning, her care of
the property, her attitude toward the community and the system, her
sympathy with the supervisor's notions--in short, her pedagogical
ability, which is now made a large factor in determining her ration of
bread and butter, is measured by her performance and her personal
charms." [Footnote: President W.A. Millis, _Training Pupils in the
Art of Study,_ The Educator-Journal, Oct., 1908.] Books dealing
with education show the same trend. There are hundreds of volumes on
method; but they almost invariably tell about what the teacher should
do, that is, they center in the teacher, not in the pupil. No wonder
that teachers come to regard themselves as "the whole thing," and
sometimes act as though educational institutions existed principally
for their benefit.

This exaggeration of the teacher's function has led the teacher
habitually to picture the learner in the presence of a helper; and
with that thought, it has hardly seemed necessary to ask whether or
not the learner should set up specific aims as guiding motives in
study; the teacher would furnish those herself in class, and perhaps
project her influence outside overnight by threats if required. It has
hardly seemed necessary to inquire how the learner would know when his
work was finished, or to what extent he should pass judgment on
thoughts presented, for her questions and other tests would insure
proper thoroughness, and her presence would check unfitting boldness
in judging. It has hardly seemed necessary to consider how far he
should proceed in the mastery of a topic, or how he should avoid being
dogmatic, for she would let him know when the endpoint was reached--if