We seek in all of these activities, as has already been suggested, to have children come to take, in so far as they are able, the rational attitude toward the problems of conduct which they have to face.  It is important for teachers to realize the fallacy of making a set of rules by which all children are to be controlled.  It is only with respect to those types of activity in which the response, in order to further the good of the group, must be invariable that we should expect to have pupils become automatic.  It is important in the case of a fire drill, or in the passing of materials, and the like, that the response, although it does involve social obligation, should be reduced to the level of mechanized routine.  Most school situations involve, or may involve, judgment, and it is only as pupils grow in power of self-control and in their willingness to think through a situation before acting, that we may expect significant moral development.  In the case of offenses which seem to demand punishment, that teacher is wise who is able to place responsibility with the pupil who has offended.  The question ought to be common, “What can I do to help you?” The question which the teacher should ask herself is not, “What can I do to punish the pupil?” but rather, “How can I have him realize the significance of his action and place upon him the responsibility of reinstating himself with the social group?” The high school principal who solved the problem of a teacher who said that she would not teach unless a particular pupil were removed from her class, and of the pupil who said that she would not stay in school if she had to go to that teacher, by telling them both to take time to think it through and decide how they would reconcile their differences, is a case in point.  What we need is not the punishment which follows rapidly upon our feeling of resentment, but rather the wisdom of waiting and accepting the mistake or offense of the pupil as an opportunity for careful consideration upon his part and as a possible means of growth for him.

There has been considerable discussion during recent years concerning the obligation of the school to teach children concerning matters of sex.  Traditionally, our policy has been one of almost entire neglect.  The consequence has been, on the whole, the acquisition upon the part of boys and girls of a large body of misinformation, which has for the most part been vicious.  It is not probable that we can ever expect most teachers to have the training necessary to give adequate instruction in this field.  For children in the upper grades, during the preadolescent period especially, some such instruction given by the men and women trained in biology, or possibly by men and women doctors who have made a specialty of this field, promises a large contribution to the development of the right attitudes with respect to the sex life and the elimination of much of the immorality which has been due to ignorance or to the vicious misinformation which has commonly been spread among children.  The policy of secrecy and ignorance cannot well be maintained if we accept the idea of responsibility and the exercise of judgment as the basis of moral social activity.  In no other field are the results of a lack of training or a lack of morality more certain to be disastrous both for the individual and for the social group.