=Basic considerations.=—­Any consideration of the time element, in school work, must take into account, therefore, not only the number of minutes involved in a given piece of work, but also the intensity of effort during those minutes.  Two minds, of equal natural strength, may be fully employed during a given period and yet show a wide difference in the quality and quantity of the results.  The one may be busy all the while but slouch through the minutes.  The other may be taut and intensive, working at white heat, and the output will be more extensive and of better quality.  The mind that ambles through the period shows forth results that are both meager and mediocre; but the mind whose impact is both forceful and incisive produces results that serve to magnify the work of the school.  Thus we have placed before us two basic considerations, one of which is the time itself, in actual minutes, and the other is the character of the reactions to external stimuli during those minutes.

=Two teachers compared.=—­In order to consider these factors of the teaching process with some degree of definiteness it will be well to have the ten-minute teacher and the thirty-minute teacher placed in juxtaposition in our thinking.  We shall thus be able to compare and contrast and so arrive at some clear judgments that may be used as a basis for generalizations.  We may assume, for convenience and for concreteness, that the lesson is division of fractions.  There will be substantial agreement that the principle involved in this subject can be taught in one recitation period.  The reasons for some of the steps in the process may come later, but the child should be able to find his way to the correct answer in a single period.  Now if one teacher can achieve this result in thirty minutes and the other in ten minutes, there is a disparity in the effectiveness of the work of these teachers which is worthy of serious consideration.  The ten-minute teacher proves that the thirty-minute teacher has consumed twenty minutes of somebody’s time unnecessarily.  If the salary of this thirty-minute teacher should be reduced to one third its present amount, she would inveigh against the reduction.

=School and factory compared.=—­If she were one of the operators in a factory, she would not escape with the mere penalization of a salary reduction.  The owner would argue that he needed some one who could operate the machine up to its full capacity, and that, even if she should work without salary, her presence in the factory would entail a loss in that the output of her machine was so meager.  If one operator can produce a shoe in ten minutes and the other requires thirty minutes for the same work, the money that is invested in the one machine pays dividends, while the other machine imposes a continuous tax upon the owner.  This, of course, will be recognized as the line of argument of the efficiency expert, but it certainly is not out of place to call attention to the matter in connection with school work.  The subject of efficiency is quite within the province of the school, and it would seem to be wholly within reason for the school to exemplify its own teachings.