sets them against anything abstract, and one would do them a very poor service by depriving the more intelligent of them of the ordinary curriculum, and all the more as the majority of the ill-balanced are destined to improve considerably. Thus there are many reasons why, in the case of certain classes of the abnormal, one should not lose sight of the usual curriculum. These reasons are as follows: the slight degree of the deficiency in certain cases, or the existence of instability without retardation, or the necessity of sending the children who improve most back to the ordinary schools. Such are the reasons which are important from the school point of view. There are others with a social bearing which are more important still. At the present day it is necessary, especially in towns, that everyone should be able to read, to write, and to express himself in suitable language. It has been remarked, and justly, that reading is the triumph of abstraction, and that a defective may require two years to learn to read by syllables, and very poorly even then. No matter: if the thing is possible, even with considerable effort, such a defective ought to learn to read. This is demanded, not by the state of the child's intelligence, but by the society in which he lives, where illiteracy would bring shame upon him. In questions of this kind the indications of psychology and pedagogy should be subordinated to the needs of life. Necessity makes the law. All instruction given to defectives must be dominated by the question of its practical usefulness. A pedagogy which should be fitted easily to the measure of their intelligence would be dangerous, in that it might result in making them useless. It is evident, therefore, that the problem is very complex, and it would be quite useless to attempt to express it by a single formula. The nature of each individual case must be taken into account, and one must aim at an essentially practical training, a pedagogy of ends rather than of abstract principles. Our advice, consequently, is that in the meantime no definite curriculum should be fixed upon, but that the teachers of defective children should be allowed some freedom, under the cautious control of the primary school inspectors. We ask that all intelligent initiative should be accepted and encouraged, and that the teachers in special schools should frequently meet together in order that they may compare their experience. In short, we should give to the schools and classes for defectives such freedom and elasticity that the kind of education best adapted for such children would be able to evolve and perfect itself like a living organism. FOOTNOTES: [2] On the other hand, Dr. Abadie found 309 defective to 134 ill-balanced. [3] At the _Laboratoire de Pedagogie Normal_, 36, Rue Grange-aux-Belles. For details of the work of this laboratory see _Année Psychologique_, tome xiii., pp. 1, 233.