We now understand the manner of judging the capacity of a child in arithmetic, reading, and spelling. Which of all these tests is of the greatest value? We shall reply to this question by giving a summary in a few words of the tests we applied to twenty children in a special class. The amount of retardation varied considerably from one child to another, and for the same child from one test to another. On the average, the amount of retardation was 3.3 years for spelling, 4 years for reading, and 4.5 years for arithmetic. These children did not do so badly in spelling; there was even one who was at the normal level. It was especially in the problems that their deficiency was noticeable, because the problem requires not only memory, but some understanding. They have great difficulty in defining what is the proper arithmetical operation. When addition is necessary they have a tendency to subtract, and if they ought to divide they will more readily multiply. These mistakes lead to absurd results, which usually do not put them about, unless their attention is drawn to the absurdity. A defective will admit quite readily that if I have 604 apples, and sell 58, I shall have 662 left. These results show that in the ordinary school they do, we will not say too much spelling, but too little arithmetic in comparison to the amount of spelling. Finally, we again insist upon the evidential value of methodical tests. We demand that the elementary school inspector should have these tests carried out without assistance to the pupils, without intervention to indicate the solution or the step to take. He must neither assist nor do the lesson, but simply note the result achieved. He must therefore reduce himself to the easy rôle of a benevolent spectator.