In regard to the relation of the state and the home as educational agencies, again, he gives a harmony to the one-sided views held by his predecessors by making clear the particular positions occupied by both. The state requires from its citizens their social and professional efficiency. Hence it gives the best possible education to them to produce this efficiency. Thus, the advancement of technical knowledge and the multiplication of specialized scholarships are well secured in the hand of the state. But it is not concerned so much with the particular needs, nor the proportional development of the individual as an individual, as with his serviceability to itself in his particular line or sphere of work. “The state applies its test to what can be tested, to the outward side of conduct and of knowledge. It does not penetrate the inner life. Teachers in public schools cannot penetrate much farther; they, too, are more concerned with the sum total of the knowledge imparted by them, than with the individual and the way in which he relates his knowledge to himself” (8: p. 318). “The family, on the other hand, interested as it is in the individual, must take the pedagogical point of view, according to which every human being is to realize the best of which he is capable. It is essential that families should grasp this distinction and accordingly, concern themselves not with the greatness of particular achievements, but with the totality of culture possible for the individual” (8: pp. 289-290). As to moral discipline, the very nature of family organism requires it to go deeper than the state does or ever can. “It is obvious, therefore, that moral education will always remain essentially a home task, and that the institutions of the state are to be resorted to for educative purposes only with a view to supplementing the home.” However, the family as it is has its drawbacks. Its life “is very often too busy, too full of care, or too noisy for that rigor which is undeniably required both for instruction and for morality. Luxury and want alike harbor dangers for youth. Consequently families lean on the state for support more than they ought” (8: p. 318). So Herbart advocates that, “as much as possible, education must return to the family,” provided “that sound pedagogical views have been arrived at in the home and that the place is not occupied by absurd whims or half knowledge” (8: pp. 319-320). For the present the work of education should be carried on by the harmonious coöperation of the state and the family, the school and the home. Private institutions have their special place as the best experimental station for the art of education, when provided with a picked set of pupils and teachers and well-regulated environment.