By the time they have reached the high school, pupils know what is expected of them during school hours in a general way; but they also know that teachers vary greatly in their standards. Some tolerate play during work time, some do not. Those who will tolerate it usually have to. Miss Stansbury simply and quietly defined her stand, which was one of absolute adherence to a work-while-you-work program. Neither did she fall into the error of a certain high school teacher who dallied around a note writer, neither asking what he was doing nor demanding that he work. She reasoned that if a study period is for study, there is no sense in having it spoiled by interpolated fun. She did not scold, she did not lecture, she did not entreat, she did not moralize; she just eliminated the disturbers, and after two examples of her method everyone understood her and did as she demanded. She assumed differentiation between working and play hours. If she had used this method with untrained, little children in the lower grades it would have been a stupid and harmful mistake, for such children have not yet learned to control their play impulses. High school students know how; they will do it if held up to a standard of action. CASE 91 (HIGH SCHOOL) The sophomore class in a high school decided to do something to call public attention to the valor and general high qualities to be found in its members. As students their record was good. As to conduct no member had suffered any extreme penalties, although the superintendent’s son had often skirted the boundaries of the unendurable. [Sidenote: Buildings Disfigured] The class played the following pranks: during the night the school bell was rendered useless by removal of the rope and clapper; a donkey was taken up the steps into the assembly room and left there until morning; class emblems were painted in class colors in a score of forbidden places. This second offense aroused the ire of the superintendent. In a few days the class was called to meet him and another member of the faculty. Mr. Webster, the superintendent, at once asked the following questions: “I would like to know what members of this class took part in the disfigurement of the buildings and grounds.” His manner was not offensive, yet his firmness was very evident and a degree of anxiety was betrayed in his voice. No answer was given. The superintendent then questioned each member of the class as follows: “Were you on the school grounds the night of the 14th? Did you assist in disfiguring the property? Do you know who did the work?” All but two members of the class declared they were under obligations not to give any answers that would reveal who was guilty; the two others answered these questions truthfully; but as they knew no pertinent facts about the incident, nothing was gained.