The school has a good library for the students’ use, and also one for the children of the practising school. Students give one criticism lesson during the first half-year, and for this they write elaborate notes under fixed headings prepared by the head of the department, and the other students hand in, after the lesson, elaborate criticisms done in a similar way. Blank schedules with printed headings, such as the following, are given to students to fill up before giving the lesson: +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | I. SUBJECT. | | II. PURPOSE. | |III. MATTER. | | IV. PLAN. | Review Work | _What._ | _How._ | _Illustrations._ | | | | _a_ | | | | | | _b_ | | | | | | _c_ | | | | | Advance Work | | | | | | | _a_ | | | | | | _b_ | | | | | | _c_ | | | | | Drill | | | | | | | _a_ | | | | | | _b_ | | | | | | _c_ | | | | V. METHOD. | | VI. MECHANICAL DETAILS. | | Arrangement of Class. | | Distribution of Materials, etc. | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ I noticed in schedules which had been thus filled up by students that the notes supplied under the heading of “Method” consisted entirely of proposed questions of the teacher, and assumed answers by the children. Such an item in the prepared plan of a lesson seemed to me unadvisable, and in many cases useless. Even if the prepared questions were asked by the teacher, the answers would not always be the ones assumed, and the lesson would be stiff, unnatural, and wanting in spontaneity. Broad lines of questioning might be indicated in the schedule, rather than the actual questions to be given. This would result in much more natural methods of questioning. The outline for criticism given to other students is according to the following plan: _Purpose_ What. Whether accomplished. Why. Cause of failure or success. _Matter_ Amount--accuracy. Adaptation, to purpose and to class. Order of presentation.