In the preschool and kindergarten much of the time is spent in supervised and directed activity, both education through the physical and education of the physical, but when the youngster reaches the first grade most of this is over and he finds himself in quite a different situation. Wellman (6) claims to have shown that preschool education, much of it similar to a good program of physical education, raised the I.Q.'s of the children an average of 8.2 points, which gain lasted through the grades, high school, and college. Not too much is known about what specific activities stimulate the educational development of the ohild, but it is probable that the responses to the physical educational activities contribute their full share. What then should the teacher of physical education be doing for these first, second and third graders in order to accomplish the most possible in the little time now allowed for such activities? We talk about rhythmic activities, about stunts, about ball handling, and about games, but how well are the relevant fundamental skills taught? And how much is known about the caDacities and abilities of the individual youngsters for learning such skills? McGraw (4) in her studies of identical twins demonstrated remarkable results with the experimental twin, Johnny. He learned an amazing number of skills at an early age. He swam across a swirimuiinE pool under water when only ten months old, dived when thirteen months old, and roller skated at sixteen months apparently only because he was encouraged to respond in situations which were well set. We do not necessarily want all of our Johnnies diving at thirteen months but this does make us wonder a bit how much we may be holding some of these youngsters back by our own inabilities inability to understand their capacities as much as inability to arrange such stimulating situations. The achievements of Johnny and the alleged increased I.Q.'s of the preschoolers stimulate in some of us a strong suspicion that a better physical education would not only be good for these youngsters physically but might also go a long ways toward furthering the development of intelligence and general command of the social processes. So why be content with what we have, especially in those lower grades? We need experimentation in how to do a better job with these children. Experimentation implies measurement. So the tests described in this paper are suggested for a double purpose. Through their use we are able to find out a little more about each student; which is poor in this phase of educability, which needs special work administered with more patience, and which could readily learn more than we are presenting. We have not usually divided the lower grades into squads. Who knows whether or not it would be desirable until we have some valid objective means of making the division? These tests are suggested for such uses. Still another use of these tests will be as a basis for further research at this grade level. The first, second, and third graders are like the forgotten man! There is much flurry over preschool and kinder-