hours a week, the girls to have "lessons in cooking, housekeeping, and laundry work, and the boys in printing, carpentry, and shoemaking." Two cooking schools were started in 1885, one supported by Mrs. Mary Hemenway, the other by Mrs. Shaw and Miss Sarah B. Fay. The first school was assumed by the city in 1888 and the second in 1892. These two kitchens were the first public school kitchens in America." School Doc. No. 21, 1892, p. 15.) Other cooking schools were established in 1886 and subsequently, till every grammar school was provided for by 1893.

Vi apology for a woodworking shop for grammar boys attending ence a week was started in 1884, and experiments in sloyd were started ri 1888 Modifications were at once found necessary in the adaptation of sloyd methods to American needs and standards, prominent among which was a satisfactory system of drawing. It thus appears that as late as 1888 the Swedish sloyd had "no satisfactory system of drawing" in connection with their whittling.

Whole experimenting with a modification of the sloyd system arranged by Mr. Gustaf Larsson, three other schemes (they can not be called systems, for they all aim at the same thing and include almost identical methods of instruction, the differences being confined to number, sequence, and character of the exercise, very much as different arithmetics employ different examples, different illustrations, and different orders of contents) were tested under the most favorable conditions; one designed and supervised by Mr. F. M. Leavitt, one by Mr. F. W. Kendall, and one by Mr. B. F. Eddy.

The comparative value of these schemes is still a matter of investi gation, but there is no question that excellent work is being done in all cases, and that the plan ultimately adopted will contain elements from all.

Too much can not be said of the enlightened policy and judicial fairness of the Boston managers, Teachers of drawing and tool work have been stimulated to study their subjects and to test their theories, with a view not so much to favor external interests as to arrive at the best. Other cities (notably New York and Chicago) have experimented with tool work in the grammar grades, but it seems to the writer that no experiments have been so instructive, and on the whole so generally successful, as those in the Boston grammar schools. The following testimony is worthy of permanent preservation. It was written about January, 1893, by President Capen, of the Boston school committee:

In concluding this part of our report we wish to emphasize again the importance of this new education which is educating the hand and the eye and the mind together. We are beginning to see more and more that thinking begins with things. There are some who may still believe that the outlay for shops and for these special teachers is unnecessary, and that the whole thing is a caprice of the hour. But the number of such is very few, and they show that they have given the matter but superficial thought. The little time that it has been tested in our schools has already shown its value. Nothing else has such power to soften, refine, and humanize rude girls

and boys, to lead them to respect others, and to bring out those qualities which will lead them in turn to be respected. In the early spring of this year a class of boys was brought for the first time into one of our shops. They were from homes in one of the worst sections of our city, and for a lesson or two seemed almost ungovernable. But in less than three months these rade boys became so fascinated with their work that, compelled to be left largely to themselves one day on account of the illness of a teacher, they excited the admiration and comment of some educators who unexpectedly called because of their ceaseless attention to the work in hand. These few weeks had changed the wild boys of the street into those that were courteous and respectful and eager for advancement. Its value as a disciplinary as well as an educational force has not been overestimated.

1

The question may naturally be asked, "What has the city of St. Louis, the home of the pioneer manual training school, done in the matter of manual training." The answer is, unfortunately, "Nothing." But this "nothing" is not in consequence of public indifference, but because of lack of money. The money for the support of St. Louis public schools comes partly from the State, but chiefly from a 4-mill tax on the assessed value of property in the city. At present value the income is barely sufficient for the needs of the schools as now organized. All manual training is more or less expensive, requiring additional equipments, rooms, and teachers, and the school board may neither run in debt nor increase the rate of taxation, except by securing the authority from a "majority of the taxpayers" of the city, an appeal which no school board has recently made. This explanation is due both to the school board and to the people of the city, than whom no community could be more generally in favor of manual training. Undoubtedly the managers of the public schools will ere long find a satisfactory way out of the difficulty.

In view of the general acceptance of manual training as a necessary feature of education, and the general need of exact information in regard to methods of organization and forms of equipment, it is thought best to insert an extract from an essay upon organization, read by the present writer at Bethlehem before the American Institution of Instruction, in July, 1891.

THE ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL TRAINING SCHOOLS.

Should manual training be introduced into existing high schools in a distinct course of study, or should separate schools be organized to be known as manual training high schools?

The answer to this question should be based on a full consideration of the constituency to be counted on, or the probable demand for manual training, and, secondly, on the chances for successful management.

I. THE CONSTITUENCY.

While claiming that manual training should to a certain extent enter into the education of every boy and girl, and claiming also that no assumption should be made as to the future careers of pupils in manual training schools, it is evident that

1

The St. Louis manual training school is one of the subordinate departments of Washington University, and is not a free school, though it distributes an

large number of free, or partly free, "scholarships."

a manual training school is sharply distinguished from a classical high school and from a commercial high school, by its clear recognition of the demands of industrial occupations. There is of course much common ground in the three kinds of school. but only their distinguishing traits are now referred to. I am willing to admit that the popular demand for manual training arises from a conscions desire on the part of parents and children for an education which shall in a direct and evident manner prepare for the duties and responsibilities of life. The existence of this desire proves nothing as to the destined career of particular people. A large majority of our active workers are engaged in manual occupations, such as agriculture, manefacture, construction, and transportation; and it is only reasonable to suppose that a school which fairly represents the people will contribute workers to carry on such work, even though they greatly improve its quality and widen its scope.

The belief that there is a school education which, while very general in character. bears in the industrial direction as no former education bore, and that it is capable of giving higher intellectual standing to industrial workers, as well as tending to their social and financial success, is what gives strength to the manual training movement in every community.

There is no question but as a rule those who for any reason look forward to industrial life, and who see no manual training school open for them, withdraw from school before the high school is reached. This is emphatically true of boys. Hence the great majority of boys of high school age are not at school. The census tables show that between 7 and 8 per cent of the population of a city consists of boys and girls in their fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth years.

Suppose a city has 100,000 people; there are then about 7,500 young people of high school age. Not one-tenth of them are in the high school, and from two-thirds to four-fifths of them are not at school anywhere. These unschooled youth are not all stupid, nor vicious, nor poverty-stricken. Fully one-third, if not one-half, of them are so constituted and so situated that they would attend a manual training high school if one were open to them. When, last January (1891), I urged the mayor and school committee of Boston to establish an independent school for manual training, I told them that they would have 1,000 boys applying within three years, without sensibly interfering with the attendance at the Latin school or at the English high.

The experience of Philadelphia is suggestive. Its first manual training high school was crowded for some years and applicants were turned away. A second school of the same kind was established over a year ago.

You will find the same conditions in every city. It is a new idea that there is an education which precedes industrial life as appropriately as there is one which precedes mercantile life or the professional school. Until recently it was taken for granted that it took no great amount of brains to be a skilled mechanic, and that an education was largely wasted on one so long as he remained a mechanic. It was formerly assumed that a skilled worker in the materials of construction need not be a draftsman, nor a mathematician, nor a chemist, nor a physicist, nor a master of English. It is now known that every one of these things helps, not only to make one more respected and more influential as a citizen and a man, but to be a better and more successful mechanic.

This idea is having immense influence among the people in favor of more education and what they consider more appropriate education. A second idea is that intellectual vigor and practical power over men and things are the fruit of more than one course of study. Already it is seen that the graduate of a manual training school has many advantages, when compared with those whose education has neglected either hand culture or brain culture.

Hence, without further excursion in this fruitful field, I conclude that there is in every city an abundance of good material, backed by a wide demand, for a high school in which the manual elements shall be essential features entering into the course of study of every pupil.

II. AN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL WITH A FULL CURRICULUM.

I wish now to show that it is better to establish independent schools, in the place of enlarging and extending those already existing.

This is a question of policy worthy of serious consideration. Usage has not been uniform. In Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and Providence they have complete and independent manual training schools. If to these we add schools really organized for general education but not under public management, I should mention those of Chicago, Cincinnati, San Francisco, New Orleans, and St. Louis; the high school of Pratt Institute; the Miller School of Crozet, Va.; Drexel Institute; Girard College, and the Lick Mechanical School of San Francisco.

The great majority like those of Toledo, Cambridge, Springfield (Mass.), Minneapolis, St. Paul, Omaha, New York, Davenport, Fall River (Mass.), Menominee (Wis.), Indianapolis, Albany, and the cities of New Jersey, have incorporated manual training courses of greater or less extent into existing schools. This latter course was the natural one, so long as the value and popularity of manual training was uncertain. Assuming then that a city has decided to furnish to its youth of high school age opportunity for manual training, what are the specific reasons against an incorporation with the existing high school and in favor of an independent organization? Some of the following arguments will have far less force ten years hence than they have to-day.

(1) All the traditions of the existing high school are opposed to manual training. The manual elements did not enter into the education of the teachers, and it is perfectly natural that they should lightly value a training they have never had themselves, which they have never felt the need of, and which as they think has no place in a liberal education. All high school teachers do not feel thus, but many of them, perhaps a majority of them, do.

We have no right to complain of these teachers. If they have the courage of their convictions, they will speak out and they will belittle the manual features. We must give them time; wisdom and judgment are matters of growth, and none of us stand now where we stood ten years ago. But meanwhile if we would give the new ideas a fair chancé for healthy, vigorous growth, we must plant them in a new field aloof from the blighting winds of a contemptuous scorn and the clouds of a haughty indifference.

(2) The old programmes are all against manual training. One principal says: "I am in favor of manual training, but every pupil must have his five recitations first. The boys who wish to have manual training can take it after school." Another principal insists upon four recitations, or perhaps only three, but they must follow the old order and the manual features are always to be secondary; they are the first to be cut off and omitted on special occasions. In some schools a failure in mathematics or history debars one from the day's exercise in shop, and so on. In some cases principals refuse to admit one's standing in shop and drawing as elements of scholarship in awarding class honors. The standards which ordinary high school pupils must reach if they are to go into higher education fail to recognize manual training beyond a possible requirement of a feeble amount of geometrical drawing. This neglect has a tendency to depreciate manual training in the minds of students. These evils do not exist in all schools, nor do all of them exist in any school, but they are far too common and they affect manual training pupils unfavorably.

(3) Even when the disposition of teachers and the arrangement of the programmes is all that one could ask, the manual training sections of a general high school are exposed inevitably to unfavorable influences. The full manual training school programme covers more hours per day than the ordinary academic programme-at least it ought, even if it does not. The result is that every day manual training students are exposed to peculiar trials and temptations. When other students take their

1

To this list can now be added Denver, Louisville, Cleveland, and Bro

traps and march out of school for a hot dinner at home or an hour's recreation, the manual student must keep on an hour longer at his mathematics, science, literature, drawing, or shop. Of course, if he is zealous and high minded, he can stand the daily trial (or, rather, it is no trial to him), but the contrast is, in general, unfavorable, and it works against the success of the manual course. In the independent school all the pupils have the same extent of programme and all are dismissed at the same time. It matters not if a different hour of dismissal obtains at another school; in this school there is uniformity and the pupils think nothing about it.

(4) There is a concentration of interest in a school where there is a single course of study. Boston is wise in differentiating its high schools. The classical school is by itself. The interests of all its pupils are centered upon Latin, Greek, and mathematics. The pupils have a common interest, and their conversation out of hours is on subjects common to all. There is no tendency to reopen questions of choice. The enthusiasm of one fires the enthusiasm of all his associates, for their studies are the same.

In a school with a variety of courses the case is very different. The zeal of one is very apt to quench the ardor of another, for it is in a different field. Boys are prone to think other studies more interesting, or more profitable, or easier than they find theirs. This daily association of students in different courses of study is demoralizing. Hence, I say, if your community is large enough to admit of it, let your high-school work be differentiated into different schools, not on a geographical basis, but according to their curricula.

(5) There is another reason for the independent organization of the manual training school, which I base, not on observation, but on my knowledge of human nature. When manual training is made a sort of annex to the high school, and not incorporated as a coordinate and integral part of it, there is a divided responsibility in the care and education of a certain number of pupils.

Many of our most valuable high school principals feel unable to assume charge of the manual features, and would prefer to leave the care of such entirely to a superintendent. Hence, during certain hours pupils are under the direction of one person; during other hours, under another. Any unusual demand (and there are always a good many such demands) trenches on somebody's time and the off hours are a common battle ground.

All the advanced drawing, geometry, mechanics, physics, and chemistry should be clearly correlated with the shop work to secure the best results, and hence I think the pupils should be as homogeneous as possible, and they should all be under the direction of one head.

I have thus given five good reasons for a separate organization. A reason for the opposite course would exist in the matter of cost, provided the manual work was relatively small and the students were gathered from different grades. I am not thinking of such scattered divisions, nor of classes made up almost entirely of volunteers from classes already in high schools. Neither am I planning for those students who are engaged in fitting for classical colleges, and who can spare time for a single shop exercise per week. If possible, let such students have a shop in their own high school. I have in mind a school of several hundred pupils of both sexes, who are to have an exercise in tool work or drawing, or in both, every school day. When these attend in fair proportion, there will be found to be no essential difference in cost between the two methods of organization. I therefore advise that the city manual training school be an independent institution, standing on its own ample lot of ground and under its own principal and corps of teachers.

THE CURRICULUM.

The curriculum of the manual training school has undergone very few changes since the first one was published in St. Louis in 1880. In all independent manual training schools the length of courses is three