Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

schools, but soon began to push its way down into the elementary grades. It is with these phases of our educational work that this investigation has to deal.

In the definition of the other terms, I conform largely to the definitions suggested by Dr. David Snedden, Commissioner of Education for Massachusetts, given in detail in Bulletin No. 12 of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education.

Vocational Education is the most comprehensive term in use at the present time. It is defined as that phase of education whose controlling purpose is to fit for a calling or vocation. In its completeness it always involves at least two large distinguishable aspects—practice in the productive work of the calling itself and study of or about the sciences, art, mathematics, economy, history, or technique which enter into or relate to it. The first may be called the concrete or practical part of Vocational Training, the second, the technical or theoretical part.

Industrial Education may be considered as that phase of education whose controlling purpose is to fit for a trade, craft, or special division of manufacturing work. When defined in this way, it becomes but one form of Vocational Education.

Technical education is designed to be part of vocational education. Each vocation or group of related vocations may have its own body of technical studies or technical studies common to other vocations. Technical training may be considered, then, as that training which is derived from those studies which pertain to some particular art, science, trade, or the like.

Mechanic Arts education is a vague phrase describing activities carrying from Manual Training procedures through technical studies to fully developed trade education.

A Trade School is an industrial school in which practical work, at least as exercises, if not productive, is a prominent feature. Such a school is usually designed (except in the case of girls) for youths of sixteen or more years, corresponding to the customary age of admission to apprenticeship.

CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL SKETCH

Certain of the principles underlying manual training, depending largely upon native instincts and ability, have always been practiced by man in his various activities. Under primitive conditions, children learned to perform their duties through imitation and by the aid of whatever assistance the parents might see fit to give. These duties required manual effort, without the aid of intellectual studies. As exchange markets came into existence, the divisions of labor became more and more definitely defined. As the divisions of labor multiplied, the Guild and apprenticeship systems were developed to train the beginners. These systems, however, have gradually died out, and, in their places, modern thought has demanded that the State should hold itself responsible for the instruction of the youth, no matter what pursuit in life he may elect. It is not my intent to trace this modern thought in detail, with the exception of the development of the movement in its relation to the public school system of this country.

It will be sufficient if mention is made of but a few of those who first advocated the introduction of manual work in the school room. As early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther emphasized the moral advantages to be derived, if manual work were required in addition to the regular academic studies. Commenius, 1592-1671, in "The Great Didactic," suggests that boys would better find out their special aptitudes if they were given a general knowledge of the mechanic arts.

The Catholic missionaries were emphasizing the manual aspect of education in America as early as 1629. The earliest schools within the present limits of the United States were established by the Franciscans in Florida and New Mexico.

The instruction given in the schools in New Mexico was of a two-fold character: "Up to nine years of age, the children were taught reading, writing, catechism, singing, and playing on musical instruments. Spanish was also taught. A striking feature of this system of education was its practical character. From nine years of age on, the work of the pupil in school was almost wholly industrial. The common arts and trades of the civilized world formed the curriculum-tailoring, shoemaking, carpentering, carving, blacksmithing, bricklaying, stonecutting. The girls were taught to sew and to spin."1

In 1647 Sir Wm. Pelty suggested a plan for an Industrial School. He states: "Let in no case the art of drawing and designing be omitted, to what course of life soever those children are to be applied; since the use thereof for expressing the conceptions of the mind seems, at least to us, to be little inferior to that of writing, and in many cases performeth what by words is impossible." The recommendations of Rousseau, 17121778, in his Emile are so well known that it is not necessary to repeat them here. Kinderman, 1740-1801, was one of the first to put manual work into actual operation in the school. In 1771 he introduced, among the boys and girls in his Bohemian parish, practical instruction, which dealt particularly with their local occupations. During the latter part of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, Arnold Wageman, Dr. I. G. Krunitz, Fichte, and others made important contributions toward the development of the sentiment that boys and girls would be greatly benefited by receiving instruction in practical subjects.

Special mention should, no doubt, be made of Peletier, Froebel, Pestalozzi, and Cygnaeus. "In 1793, Robespierre proposed to the National Assembly of France a bill for a new educational scheme, prepared by Michael de Peletier. The plan aimed to instill the duty of the habit of work, not as thorough knowledge of any special trade, but as the development of that

1J. A. Burns, "The Catholic School System in the United States,” pp. 41 and 42.

2 Barnard's

American Journal of Education," Vol. XI, p. 202.

energy and industrious activity which characterizes earnest, diligent persons. Peletier says: 'I consider this part of education the most important, and, therefore, my plan of general instruction contains manual labor as its vital feature. Of all the means likely to stimulate the average child, none will produce a greater desire for activity than physical work. I would desire that various kinds of handicraft work might be introduced.""3

The story of Pestalozzi's life is a life of unceasing devotion and self-sacrifice to a cause to which he consecrated himself. It was his aim to help the poverty-stricken children particularly, and by the aid of his educational scheme, to aid and uplift them and prepare them for their proper places in society. His first attempt was at Neuhof, where, during the first year, the children "made considerable progress with their manual work, as well as with the lessons that were joined with it, taking great pleasure in both. All they did and said, moreover, seemed to express their appreciation of their benefactor's kind care of them."

In the course of an appeal he made in 1776, Pestalozzi states: "I promise to teach them all to read, write, and cipher; I promise to give all the boys, so far as my position and knowledge will allow me, practical instruction in the most profitable methods of cultivating small plots of land, to teach them to lay down pasture land, to understand the use and value of manures, to know the different sorts of grasses and the importance of mixing them; it will be the household needs, too, that will give the girls an opportunity of learning gardening, domestic duties, and needlework."

When Pestalozzi was given charge of the poor house at Stanz, his plan was warmly recommended by the members of the Directory, which issued a decree which provided among other things that "the time of the pupils will be divided between field work, house work, and study. An attempt will be made to develop in the pupils as much skill, and as many useful powers as the funds of the establishment will allow."

Row, "The Educational Meaning of Manual Arts and Industries," p. 29. 'De Guimps, "Pestalozzi-His Life and Works," p. 55.

Ibid., p. 57.

Ibid., p. 133.

Pestalozzi's conception that manual and mental effort be combined was not an entirely new idea, but he gave it a more thorough trying out than had ever been attempted before. His experiments all ended in failure eventually, but his principles have been followed ever since in modified form. Had he been a better executive, his plans and ideas might not have miscarried so miserably.

Whatever of importance and value has come down to us from Pestalozzi, we owe more to his intense enthusiasm and untiring zeal, which made him persevere against all odds, rather than to any actual benefits derived from his teachings. Yet he pointed out that his ideas were practical under capable management.

At the present time we probably associate Froebel's name more closely with the introduction of the kindergarten than with any other single pedagogical principle. Yet many of his ideas apply equally well to boys and girls who are above the kindergarten grade. There is no doubt that the exploitation of his principles had much to do with crystallizing the manual training movement. Froebel was probably greatly aided by his association with Pestalozzi at Yverdum, in working out his educational scheme.

Froebel believed that "every child, boy, and youth, whatever his condition or position in life, should devote daily at least one or two hours to some serious activity in the production of some definite external piece of work. Lessons through and by work, through and from life, are by far the most impressive and intelligible, and most continuously and intensively progressive both in themselves and in their effect on the learner." He goes on to say that "The domestic and scholastic education of our time leads children to indolence and laziness; a vast amount of human power thereby remains undeveloped and is lost. It would be a most wholesome arrangement in schools to establish actual working hours similar to the existing study hours; and it will surely come to this."

"Froebel, "The Education of Man." Tr. by W. N. Hailman, p. 34. Ibid., p. 35.

« ForrigeFortsæt »