A PLEA FOR INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THOSE of us who attended the conference of January 20th heard some of the strong arguments presented by the learned Secretary1 of the State Board of Education in opposition to the general views and purposes entertained by those who favor the incorporation of more or less of so-called Industrial Education with the public-school system of the Commonwealth. While objections from such a source could hardly be welcome to those who are deeply interested in the projected reforms, there should yet be no resentment at their being offered. If our purposes and plans are in general sound and wholesome, they will bear challenge and criticism, and will be the better for it. Discussion-direct, sincere, and earnest discussion-is in the interest of the very cause itself; and the sharper the challenge, and the more cogent the presentation of any and all objections, the better for us, if indeed we are right on the main issue. Especially is it the duty of the Secretary of the State Board of Education to stand up for the integrity and purity of the schools of Massachusetts, if he deems them threatened from any quarter; and in his main contention, Dr. Dickinson is unquestionably right. The pri'Hon. J. W. Dickinson, LL. D. Resigning in 1894, he was succeeded by the present Secretary, Hon. Frank A. Hill.-ED. mary purpose of our public-school system was education; and it cannot in any considerable degree be made to serve any other purpose than education, without a perversion of agency and almost an abuse of trust. The good old principle that education, so far as the public schools are concerned, should be general, not special; should be liberal, not technical; should be directed to the complete and harmonious development of the faculties of the child, and not to the mere acquisition of arts and knacks which can easily be turned to practical uses— this principle I believe to be as true, and as important to the integrity of our school system, as at any time in our history. And I must beg you to excuse me for going farther and for saying frankly in this presence, remembering that I am addressing a Conference of Charities, that the public schools should be expected to do little directly in the way of relieving the community from the burden of pauperism. The best that the schools can do for the interests which you have so much at heart is to perform their proper educational work with thoroughness, with efficiency, with enthusiasm. While I am far from saying that no burdens should be put upon the public schools, for the general good, yet I believe that the principle which has been laid down should be strongly adhered to, in good faith and good feeling; and that those who propose any exception thereto should be required to prove their case, against a strong presumption in favor of the purely educational character of all school work. While thus amply conceding that which Dr. Dickinson claims regarding the proper purpose and scope of our schools, issue may fairly be taken with him as to the educational character of the proposed new studies and exercises. In order to clear the ground for such a discussion it may appear not pedantic and not unreasonable to go back thirty or forty years in our history. Perhaps, also, it may not appear impertinent to offer here a piece of personal experience. I entered the schools of Massachusetts at four years of age, and left them at fifteen to go to college. In all the interval I do not remember ever to have been set to any study or exercise which I could not have done just as well if born without hands, except solely for the convenience of holding a book and turning over its leaves, or of writing on paper, slate, or blackboard; which I could not have done just as well if afflicted with total blindness, except solely for the greater difficulty of learning lessons by having them read to me; indeed, but for this, a blind boy would have had an advantage over me, as being less subject to have his attention distracted by surrounding objects. I do not recall any exercise which I could not have performed equally well without the use of hearing, except only for purposes of communication with the teacher; and, indeed, a deaf child would, but for that, have had an advantage over me, as being less subject to interruption or distraction from without. Now, who will say that there can be a complete education of the child where the senses are thus neglected? |