eight years' elementary course was guaranteed by Magna Charta or that it was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as one of the inalienable rights of man. As a matter of fact, in failing to make the transition from the elementary to the secondary stage in our school system correspond with its appearance in the development of our children, we are guilty either of indefensible stupidity or of deliberate malfeasance. The provision of alternative courses for vocational training, before the end of the present eight-year elementary course, implies it is true that each child will be called upon to choose the course that he will pursue. Here we shall encounter a storm of protest against the introduction of the "elective system" at this early stage of children's careers. The arguments against "early specialization" are of course thoroly familiar. They were first brought forward with great vehemence in the discussions that accompanied the growth of the elective system in our colleges. They next appeared in the debate concerning the introduction of elective courses into our high schools. This debate is still in progress and the familiar arguments are constantly hurled by the reactionaries against the advocates of wider opportunity and greater freedom for pupils in high schools. These arguments will in turn be directed against every effort to extend the elective system backward to the logical beginning of the secondary stage of education. The outcome of the struggle between rigid prescription and free election must eventually be the same in all three of these fields, for the conflict is really one and not three. The question is whether human beings who differ widely in native gifts and acquired tendencies shall be forced to pursue a single conventional course of training, or have the privilege of choosing a course that will equip them not only for the worthy use of their leisure but for the intelligent pursuit of their vocations. Life itself is from the beginning an elective process-each person selecting from the complex whole of experience those elements that accord with his native and acquired interests and rejecting those elements that serve no useful purpose in his life. Mental growth, if we are to accept the teaching of modern psychology, consists in the development of a multitude of specific forms of reaction rather than of a few general faculties such as memory, judgment, and reasoning-power. We cannot, therefore, justify a study or a course of study on the basis of the discredited theory that a few general, mental faculties require the traditional school subjects for their proper discipline. As an individual mind can be expected to develop only a very small number of the innumerable reactions. possible at any stage of its growth, the problem of education becomes in large measure the problem of providing situations favorable to the selection by each child of the reactions best suited to his needs. In the earlier stages of children's development these needs are fairly uniform and may be met by a relatively uniform program of studies. This is the proper period for elementary education. With the appearance of distinct differences in individual requirements, as we have seen, a uniform school course is inadequate to the needs of all types of children. At this point the period of secondary education rationally begins, with its system of alternative courses adapted to the specific needs of various groups of children. The elective system, then, is an unavoidable fact without regard to what the school organization may be at a given time and place. Under present conditions there are but two alternatives open to a pupil in our elementary schools. One is to continue in the single course offered by the schools; the other is to enter vocational work before the completion of the school course. The question is not, therefore, whether we shall extend the privilege of election to pupils in the elementary schools, but whether, by introducing courses for industrial and domestic training within the school, we shall widen the field within which election may be made. A rational system of secondary education must provide not only for the training of special capacities but for making children conscious of the special capacities that they individually possess. One of the most serious weaknesses of the present organization of education is that the range of experience provided for in the schools is so narrow that many of the latent powers of children are not stimulated to activity. In some cases the special capacities of children appear early and in unmistakable form. In such cases it is relatively easy to supply the appropriate educational influences. More often, however, the specific characteristics of children require particularly favorable conditions to bring them to the surface. In order that a child may be placed in position to make proper choice of a school course and, ultimately, of a vocation, it is often essential, therefore, that means be taken to ascertain what are the native capacities upon which his success in every undertaking must very largely depend. These capacities cannot always be determined with reference merely to the desires of parents and of pupils or to such general advice as teachers and principals of schools are commonly qualified to give. Teachers must be equipped to recognize, to search for, and to interpret the evidences of special aptitude. This will necessitate a fuller recognition of the influence of heredity upon mental and moral traits, and a more vital and practical view of genetic psychology than is yet widely prevalent. As to whether the school life of pupils can be prolonged by adequate provision for vocational training, our argument has been in the main indirect and deductive. In the absence of concrete data, however, such an argument is all that can be presented. It seems reasonable to assume that children will remain in school as long as they and their parents regard it as distinctly to their advantage to do so, and economic conditions do not prevent. The conclusion clearly indicated, accordingly, is that adequate provision for vocational training, beginning at about the sixth year of school, would tend to prolong the school life and increase the vocational efficiency of the great mass of children; especially of those who enter industrial and domestic pursuits. The whole argument for vocational training is of course open to the familiar charge that it is basely utilitarian. As to the charge that vocational training is utilitarian, why should not the answer be one of "confession and avoidance." Such training is utilitarian; but why basely so? Most men devote more than half of their waking hours to their vocations. Are their lives necessarily on that account basely utilitarian? Our war for independence had its origin in a question of taxation. Was it for that reason a basely utilitarian struggle for selfish ends? Almost every great national policy involves some matter of industry or commerce. Is our national life therefore unworthy of our loyal affection? The intellectual and moral progress of the race has always been in large measure dependent upon material and commercial prosperity. Are the achievements of the human spirit on that account insignificant or base? As a people we profess a belief in the dignity of work. Shall we hesitate to exemplify our belief by making it possible for every man to find his work and in his work to find a worthy means of enlarging and completing his life ? REMARKS BY PRESIDENT LEAVITT I believe that Mr. Burks has shown that initial steps in industrial training should be given thru the agency of the present public-school system, whatever form of school may be added later, because an interest in and a respect for industrial work must be developed in the boy before the age of fourteen if we wish to hold him in even an industrial school after the law permits him to go to work. This of course applies only to the boys for whom industrial education is urged. Mr. Burks has shown that after fourteen these boys should be offered substantial vocational training. Just what these vocational schools should teach, is, in most communities, yet to be determined by experimentation. That it must be practical and "real" is certain. This much we have learned from the manufacturers. They tell us that the work done must be submitted, as far as possible, to industrial tests rather than to "educational," that is to say "cultural," tests. At the works of the General Electric Company, Lynn, Mass., is what might be called a modern apprentice school. From it we may learn much. Mr. Alexander's discussion will not only inform us of this interesting and valuable experiment in vocational training, made by a corporation, primarily, we presume, for its own benefits and because of its own needs, but will give us many valuable suggestions for our guidance in determining the nature and scope of any industrial training which the public school may undertake. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AS VIEWED BY A MANUFACTURER It is generally conceded that the further development of American industries, and especially the mechanical trades, is endangered thru an insufficient supply of properly trained skilled mechanics. The reason for this condition may be found in the enormous expansion of these industries within the last fifteen years, which has made the demand for skilled workmen far exceed the supply, and in the growing tendency towards specialization which today permeates all fields of industrial activity. Where heretofore skilled labor was required in many processes of manufacture, specialization has permitted the employment of large numbers of unskilled workmen. Manufacturers have taken liberal advantage of this new economic condition, overlooking, however, the necessity of training skilled mechanics who are capable of operating and maintaining in good working-order the complicated machinery which specialization has brought into use, and who can act as leaders and subleaders in the ever-growing industrial army. Manufacturers relinquished their responsibility so much the more readily in view of the new attitude of the public-school system towards the industrial needs of the country. Within the last twenty-five years, the public-school system, recognizing the necessity for semi-vocational and vocational training, introduced manual training, first in the high schools, and later on in the grammar schools. It became apparent, however, that the public schools were not answering adequately the demands of modern industries: manual training was not giving the boys the practical equipment that would enable them to enter industrial life on any plane higher than that of a beginner. The rapid changes of the industrial system, furthermore, made such demands on the workmen that the educational system found itself unable to adjust itself quickly to their needs. Manufacturers and educators are now alive to the seriousness of the problem of bringing the school system into harmony with the modern industrialism of the country. The genuine interest manifested on both sides indicates a keen observation of the situation and the desire for a proper solution. Hearty co-operation between the teachers who prepare the boys for life and the manufacturers and business men who employ them as economic units will hasten the solution of the problem and bring about the desired results. Entering into the consideration are the workmen employed at the present time in unskilled labor who might be elevated industrially by supplemental education, and also the new recruits who are about to enter upon an industrial career. The latter class is, of course, of far greater importance than the former, in that it determines the character of the future industrial army. The proper training of boys for their life's work will, furthermore, materially minimize the necessity for continuation schools and other supplemental education for adults. The principal agencies for training boys systematically for skilled work are trade schools and apprenticeships. The trade-school problem is primarily the concern of the state, which should equip boys with such knowledge as will fit them to become self-supporting citizens. The school system of a community should offer industrial training for those activities which are peculiar to its locality. Although educational experts are giving much thought to this problem, their ideas are by no means clarified into a consensus of opinion. Some advocate the establishment of additional technical high schools: others believe in manual training in the lower grades of the elementary schools; many contend for a more practical training even to the extent of trade instruction; while some now urge the creation of elective industrial classes into which grammar-school boys may enter. Apprenticeship systems, on the other hand, are the concern of the manufacturers, who in this way train their own supply of skilled artisans; and according to the breadth of view with which manufacturers develop their systems, they are contributing more or less to the solution of the problem of making the boy's educational equipment fit his industrial needs. Apprenticeship systems are flexible and can, therefore, adjust themselves quickly to the changing industrial conditions; they present concrete examples of industrial training, a study of which will point out to educators the principles which should underlie an effective system of public industrial schools, where skill and intelligence may be developed in proper correlation. A significant example of what may be accomplished by a well-conducted apprenticeship system may be found at the works of the General Electric Company at Lynn, Mass. The establishment of this system was the outcome of a careful study of existing apprenticeship systems. Thirty or forty years ago when the entrance upon a skilled trade was universally made thru the door of an apprenticeship, a boy was apprenticed to a journeyman who practiced the trade in all its parts. Having a personal interest in the boy, the journeyman initiated him into the mysteries and arts of the trade, until the apprentice after five or six years of tutelage took and held his place by the side of his master. The introduction of the factory system brought about a change in the condition of the apprentice. He was now assigned to a department, the foreman of which was expected to teach him as the journeyman master had done heretofore. The shop foreman, who looked after a number of workmen and the work of the department in general, did not, of course, take the same personal interest in the boy as the journeyman heretofore had done, and very often delegated his function of teaching to an assistant. As the shop departments grew and a larger percentage of unskilled labor was employed in the factory, the foreman or his assistants felt less inclined, and were in fact less able, to devote special attention to the training of the boy. They hesitated to put him on a machine, both for fear that he might injure the same because of insufficient personal attention, and also for reasons of production which required the utilization of every machine to the fullest extent. The advantages for an apprentice in one department, furthermore, were often unequal to those in another department; this being due to the kind of work preformed and the amount of production. In order to overcome these unequal conditions, a supervisor of apprentices was appointed in some of the factories, whose duty it was to look after the interests of the apprentices and to transfer them from one department to another without interfering with the prerogatives and disciplinary supervision of the foremen; and to the extent to which the super |
