The Kindergarten and the Manual Training School one in Principle. — Russia solved the Problem of Tool Instruction by Laboratory Processes. — The Initiatory Step by M. Victor Della-Vos, Director of the Imperial Technical School of Moscow in 1868. — Statement of Director Della-Vos as to the Origin, Progress, and Results of the New System of Training. — Its Introduction into all the Technical Schools of Russia. — Dr. John D. Runkle, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recommends the Russian System in 1876, and it is adopted. — Statement of Dr. Runkle as to how he was led to the adoption of the Russian System. — Dr. Woodward, of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., establishes the second School in this Country. — His Historical Note in the Prospectus of 1882-83. — First Class graduated 1883. — Manual Training in the Agricultural Colleges — In Boston, in New Haven, in Baltimore, in San Francisco, and other places. — Manual Training at the Meeting of the National Educational Association, 1884. — Kindergarten and Manual Training Exhibits. — Prof. Felix Adler’s School in New York City — the most Comprehensive School in the World. — The Chicago Manual Training School the first Independent Institution of the Kind — its Inception; its Incorporation; its Opening. Its Director, Dr. Belfield. — His Inaugural Address. — Manual Training in the Public Schools of Philadelphia. — Manual Training in twenty-four States. — Revolutionizing a Texas College. — Local Option Law in Massachusetts. — Department of Domestic Economy in the Iowa Agricultural College. — Manual Training in Tennessee, in the University of Michigan, in the National Educational Association, in Ohio. — The Toledo School for both Sexes. — The Importance of the Education of Woman. — The Slöjd Schools of Europe.

The principle of the manual training school exists in the kindergarten, and for that principle we are indebted directly to Froebel, and indirectly to Pestalozzi, Comenius, Rousseau, and Bacon. But it was reserved for Russia to solve the problem of tool instruction by the laboratory process, and make it the foundation of a great reform in education. The initiatory step was taken in 1868 by M. Victor Della-Vos, Director of the Imperial Technical School of Moscow. The following statement is extracted from the account given by Director Della-Vos of the exhibit of the Moscow school at Philadelphia (Centennial of 1876), and at the Paris Exposition in 1878, as best showing the inception of the new education:

“In 1868 the school council considered it indispensable, in order to secure the systematical teaching of elementary practical work, as well as for the more convenient supervision of the pupils while practically employed, to separate entirely the school workshops from the mechanical works in which the orders from private individuals are executed, admitting pupils to the latter only when they have perfectly acquired the principles of practical labor.

“By the separation alone of the school workshops from the mechanical works, the principal aim was, however, far from being attained. It was found necessary to work out such a method of teaching the elementary principles of mechanical art as, firstly, should demand the least possible length of time for their acquirement; secondly, should increase the facility of the supervision of the graded employment of the pupils; thirdly, should impart to the study of practical work the character of a sound systematical acquirement of knowledge; and fourthly and lastly, should facilitate the demonstration of the progress of every pupil at every stated time. Everybody is well aware that the successful study of any art whatsoever, free-hand or linear drawing, music, singing, painting, etc., is only attainable when the first attempts at any of them are strictly subject to the laws of gradation and successiveness, when every student adheres to a definite method or school, surmounting little by little, and by certain degrees, the difficulties encountered.

“All those arts which we have just named possess a method of study which has been well worked out and defined, because, since they have long constituted a part of the education of the well-instructed classes of people, they could not but become subject to scientific analysis, could not but become the objects of investigation, with a view of defining those conditions which might render the study of them as easy and well regulated as possible.

“If we except the attempts made in France in the year 1867 by the celebrated and learned mechanical engineer, A. Cler, to form a collection of models for the practical study of the principal methods of forging and welding iron and steel, as well as the chief parts of joiners’ work, and this with a purely demonstrative aim, no one, as far as we are aware, has hitherto been actively engaged in the working out of this question in its application to the study of hand labor in workshops. To the Imperial Technical School belongs the initiative in the introduction of a systematical method of teaching the arts of turning, carpentering, fitting, and forging.

“To the knowledge and experience in these specialties, of the gentlemen intrusted with the management of the school workshops, and to their warm sympathy in the matter of practical education, we are indebted for the drawing up of the programme of systematical instruction in the mechanical arts, its introduction in the year 1868 into the workshops, and also for the preparation of the necessary auxiliaries to study. In the year 1870, at the exhibition of manufactures at St. Petersburg, the school exhibited its methods of teaching mechanical arts, and from that time they have been common to all the technical schools of Russia.

“And now (1878) we present our system of instruction, not as a project, but as an accomplished fact, confirmed by the long experience of ten years of success in its results.”

For the introduction of the manual element in education to the United States we are indebted to the intellectual acumen of Dr. John D. Runkle, Ph.D., LL.D., Walker Professor of Mathematics, Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. In 1876 Doctor Runkle was President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his official report for that year he gave an exhaustive exposition of the Russian system, in the course of which he said,

“We went to Philadelphia, therefore, earnestly seeking for light in this as well as in all other directions, and this special report is now made to ask your attention to a fundamental, and, as I think, complete solution of this most important problem of practical mechanism for engineers. The question is simply this, Can a system of shop-work instruction be devised of sufficient range and quality which will not consume more time than ought to be spared from the indispensable studies?

“This question has been answered triumphantly in the affirmative, and the answer comes from Russia. It gives me the greatest pleasure to call your attention to the exhibit made by the Imperial Technical Schools of St. Petersburg and Moscow, consisting entirely of collections of tools and samples of shop-work by students, illustrating the system which has made these magnificent results possible.”

In conclusion Doctor Runkle made the following earnest recommendation:

“In the light of the experience which Russia brings us, not only in the form of a proposed system, but proved by several years of experience in more than a single school, it seems to me that the duty of the Institute is plain. We should, without delay, complete our course in Mechanical Engineering by adding a series of instruction shops, which I earnestly recommend.”

In accordance with this recommendation the “new school of Mechanic Arts” was created, and made part of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In his report for 1877 Doctor Runkle said,

“The plan announced in my last report, of building a series of shops [laboratories] in which to teach the students in the department of Mechanical Engineering and others the use of tools, and the fundamental steps in the art of construction, in accordance with the Russian system, as exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876, has been carried steadily forward, and I have now the pleasure of announcing its near completion.”

Reference is also made in the same report to the action of the trustees of the Institute in acknowledging the reception of certain models illustrating the system of Mechanic Art education, presented by the government of Russia, as follows:

“At a meeting of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, held November 20, 1877, a communication from his Excellency, Hon. George H. Boker, American Minister at St. Petersburg, was read, announcing the gift to this Institute of eight cases of models, illustrating the system of Mechanic Art education, as devised and so successfully applied at the Imperial Technical School of Moscow. The undersigned have been charged with the agreeable duty of transmitting to his Imperial Highness the following resolutions:

“Resolved, That the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology takes this opportunity to cordially congratulate his Imperial Highness, Prince Pierre d’Oldenbourg, that, at the Imperial Technical School of Moscow, education in the Mechanic Arts has been for the first time based upon philosophical and purely educational grounds, fully justifying for it the title of the ‘Russian system.’

“Resolved, That this Corporation hereby tenders its grateful thanks to his Imperial Highness for his most valuable gift, with the assurance that these models will be of the greatest aid in promoting Mechanic Art education not only in the School of this Institute, but in all similar schools throughout the United States.”

Appreciating the value of the services rendered to the cause of the new education by Dr. Runkle, in introducing to the schools of the United States tool practice by laboratory methods, and desiring to inform the public of the course of thought which led to results so important, the author addressed him on the subject. His reply, under date of May 22, 1884, is in substance as follows:

“From the first the course in Mechanical Engineering has been an important one in the Institute of Technology. A few students came with a knowledge of shop-work, and had a clear field open to them on graduation, but the larger number found it difficult to enter upon their professional work without first taking one or two years of apprenticeship. This always seemed to me a fault in the education, and yet I did not see the way to remedy it without building up manufacturing works in connection with the school—a step which I knew to be an inversion of a true educational method.

“At Philadelphia, in 1876, almost the first thing I saw was a small case containing three series of models—one of chipping and filing, one of forging, and one of machine-tool work. I saw at once that they were not parts of machines, but simply graded models for teaching the manipulations in those arts. In an instant the problem I had been seeking to solve was clear to my mind; a plain distinction between a Mechanic Art and its application in some special trade became apparent.

“My first work was to build up at the Institute a series of Mechanic Art shops, or laboratories, to teach these arts, just as we teach chemistry and physics by the same means. At the same time I believed that this discipline could be made a part of general education, just as we make the sciences available for the same end through laboratory instruction.

“All teaching has in an important sense a double purpose: first, the cultivation of the powers of the individual, and second, the pursuit of similar subjects, by substantially the same means, as a professional end. Now we use our shops [laboratories] both for educational and professional ends.... In brief, we teach the mechanic arts by laboratory methods, and the student applies the special skill and knowledge acquired, or not, as circumstances or his inclinations dictate.”

The second manual training school in this country was founded as a department of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., by Dr. C. M. Woodward. In a paper read before the St. Louis Social Science Association, May 16, 1878, Dr. Woodward discussed the subject of education both philosophically and practically. In the course of his address he gave a full account of the Russian system of manual training as expounded by Dr. Runkle, endorsed it, and recommended it to the people of St. Louis as the true method of education in the following pregnant sentence: “The manual education which begins in the kindergarten, before the children are able to read a word, should never cease.”[99]

In the same paper Dr. Woodward thus modestly describes the beginning of the school which is now one of the most highly-esteemed educational institutions of St. Louis:

“With the aid of our stanch friend, Mr. Gottlieb Conzelman, we fitted up during last summer a wood-working shop, with work-benches and vises for eighteen students; a second shop for vise-work upon metals and for machine-work; and a third with a single outfit of blacksmith’s tools. During the last few months systematic instruction has been given to different classes in all these shops. Special attention has been paid to the use of wood-working hand-tools, to wood-turning, and to filing.”

These tentative steps promoted a healthy public sentiment, and attracted the attention of several wealthy men, who in 1879 contributed the funds for the permanent foundation of the school. The prospectus for the year 1882-83 contains the following “historical note,” which shows great progress:

“The ordinance establishing the Manual Training School was adopted by the Board of Directors of the University, June 6, 1879.

“The lot was purchased and the building begun in August of the same year. In the November following a prospectus of the school was published. In June, 1880, the building being partially equipped, was opened for public inspection, and a class of boys was examined for admission. On September 6, 1880, the school began with a single class of about fifty pupils. The whole number enrolled during the year was sixty-seven. A public exhibition of drawing and shop-work was given June 16, 1881.

“The second year of the school opened September 12, 1881, and closed June 14, 1882. There were two classes, sixty-one pupils belonging to the first year, and forty-six to the second year, making one hundred and seven in all. Of the second-year class, forty-two had attended the school the previous year.

“The third year of the school will open on September 11th, when three classes will be present.

“The large addition now in progress (June, 1882) is to be completed and furnished by the day set for the examination of candidates for admission, September 8th. The number of pupils in the new first-year class is to be limited to one hundred. Nearly one-half of that number have already been received.”

The capacity of the school since the completion of the “addition” alluded to in the “historical note” is two hundred and forty students. The first class was graduated in June, 1883; the second class in June, 1884. The establishment of this excellent school is due first to the energy and educational foresight of Dr. Woodward, and second, to the munificent money donations of three citizens of St. Louis—Mr. Edwin Harrison, Mr. Samuel Cupples, and Mr. Gottlieb Conzelman. Other citizens emulated their noble example, and the result was a sufficient fund for the support of the school, whose purpose is to demonstrate the practicability of uniting manual and mental instruction in the public schools of St. Louis and of the country. With a single further quotation from the prospectus of the second great manual training school in the United States, on the subject of labor, we close this too brief notice:

“One great object of the school is to foster a higher appreciation of the value and dignity of intelligent labor, and the worth and respectability of laboring men. A boy who sees nothing in manual labor but mere brute force despises both labor and the laborer. With the acquisition of skill in himself comes the ability and willingness to recognize skill in his fellows. When once he appreciates skill in handicraft, he regards the workman with sympathy and respect.”

Considerable progress in manual training has been made in the State agricultural colleges of the country. In twelve of these colleges drawing and tool practice have been introduced. Generally the tool practice covers pattern-making, blacksmithing, moulding and founding, forging and bench-work, and machine-tool work in iron. The most pronounced success has been achieved at Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., under the directorship of Prof. Wm. F. M. Goss, who graduated from the school of Mechanic Arts of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1879.

Manual training in connection with the public-school system of education has been inaugurated in Boston and Milford, Mass.; New Haven, and the State Normal School, New Britain, Conn.; Omaha, Neb.;[100] Eau Claire, Wis.;[101] Moline, Peru, and the Cook County Normal School, Normal Park, Ill.; Montclair, N. J.; Cleveland and Barnesville, Ohio; San Francisco, Cal.; and Baltimore, Md.

On the occasion of the annual meeting of 1884 of the National Educational Association of the United States, at Madison, Wis., manual training received a very large share of the attention of educators. Very creditable exhibits of various manipulations in wood, iron, and steel were made by the following institutions, namely, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Purdue University, the St. Louis Manual Training School, the Illinois Industrial University, the University of Wisconsin, and the Spring Garden Institute of Philadelphia. There were also about thirty kindergarten exhibits, and a large number of exhibits of specimens of drawing from public schools in various parts of the country.

Prof. Felix Adler’s educational enterprise in the city of New York—The Workingman’s School and Free Kindergarten—is unique in this that, while it is entirely a work of charity, it is the most comprehensive educational institution in existence, as appears from the following description of its course of instruction:

“The Workingman’s School and Free Kindergarten form one institution. The children are admitted at the age of three to the kindergarten. They are graduated from it at six, and enter the workingman’s school. They remain in the school till they are thirteen or fourteen years of age. Thereafter those who show decided ability receive higher technical instruction. For the others who leave the school proper and are sent to work, a series of evening classes will be opened, in which their industrial and general education will be continued in various directions. This graduate course of the workingman’s school is intended to extend up to the eighteenth or twenty-first year.

“From the third year up to manhood and womanhood—such,” says Prof. Adler, “is the scope embraced by the purposes of our institution!”

The following extracts from a late report of the principal of the school, Mr. G. Bamberger, on its “purposes,” show that they are identical with those of the so-called manual training school, and also that its methods are similar:

“We, therefore, have undertaken to institute a reform in education in the following two ways: We begin industrial instruction at the very earliest age possible. Already in our kindergarten we lay the foundation for the system of work instruction that is to follow. In the school proper, then, we seek to bridge over the interval lying between the preparatory kindergarten training and the specialized instruction of the technical school, utilizing the school age itself for the development of industrial ability. This, however, is only one characteristic feature of our institution. The other, and the capital one, is, that we seek to combine industrial instruction organically with the ordinary branches of instruction, thus using it not only for the material purpose of creating skill, but also ideally as a factor of mind-education. To our knowledge, such an application of work instruction has nowhere as yet been attempted, either abroad or in this country....

“In the teaching of history to these young children we hold it essential that the teacher should be entirely independent of any text-book, and able to freely handle the vast material at his disposal, and to draw from it, as from an endless storehouse, with fixed and definite purpose. We attach even greater importance to the moral than to the intellectual significance of history. The benefits which the understanding, the memory, and the imagination derive from the study of history are not small. But history, considered as a realm of actions, can be made especially fruitful of sound influence upon the active, moral side of human nature. The moral judgment is strengthened by a knowledge of the evolution of mankind in good and evil. The moral feelings are purified by abhorrence of the vices of the past, and by admiration of examples of greatness and virtue. Text-books are not to be discarded, but their choice is a matter of great difficulty. Thus, all books in which historical instruction is given in the shape of printed questions and answers are highly objectionable. They are convenient bridges which lead to nothing.”

The following extract from a late report of Prof. Adler shows the purpose of the establishment of what he calls the “model school” to be identical with that of the projectors of the St. Louis and Chicago manual training schools, namely, the ultimate adoption by the public schools of the country of a far more rational system of instruction than that which at present prevails. He says,

“It seemed to us, therefore, far more necessary, far more calculated to really advance the public good, that one model school should be erected in which the entire system of rational and liberal education for the children of the poorer class might be exhibited from beginning to end. We ventured to hope that such an example, having once been set, would not be without effect upon the common-school system at large, and that the extension of our work would proceed by the natural course of the ‘survival of what is fittest.’ It was decided, therefore, that the twenty-five graduates from the kindergarten should be invited to remain with us, that a complete school should be instituted, and that a teacher should be at once appointed to take in hand the instruction of the lowest class. The munificence of Mr. Joseph Seligman, to whose name we cannot refer without gratitude and respect, at this stage enabled us to go on with our undertaking, when the dearth of funds would otherwise have compelled us to wait, or perhaps desist altogether. His timely gift of ten thousand dollars was the means of starting the school, and on this as well as on other accounts his memory deserves to be cherished by those who cherish the educational interests of the people.”

The Chicago Manual Training School is the only independent educational institution of the kind in the world. All the schools of this character to which reference has been made in this chapter are departments of colleges or institutes of technology. The Chicago school is unique in another respect: it owes its origin entirely to laymen. Professional educators labored long and earnestly to found the schools we have described, but the Chicago school was inspired by men unknown in the field of educational enterprise, advocated by a secular daily journal, and established by an association of merchants, manufacturers, and bankers. For many years the Chicago Tribune had very freely and severely criticised the educational methods of the public schools. Early in the year 1881 its editorial columns were opened to the author of this work, who began and continued, therein, the advocacy of the establishment of a manual training school in Chicago, as a tentative step towards the incorporation in the curriculum of the public schools, of more practical methods of instruction.

The editorial advocacy of the Tribune was continued for twelve months, articles appearing about once a week, without apparent effect beyond provoking a controversy with certain professional educators, who attacked the positions assumed by the Tribune. But a public sentiment had been created on the subject, and the Commercial Club was destined soon to embody that sentiment in action. At its regular monthly meeting, March 25, 1882, the subject of reform in methods of education was discussed by members of the club, and by men invited to be present for that purpose; the establishment of a school was resolved upon, and $100,000 pledged for its support.

The Chicago Manual Training School Association was incorporated April 11, 1883; the corner-stone of its building was laid September 24, 1883; and the sessions of the school commenced on the 4th of February, 1884, with a class of seventy-two students, “selected by examination from one hundred and thirty applicants, under the directorship of Henry H. Belfield, A.M., Ph.D.”

The Board of Trustees consists of E. W. Blatchford, president; R. T. Crane, vice-president; Marshall Field, treasurer; William A. Fuller, secretary; John Crerar, John W. Doane, N. K. Fairbank, Edson Keith, and George M. Pullman.

The object of the school is stated in the articles of incorporation as follows:

“Instruction and practice in the use of tools, with such instruction as may be deemed necessary in mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a high-school course. The tool instruction as at present contemplated shall include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron chipping and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar character as may be deemed advisable to add to the foregoing from time to time, it being the intention to divide the working hours of the students, as nearly as possible, equally between manual and mental exercises.”

From the first annual catalogue, under the title “Building and Equipment,” we extract the following:

“The school building is beautifully located on Michigan Avenue, and contains ample accommodations, in rooms for study and work, for several hundred pupils.

“The equipment in the mechanical department consists mainly, at present, of twenty-four cabinet-makers’ benches; bench and lathe tools of the best quality for seventy-two boys; twenty-four speed lathes, twelve-inch swing, thirty inches between centres; a fifty-two horse-power Corliss engine, twelve-inch cylinder, thirty-six inch stroke; two tubular boilers, forty inches in diameter, fourteen feet long. The Corliss engine, boilers, and lathes were made especially for the school.

“A very valuable scientific library of nearly five hundred volumes, the property of the American Electrical Society, has been placed in the school. To this library, which is particularly rich in works pertaining to electricity and chemistry, but which contains also cyclopedias, dictionaries, and other works of reference, the pupils have access.

“The Blatchford Literary Society, an organization of pupils for improvement in composition, debate, etc., has lately had a handsome donation of money for the purchase of books to be placed in their alcove in the school library. Several periodicals are regularly placed on the library tables through the generosity of the publishers.

“By the kindness of Dr. Wm. F. Poole, librarian, pupils are able to obtain books from the Chicago Public Library on unusually favorable conditions.”

Thus the Chicago Manual Training School, a practical school, a school of instruction in things, a school after Bacon’s “own heart,” sprang from the brains of a number of plain, practical business men, full-armed, as Minerva from the brain of Jupiter.

The Trustees were fortunate in securing Dr. Belfield for the directorship of the school. Before the introduction of the new education to this country, eleven years ago, while Russia was struggling with the problem of tool practice by the laboratory method, Dr. Belfield urged the need of manual training in the public schools of Chicago, in which he was a teacher. He was met with derision; but the president of the Board of Education of Chicago and the superintendent of schools are now advocates of the new system of training.

In conclusion we present the following extracts from the inaugural address of Dr. Belfield, delivered before the Chicago Manual Training School Association, June 19, 1884, as embodying the results of his experience and observation as to the value of the new system of training:

“The distinctive feature of the manual training school is the education of the mind, and of the hand as the agent of the mind. The time of the pupil in school is about equally divided between the study of books and the study of things; between the academic work on the one hand, and the drawing and shop-work on the other. Observe, I do not say between school-work and shop-work, for the shop is as much a school as is any other part of the establishment. Nor do I mean that the shop gives an education of the hand alone, and the class-room an education of the brain; but I mean that the shop educates hand and brain. That the hand is educated I need not stop to prove; but the shop educates the mind also.

“Had you been in the wood-working room of this school a few hours ago, what would you have seen? Twenty-four boys at work at lathes driven by a powerful engine. Are any idle? No. Are any inattentive to their work? No; you notice the closest and most earnest attention, frequently approaching abstraction. Here, then, is the cultivation of a most important faculty of the mind, attention, the power of concentration; and it is worthy of remark that this attention is not an enforced attention, but is cheerful, voluntary, and unremitting.

“The young workman is engaged on a problem in wood, just as, a few hours earlier, he was engaged on a problem in algebra. He has before him a drawing made to a scale. The problem is this: He must gain a clear conception of the object represented by the drawing; he must imagine it; he must select or cut a block of wood of the proper dimensions and of the right quality. It must not be too large, for he must guard against waste of material and waste of time. It must be large enough, for there must be no incompleteness about the finished product of his labor. Observe him as the work grows under his hand; observe the selecting of the proper tools for the different parts of the process; observe the careful measuring, the watchful eye upon the position of the chisel, the speed of the lathe, the gradual approach of the once rectangular block to the model which exists in his brain—and you must admit that this work demands and develops, not manual dexterity alone, but attention, observation, imagination, judgment, reasoning....

“My own opinion is that an hour in the shop of a well-conducted manual training school develops as much mental strength as an hour devoted to Virgil or Legendre....

“But of this I am confident, that three years of a manual training school will give at least as much purely intellectual growth as three years of the ordinary high school, because, as has been said, every school hour, whether spent in the class-room, the drawing-room, or in the shop, is an hour devoted to intellectual training. And I am also convinced that the manual training school boy’s comprehension of some essential branches of knowledge will be as far superior to that of the other boy’s, as the realization of the grandeur and beauty of the Alps to the man who has seen their glories is superior to the conception of him who has merely read of them....

“And here is the mistake of those who would degrade a manual training school into a manufacturing establishment. The fact should never be lost sight of for an instant that the product of the school should be, not the polished article of furniture, not the perfect piece of machinery, but the polished, perfect boy. The acquisition of industrial skill should be the means of promoting the general education of the pupil; the education of the hand should be the means of more completely and more efficaciously educating the brain....

“Take two boys, one with little or no education, the other a high-school graduate; let them enter the machine-shop of a large manufactory, beginning, as boys ignorant of the technique of the trade must begin, at the lowest round of the ladder. It cannot be doubted that in three or four years the high-school graduate, if he had been willing to do the drudgery incident to the place, would have reached a higher position than the other boy, and would be in a fair way to succeed to some responsible post in the establishment. But the graduate of the manual training school, by reason of his superior knowledge of machinery and materials, his skill in the use of tools, added to his general mental training, would begin at the point reached by the high-school boy after his years of apprenticeship. From the day of his entrance into the factory he would be conspicuous. While the other boys would stand in the presence of the huge Titan of the shop lost in the wonder of ignorance, the manual training boy would gaze with delight on the marvel of mechanism, wrapped in the admiration begotten of a thorough understanding of its construction, and strong in the consciousness of his mastery of it.”

Manual training was introduced in the Pennsylvania State College, experimentally, about three years ago. In 1883 the course was “greatly extended,” and in September, 1884, it went into full operation. The course is substantially the same as that of the Chicago school; and that it was the outgrowth of the Russian system, and inspired by Dr. Runkle, is shown by the following extract from a circular lately issued by Prof. Louis E. Reber:

“Some may think that the variety of operations in the mechanic arts is so great as to make it impossible to give the student any real knowledge in the time at his disposal. It should be borne in mind, however, that this multiplicity of processes may be reduced to a small number of manual operations, and the numerous tools employed are only modifications of, or convenient substitutes for, a few tools which are in general use.”

A course in tool practice by the laboratory method has been made part of the curriculum of the College of the City of New York.[102] I am permitted to make an extract from a letter written in August last by Alfred G. Compton, Professor of Applied Mathematics of the College of the City of New York, to Dr. Runkle. I print this extract to show the exacting nature of the demands made upon instructors by the new education. It is as follows:

“We are anxious to find, by the opening of our term in September, a competent instructor in wood-working for our course in mechanic arts, now in its second year. He should be a good and ready draughtsman, skilful in perspective and projections, and ready in black-board sketching, besides being acquainted with the use of tools, and apt at class-teaching. He will have at first $1000 a year.”

The lack of competent instructors is the most serious difficulty which the new education is destined to encounter. The desire to adopt tool practice is so widespread among the people that educators, whether willing or otherwise, are compelled to attempt to gratify the demand. At the same time the force of competent instructors is very small, and the danger is that the new system of education will be brought into disrepute through the failure of its proper administration.

In 1882 Mr. Paul Tulane, of Princeton, N. J., made a large donation, consisting of his realty in the city of New Orleans, in aid of education in the State of Louisiana. In 1884 the University bearing its donor’s name—Tulane—came into existence. In the deed of donation Mr. Tulane declared that by the term education he meant to “foster such a course of intellectual development as shall be useful and of solid worth, and not be merely ornamental or superficial.” Hence manual training has been made a prominent feature of the institution.[103]

There is in operation at Crozet, Va., a manual training school called, after its founder, Mr. Samuel Miller, “The Miller Manual Labor School;” but of the methods of training pursued at this school the author is not accurately informed.

Girard College, dedicated nearly forty years ago, has adopted manual training. In response to a letter by the author, asking for information, Mr. W. Heyward Drayton, of Philadelphia, gives the following historical sketch of the introduction and progress of tool practice by the laboratory method in that noble institution:

“From time to time some of the directors recognized the importance of mechanical instruction, but after one or two attempts further efforts in this direction were abandoned, as those proved utter failures. It was not until Dr. Runkle, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at the instance of the late Mr. William Welsh, then president of the Board of Directors of City Trusts, delivered a short address on the subject in the lecture-room of the Franklin Institute in this city, that any practical mode of introducing this branch of study into the college was presented.

“... Following as nearly as possible the scheme suggested by Dr. Runkle, and aided by many suggestions from him, in April, 1882, we began to instruct the larger boys to use tools in several kinds of metals. We were so fortunate as to secure the services of a very competent and enthusiastic instructor, who confined his instruction merely to teaching the use of tools, but without any pretence of teaching any trade. The result of two years’ experience has been so satisfactory that our boys leave the college to go to workshops, where they secure sufficient wages to support them at once; and they have, in many cases, been found so expert that in a few months their wages have been increased. We have been so encouraged by this as a substitute for apprenticing lads, which is fast becoming impossible, that we have just erected commodious workshops [laboratories], in which, on the same system, but to many more boys, we propose to teach the use of tools in wood-work also, as we have heretofore taught in metals. To this time we have been compelled, from want of facilities, to confine our instruction to about one hundred and seventy-five boys. We expect next month (October, 1884) to increase the number to three hundred—only being limited by the youth of the pupils, many of whom are too young to permit of their handling tools.”

Manual training has been made part of the curriculum of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Auburn, Ala., and the department is under the direction of a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[104]

Manual training has been adopted as a branch of education in the Denver (Col.) University, and the director of the department is a graduate of the manual training department of the Washington University of St. Louis, Mo.[105]

The present year (1885) witnesses a very important addition to the list of manual training schools—that of Philadelphia.

It is not too much to say that Mr. James MacAlister has revolutionized the public schools of Philadelphia in the short period of two years during which he has held the office of superintendent; and the last wave of the revolution reveals a fully-equipped manual training school as part of the public-school system of the conservative, grand old Quaker city. And this practical element in education is to be free to all public-school boys fourteen years of age, who can show themselves qualified to enter, as witness the following “rules” of the Philadelphia public schools:

“Promotions to the Manual Training School shall be made at the close of the June term, from the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, of the Boys’ Grammar, Consolidated and Combined Schools; but no boy shall be promoted who is under fourteen years of age.

“It shall be the duty of the Principals of the several Boys’ Grammar, Consolidated and Combined Schools, to certify to the superintendent of schools the names of all boys of the proper age who have finished the course of study in the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, and are desirous of promotion to the Manual Training School.”

In calling the attention of the public to the establishment of a manual training school as part of the educational system of Philadelphia, a committee of the City Board of Education say, under date of June 10, 1885,

“The undersigned desire to call attention to the new manual training school to be opened in this city next September. It is intended for boys who have finished the Twelfth Grade, or any higher grade, of the Grammar-school course. The instruction will embrace a thorough course, so far as it goes, in English, mathematics, free-hand and mechanical drawing, and the fundamental sciences; but in addition to these branches a carefully graded course of manual training will form a leading feature of the school. This manual training is intended to give the boys such a knowledge of the tools and materials employed in the chief industrial pursuits of our time as shall place them in more direct and sympathetic relations with the great activities of the business world. The school will make our public education not only more complete and symmetrical in character than it has been heretofore, but it will be at the same time better adapted to enable the pupils to win their way in life. No matter what future a parent may have marked out for his boy—whether he be intended for an industrial, a mercantile, or a professional occupation, it is believed that such an education will be of immense advantage to him. Upon the industries of the world, to a much larger extent than ever before in its history, depend the progress, the prosperity, the happiness of society. To prepare boys for this condition of things will be the aim of this school. The entire course of instruction and training will be practical in the largest and best sense of that term. The culture it gives will include the hand as well as the head, and its graduates will be trained to work as well as to think. The course will extend over a period of three years, but it is so arranged that boys whose intended pursuits in life will not warrant spending so much time may participate in its advantages for a shorter period before entering upon other studies or a permanent occupation.

“The Manual Training School has been organized in response to a growing sentiment respecting the character of public education which has been strongly manifested in Philadelphia, and the Board of Public Education believe that the movement, when fully understood, will meet with the cordial approval of our people. Your careful consideration of the nature and objects which the school seeks to accomplish is respectfully solicited.”

This act of the school authorities of the city of Philadelphia is the strongest popular endorsement the theory of manual training as an element of education has received. It commits a great city to a fair trial of the new education under the most favorable auspices—under the conduct of Mr. James MacAlister, one of the most accomplished, as well as most sternly practical educators in the United States.

But this is only part of a general system of manual training introduced throughout the whole course of instruction given in the public schools of Philadelphia. There are kindergartens (sub-primaries) for children from three to six years of age, and an industrial art department for all the students (of both sexes) of the grammar schools. In this latter department the course of training comprises “drawing and design,” “modelling,” “wood-carving,” “carpentry and joinery,” and “metal work.” These courses, including manual training proper, “at the top,” form a comprehensive system of head and hand training known as the new education. Mr. MacAlister says, “The conviction is gradually obtaining among the members of the Board of Education [of Philadelphia], and in the public mind, that every child should receive manual training; that a complete education implies the training of the hand in connection with the training of the mind; and that this feature must ultimately be incorporated into the public education. What is this but the realization of the principles which every great thinker and reformer in education has insisted upon, from Comenius, Locke, and Rousseau, to Pestalozzi, Froebel, and Spencer!”[106]