of skilled labor, I sympathize strongly with the idea that mere intellectual culture has arrogated to itself a superiority far beyond its merits.

Sixth, It repels rather than attracts. By their unscientific and impractical methods our schools fail to interest children and give them a thirst for more knowledge. They cannot appreciate the value of what they are taught, and are prone to leave the halls of learning, that they may find elsewhere that training which nature craves.

With such an array of weak points in existing systems of education we should be eager to find adequate remedies and prompt to adopt such as promise relief. Happily for us these faults have been recognized by some of our greatest minds and remedies suggested which, if put into practice, can but result in great gain to the individual pupils of our schools and hence to society at large. The principal remedy, which has already been suggested, is the introduction of manual training into our public schools. It may perhaps be thought that I have ignored the fact that something has already been done in this direction by the kindergarten, drawing, and the laboratory methods of teaching the sciences. While we desire to give all due credit to the good work accomplished by each of these innovations, it yet remains true that the kindergarten but reaches up to the point where the ordinary common school work begins; the laboratory methods scarcely reach down so as to have any influence on the grades below the high school; and the drawing, which has found a place in our courses of study, has been of but little value as an element of industrial education. It is also true that neither the kindergarten, drawing or the laboratory, have been so generally introduced as to be fairly considered as having a place worthy of mention in the average school to-day. In presenting the claims of manual training for a place in our common schools, we will follow the same order that we have taken in speaking of the weak points of our present system. First, and especially, we claim that it will give to our pupils a broader culture. To prove this, it would seem hardly necessary to do more than to call attention to the recognized merits of the kindergarten and the laboratory methods in awakening thought, inciting investigation and necessitating care and patience, and noting that the manual training department will in a like manner give to those who come under its influence, clearer ideas of the meaning of words, a better knowledge of the nature of everything which they see, and touch, and taste, and smell, and a broader conception of their duties and responsibilities in their relations to the family, the community and the state.

Manual training may properly be considered as one modification of the laboratory method. In it the child deals with the facts of nature. By it he is taught concerning the properties of matter and the manifestations of force through the medium of his senses. This develops mental power, and as Mr. Seaver, Superintendent of the Boston schools, says, "Makes the pupil the possessor of the real merchandise of knowledge rather than its empty packing cases.' Our education heretofore has been partial and one-sided-merely an education in language-overlooking the fact that words are but the symbols of realities.

Second, Manual training is most emphatically scientific. The principle upon which Comenius most insisted, and which forms the special point of his teaching, is that the teaching of words and things must go hand in hand; and Herbert Spencer says, "We shall attain the best results by closely studying the development of the mind and availing ourselves of the whole amount

of force which nature puts at our disposal. No extent of acquaintances with the meanings of words can give the power of forming correct inferences respecting causes and effects. The constant habit of drawing conclusions from data, and then verifying those conclusions by observation and experiment, can alone give the power of judging correctly." Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Tyndall and Spencer, are a unit in asserting that scientific education must embrace the education of the hand and the brain, and that the work of our schools should be so planned as to make each mutually helpful to the other. This we have acknowledged by adopting the kindergarten and the laboratory methods, and only need, as a proof of the sincerity of our belief, to adopt the same principle in connection with our common school grades.

Third, Manual education is practical. I am aware that this word practical has a very unpleasant sound to many school men, and is even thought unworthy a place in the vocabulary of an educator. It is nevertheless true that this is a practical age, and the education which fits the youth of to-day for the actual duties of life must recognize this fact.

In laying out a course of study which should be best suited to the wants of any particular child, we would study the tastes and capacities of that child. So in planning for all the children of a community we should consider what scheme most nearly meets the wants of the great majority. If we do this, we can but decide that a knowledge of things, skill in hand-labor, and that respect for labor and the laborer, which are inevitably engendered by this knowledge, will be of vastly more practical value to the average boy or girl than any mere accumulation of facts and ability to use words. If we do this we shall recognize, the close relation between a high type of manual training and the great interests of material prosperity-just as we recognize the need of the cultivation of the mental powers and make provision for it. In this age of machinery, with the rapidly multiplying means of using steam and electricity, and the growing demands of a highly cultivated people in all /matters pertaining to artistic taste, there is always a dearth of skilled mechanics. Couple with this the fact that with the introduction of laborsaving machinery the apprentice system has become almost obsolete, and we are forced to the conclusion that unless we can through our schools encourage a taste for handcraft of a high order, our skilled industries must gradually become extinct, or we must continue to import the great majority of our skilled mechanics from Europe. Already probably three-fourths of our skilled workmen are of foreign training. The relegating of work requiring the skillful hand to foreigners, with no social standing in our country, has had a tendency to degrade all manual labor. Our best artisans and our worst politicians are refugees from foreign lands. Mr. Smiles has shown that England owes to the French and Flemish immigrants almost all her industrial arts. Francis Galton, commenting on this fact, says, "There has been another emigration from France to England of not unequal magnitude, but followed by very different results, namely, that of the revolution of 1789." Shall we aspire to repeat this history in our country; or rather, while we are proving our ability to rear almost as bad politicians as the old world can send us, shall we not endeavor to prove also our ability to produce as good artisans?

"The stony and sterile lands of New England," says the Englishman Mather in his late report to the British parliament, "require intense activity,

industry and skill on the part of the farmer, to make a living. As hired labor is very dear, he depends on his own houshold for help. Every kind of work has to be done at home. Blacksmith's, wheelwright's, machinist's, carpenter's, and hydraulic work become as familiar to the farmer, in a rough and ready way, as plowing, tilling, sowing and reaping. All handicrafts in a greater or less degree are acquired. The farmer's boy is thus provided with an industrial training of the best kind in and around his home. His wits are sharpened, his perceptions developed. There is a large field for the immediate application of knowledge acquired at school, on the one hand; on the other, the school exercises and lessons are more readily understood by a boy or girl having in daily life to deal directly with natural forces and laws. These district schools holding only twenty weeks in the year, associated as they are with agricultural and mechanical occupations, produce better results, as a whole, among the artisan classes than the city schools, the attendance at which is for the entire school-year of forty weeks. My attention has been drawn to this fact by many employers and educationists, and it has been confirmed by my own observations. It suggests the importance of introducing into the elementary public schools of cities some industrial training. Our brightest boys come from the country,' is a phrase which has become very familiar to me in America."

That the introduction of manual training into our schools would accomplish much toward doing away with the fallacious standards of merit, and the unjust discriminations which now prevail, needs but to be mentioned to be recognized as true. When we wish to determine the valuable qualities of different varieties of wood we apply various tests, and learn from our investigation that one is strong, another is easily worked into any desired shape, a third will take a high degree of polish and a fourth will give a large amount of heat. Every variety has its valuable properties. In a like manner if we apply a large number of tests to the different varieties of boy we shall surely find that every one is good for something. By increasing the number of tests which we apply to our boys we shall not only be more likely to do justice to each individual by discovering that each has some talent worth cultivating, but what is of vastly greater value to the world we shall reveal the same fact to the boy himself.

In presenting the advantages to be derived from our adding manual training to present course of study, I have endeavored to answer some of the objections which are raised to the plan. There are perhaps two others which should be noticed. First, It is claimed that other important branches would be neglected. The unanimous testimony of all who have experimented in this direction, that pupils do more and better work in the ordinary studies of the school on account of the addition of manual training is sufficient answer to the claim.

Again it is feared by some that, as boys generally like to be making something, any stimulus which encourages this propensity will divert many from pursuing literary or scientific studies for which they have a natural fitness. But it does not follow that because a boy learns something of the use of tools he must of necessity become a mechanic, as it does not follow that the boy who learns something of chemistry or Greek must of necessity follow only such pursuits as will call into immediate and active use the knowledge of these branches. It does follow simply that the mechanical laboratory would be used to teach the subject as a part of a general education and would inci

dentally be of great value directly to those who might wish to become skilled artisans. When a boy leaves a school in which manual training is taught, he will as now have his life work determined by his taste and the opportunities which offer. If indeed the influence of the introduction of manual training into our schools should be to induce a larger number of boys to become mechanics than heretofore, the result would be to the great advantage of the individuals so choosing and the community at large. The influence of any study which cultivates care, close observation and patient investigation is valuable; and no branch now found in our common schools, is at all comensurate in its capacity for accomplishing this result with manual training. Let us note also that while this is held necessary to the broadest culture, and is the scientifically correct method of education, it is also strongly and enthusiastically urged as the great need of our schools by that large class of practical self-made men, who, having achieved success themselves, should be considered wise counselors as to the best plan for helping others to success. Whenever any innovation upon established customs is proposed, wise men naturally and properly question as to the feasibility of the scheme. While a majority of the educators are probably ready to acknowledge that advantages would result from the introduction of manual training into our public schools, still very many think it altogether impracticable. The hyper-conservative ones, who always see insuperable objections to every new plan proposed, think they perceive in this, such a derangement of present courses of study, such a crowding of pupils with work, and such increased cost of our schools as should brand it as unworthy our consideration. While we frankly admit, that up to this time, work in this direction has been largely experimental, still the experiments have been sufficiently numerous and varied to warrant us in drawing definite conclusions as to the feasibility of the scheme. Replies to inquiries recently made, show a practical unanimity on the part of those who have had experience with manual training in public schools, in claiming:

1. Manual training is feasible in city schools, to just what extent is not yet fully determined.

2. It is not feasible to any great extent in country schools, and for reasons already hinted at, is not needed there as it is in the city.

3. It is popular with pupils and parents.

4. It gives larger classes in the grammar and high school grades.

5. Better intellectual development.

6. A more wholesome moral education.

7. Sounder judgment of men and things.

8. Better choice of occupation.

9. The only objections raised against it are its cost, and that instigated by the prejudice which always exists in the minds of the very conservative against any innovation without regard to its merits. This last is unworthy any consideration. The first-its cost-which applies equally to all the work of our higher grades, is valid only where it can be shown that the results can in no sense be considered commensurate with the expense.

It will perhaps be expected that after having made so great claims for manual training we will be prepared to present a formula for applying it to our present courses of study.

This can, however, be done only in a general way. There are very many conditions which should have weight in determining the character and amount

of work to be attempted in each particular school. The size of the town, the number of school buildings, the convenience with which pupils may be gathered at one or more central points, the rooms which may be converted to this special use, and the availibility of suitable instructors, are all points which must be considered.

To the extent that circumstances will permit, the following would seem to me a desirable scheme:

1. Kindergarten methods during the first three grades.

2. Industrial drawing in all grades above the second and below the high school.

3. The use of carpenter's tools in the fifth and sixth grades.

4. Forging for boys, and sewing for girls, in the seventh and eighth grades. 5. All work specially designated for the grammar grades should be made optional until such time as there was a general demand for it.

Whatever is attempted should be begun in a modest way, leaving popular demand to determine the extent to which it shall be carried.

DISCUSSION.

SUPT. C. N. KENDALL, Jackson, said: Schools are leaving undone things they ought to do. Our schools must progress to meet the demands. A few years ago, drawing and music were called for, and the schools adapted themselves to the demands. Education aims to train to thinking; train the observing powers, the judgment, and aim to put a well-rounded mind in a sound body. Now these mental gymnastics may come from books. I don't believe that manual training can be introduced for its purely practical value, but for its educational training. Brain should be trained through all the senses. Teach pupils to think by things in which they are interested. Train the mind through the hand, as well as through the eye. One of the best definitions of education, I think, is, "The formation of right habits." We should not take boys away from mechanical pursuits by our education. Manual training has a good infiuence on morals, because it keeps pupils busy. I believe that the cost of the system has been over-estimated. The cost in Toledo for fitting up a room for 80 boys was $796. The cost of a cooking-school in Boston for 35 girls was $35. It has been found to be a success in many small towns in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The superintendent of the Toledo schools said that the 50 boys who take manual training stand as high as do others. The whole line of school work is toned up by manual training.

SUPT. HOWELL, Lansing: There's a wrong impression as to cost of equipment, coming from the great and endowed schools of manual training in Worcester, Toledo, Chicago, and St. Louis. I have visited several Eastern schools especially to ascertain the cost. I have found that it can be introduced at slight expense; 200 boys in Boston school, drawn from ten schools, work two hours per week. They are from sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. They are taught for one year the use of carpenters' tools. Expense of plant, tools, benches, etc., did not reach $600. We can fit a room for 100 boys in Lansing for $250. Cost of material in Boston school per year per pupil was not more than $1.50, and they used Michigan pine at $60 per M.

Boys of the manual school were fully up in other studies. The pupils came from lower walks of life, and middle class, and from the better classes. The work showed the different classes. The work aided in the discipline of the school. The pupils of higher class liked it best. The pupils remained in school longer than they otherwise