reaching economic disturbances and maladjustment of labor supply to demand, unless that return is made under some comprehensive scheme of administration. Vocational reeducation will provide one means of so directing the return of men into civil employments as to occasion the least possible disturbance, and will go far to avoid impairment of establisht standards of living. The industrial restoration of men has been found a very important feature of their physical restoration. The first aim of the doctors is to inspire in the mind of the man a belief in his own ability to live and be useful. Once the man himself is convinst that it is within his power to recover and become self-supporting, half the battle of the doctors is won. AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION UNDER THE SMITH-HUGHES ACT CHARLES A. GREATHOUSE, MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION As a people, during the struggle of the last five years, our attention has been focust upon the resources of our forests, mines, and farms, that from them might come the greatest possible output to provide the necessities of life for ourselves, for our fighting Allies, and for the suffering peoples of Europe, and also the machines and materials of warfare to make possible a victorious conclusion of the war. In a singular way we now, as never before, recognize the value of our farms and their products. The encouragement of agricultural education is of necessity the first concern of every enlightened nation. The present war has demonstrated to a striking degree how true this is. The food administrator of Great Britain in an appeal to America said: "Unless America can send us at least 75,000,ooo bushels of wheat over and above what has already been exported and before the new crop comes on, I cannot insure our people that we will have food enough to win the war." And so, true to the call of service, the energies of a vast number of people are centered upon food production and conservation. Local, state, and national agencies are efficiently directing and stimulating production. Public educational institutions are contributing largely to the success of the movement-the land-grant colleges by training leaders, and the public schools by training our young men for actual farming. Altho drafted primarily for times of peace, the provisions of the SmithHughes Act are strikingly adapted to times of war. Under the stimulating influences of this act agricultural schools are being establisht in every state in the Union. Dedicated to serve the needs of the nation, the Federal Board for Vocational Education is advancing the cause of agricultural education that the American people and their Allies may now be fed, and that ultimately agriculture in the United States may be pursued by young men properly trained for their work. DEPARTMENT OF RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION SECRETARY'S MINUTES OFFICERS President C. H. LANE, federal agent for agricultural education, Federal Board for Vocational Education.... .Washington, D. C. FIRST SESSION-TUESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 2, 1918 The following was the program for the meeting: "The Relationship between Teacher-Training Departments under the Provisions of the Smith-Hughes Act, and State Supervisors of Agriculture for the State Boards for Vocational Education"-G. W. Works, professor of rural education, State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N.Y. Discussion-Leader, G. H. Whitcher, state supervisor of agriculture, Concord, N.H. "Project Methods in Teacher-Training Courses"-A. W. Nolan, state supervisor of agriculture, State Board for Vocational Education, Springfield, Ill. Discussion-Leader, W. S. Taylor, professor of agricultural education, State Col lege, Pa. Sectional Conferences and Periods of Professional Improvement Work for Teachers of High-School Agriculture"-R. W. Stimson, State Board of Education, Boston, Mass. Discussion-Leader, L. H. Dennis, director of agricultural education, Harrisburg, Pa.; A. K. Getman, state supervisor of agriculture, Trenton, N.J. "The Organization of the T. N. Vail State Agricultural School of Vermont"-M. B. Hillegas, state commissioner of education, Montpelier, Vt. SECOND SESSION-WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 3, 1918 The following was the program for the meeting: "Rural Secondary Education in the United States during and after the War"H. W. Foght, specialist in rural-school practice, Bureau of Education, Washington, D.C. "Some Outstanding Illustrations of Progress in Organization of Rural High Schools" -Lee Driver, county superintendent of schools, Winchester, Ind. THIRD SESSION-THURSDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 4, 1918 The following was the program for the meeting: "Home-Project Work Too Small-Something Bigger Needed-a Substitute in Operation"-W. S. Welles, director and supervisor of vocational agricultural instruction, River Falls, Wis. "The Effect of Rural Continuation Schools on Agricultural Efficiency”—R. W. Stimson, State Board of Education, Boston, Mass. "The Educational Value of Practical Agriculture under the Provisions of the SmithHughes Act"-R. D. Maltby, supervisor of Agriculture, Athens, Ga. "The Birth and Childhood of Vocational Education with a Forecast as to Its Development during Adolescence"-David Snedden, professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. "State Supervisor of Vocational Agriculture under the Provisions of the SmithHughes Act"-J. D. Elliff, director of vocational education, Jefferson City, Mo. "The New Education in Agriculture Is Based on Sound Pedagogy"-W. R. Hart, professor of agricultural education, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER-TRAINING DEPARTMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SMITH-HUGHES ACT AND STATE SUPERVISORS OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE STATE BOARDS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION G. A. WORKS, PROFESSOR OF RURAL EDUCATION, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, N.Y. The organization of the two phases represented by supervision of the vocational work in agriculture and the preparation of persons to teach such agriculture may be on one of two bases: (1) The responsibility for both phases of the work, supervision of vocational agriculture and training of teachers, may be under the direction of one person. Such an arrangement is possible under the provision of the Smith-Hughes Act by making a proper division of the supervisor's time between the two fields in which he functions. This adjustment is to be found in several states at the present time. (2) The supervisory function may be placed in the hands of one person and the responsibility for the preparation of teachers vested, in another. Of these two plans I believe that ultimately the second will show greater strength as measured by the results accomplisht in the teaching of vocational agriculture. This must be regarded as the final measure, because the SmithHughes Act does not exist to provide supervisors and teacher-training departments except in so far as these are a means of improving the instruction in agriculture under the act. This statement should not be interpreted as meaning that the organization which places both teacher-training and supervisory functions in one head is without merit. There is a strong argument for it. It gives the department dealing with the preparation of teachers an excellent opportunity to follow its product into the schools and to see at first hand the extent to which the persons who have been prepared are making good when they have assumed their responsibilities as teachers. This is, of course, the final measure of the success of the teacher-training work. A weakness lies in the fact that those who have prepared the teacher are likely to overlook what may be fundamental weaknesses in his work, provided that he is proceeding in accordance with the instruction received at their hands. The supervisor who is independent of the teacher-training organization will approach the work of the teacher with an unprejudist attitude, and, other things being equal, he is more likely to see the faults of the teacher as they are exhibited in his work than he would be if he were responsible for that teacher's preparation. A practical difficulty is created by combining the supervisory and teachertraining function in one person, because it is necessary for the supervisor to distribute his work over the entire year. He cannot well have one semester for supervision and the other for teaching. This creates difficulties incident to having the problem of an instructor spend two or three days a week in the field and the remainder of the time in the classroom. Anyone who has tried this realizes that it is usually unsatisfactory. The supervisory work, because of the calls for assistance that come from the field, is the more insistent of the two, and as a result the teacher finds that the supervisor has robbed him of time which he should have for the organization and development of his instructional work. He is also without the time necessary to become intimately acquainted with his student body. It is quite within the range of possibility that a third feature might develop that contains an element of weakness when the two offices are combined. Naturally the supervisor is in a position of considerable influence in determining the teachers selected by school authorities. He would fall short of being human if he did not favor his own students. Under normal conditions, with reference to supply of teachers, this may result in more or less inbreeding. I am of the opinion that at least 15 to 25 per cent of the teachers of vocational agriculture in any state should come from outside the state. Especially will this be true when the Smith-Hughes funds have made possible the development of strong departments for the preparation of teachers in practically all the states. This drawing of teachers from outside has its limitation in the fact that usually they cannot be obtained to advantage from regions that have a widely different agriculture from that found in the state. When the two functions are placed on essentially coordinate bases and are vested in different individuals a broader viewpoint is brought to the problems, provided that the proper cooperation exists between those who are responsible for the training of teachers and those who are charged with the duty of supervising the instruction in the schools. It is not difficult to secure this cooperation when the men occupying the two positions are big enough and reasonable enough to bear such responsibility. Those engaged in professional training of teachers recognize the fact that no matter how carefully their work is planned and executed they cannot turn out finisht teachers from training departments. To remedy this condition every state should be able by use of the Smith-Hughes funds to develop plans for the training of the teachers in service. Those who are in charge of the teacher-training work should take the initiative in developing plans for further training of the teachers after they are in service. Systematic instruction should be planned for and required of every teacher during at least his first year of teaching. This work should be developt by those in charge of the teacher training, with the advice of the supervisor. Since it must be largely individual it will be necessary for those who are conducting it and are responsible for it to visit the novice as occasion demands. |