The problem of the management of a school is a social problem and its laws are to be ascertained from sociology. The very thinking of the problems in arithmetic and geography is determined not so much in the realm of individual psychology as in that of social psychology. The background of the child's consciousness is the realm of social activity and enterprise. It is the social mind, the crowd mind, that goes to school to learn. Even more true is this in feeling and will than in intellect. Thus the science of education is a social science to an even greater extent than it is a psychological science. In the light of the foregoing introduction is it not apparent that sociology in a normal school has a most important place and a peculiarly important function? Should not its contents be organized with explicit and distinct reference to that place and that function? It is important that the prospective teacher should acquire some familiarity with the social elements and processes involved in teaching and school management and in the life and work of the teacher outside the schoolroom-and the latter is of no small importance, however much we may shirk and evade our responsibility.

Roughly speaking, we may divide the training of the teacher into two parts, that which is academic and personal and that which is distinctively technical and professional. In the former, we want education such as the high school and college give, and, in the latter, the professional training. So far as this classification applies to the normal school, I may say I do not like it as there the interweaving is so close as to make the division misleading. I use this arbitrary classification because I find it hard to make clear what I want to say without it. The study of algebra belongs to the former class tho in a normal school there is a distinct reaction upon the arithmetic. The pupil studying algebra in a normal school ought to understand arithmetic better for that study than the one who studied algebra in a high school.

As commonly taught in a normal school, I fear that sociology belongs very largely if not entirely in the first type of teacher preparation, that is, it is a cultural and informative subject and incidentally or accidentally gives distinct and technical training for teaching. I have seen outlines of work done in sociology in normal schools that could not readily be distinguished from the species having its habitat in some college. Worse than that, tell it not in Gath, I have taught that sort myself in normal schools.

It is probable that no one can map out a course in sociology that in the short time that can be devoted to it in a normal school shall cover in succinct and tangible form what might be called pedagogical sociology or sociological didactics-but never mind the label in this discussion of content. Doubtless the process of the evolution of the subject will be slow. Indeed, sociology as a college subject is in the early stages of development, to say nothing of the organization and systematization of the aspects of the subject best adapted for the teacher. In the meantime the teacher of sociology may be patient and take comfort in the fact that its close neighbor, educational psychology, with its earlier start, has much progress yet to make before it reaches a maximum percentage of pedagogical efficiency.

The personal equation of the teacher is a big factor to be reckoned with in sociology and the social environment of the school, and the communities from which the students come and the communities to which they go are also modifying factors.

If more educational writers were sufficiently informed in matters sociological so that they could take more of their clues from that source, like Professor Scott in his Social Education, for example, we would sooner find our way out of many a pedagogical labyrinth. It so often happens, however, that one who is qualified to speak as an educator knows not sociology, and it is still rarer to find a sociologist who is informed as to the problems of education.

One defect which I find in my own teaching of sociology in a normal school, and I presume I am not alone in the guilt, is that I am inclined to take too logical a view of the subject, to see each phase of the subject and its related topics in their proper relation

of subordination. Among these phases is social psychology, and somewhere in the list is the science of education, the relation of the school to the state, etc.

It is so easy to ride a tangent away into interesting fields of social knowledge. It is a most exhilarating trip, too, and fraught with great value. The normal-school instructor, however, should be wary of tangential tendencies. It is a good plan to take these excursions as side trips, if I am not carrying the figure too far. Occasional round-table discussions of the special topics assigned are helpful. Professor Cheever's plan of having each student follow up somewhat extensively some line of sociological inquiry, keeping a notebook, making a bibliography, and giving occasional reports to the class, etc., is a most excellent one.

I have abandoned the common plan of commencing the work with a logical organization of the subject and find it highly advantageous to plunge at once into a central portion of the subject. For example, a concrete test of evidences of common-mindedness in the class quickens a splendid interest and startles the students into an inquiry into the social sources of standards of judgment and of conduct. The student soon acquires the social point of view. Once infected, the case will run its course.

Lest I may be misunderstood in my contention for a sociology for normal schools that is aimed specifically toward technical training for teaching, let me say I realize that we often must get away from the school to understand the school. There is a certain stage in the teaching of English when we understand the subject better by studying the structure of a foreign language. We best study arithmetic by studying the higher mathematics, etc. The indirect reaction of a study of sociology as given in our colleges upon teacher training is exceedingly valuable, and if there were no discernible pedagogical reaction at all it is well worth a conspicuous place in a normal-school curriculum. Nevertheless, in view of the social character of the school, of the aims of education, of the educational processes, and of the life and work of the teacher, sociology may be made a much more efficient instrumentality in the training of teachers.

I believe this department of the National Education Association can do few things of more direct and lasting value in the furthering of the interests of education in the training of teachers than by continuing this investigation.

GUSTAV S. PETTERSON, department of sociology, State Normal School, Mankato, Minn. The content of the course in sociology is based on the belief that the abuses in political, industrial, and social affairs have been due largely to a one-sided and exaggerated individualism. In the past even our education, in both method and subject-matter, has been individualistic. Our psychology and pedagogy have been too individualistic.

The aim is not the teaching of the individual as a separate agent, but from the point of view of his obligation to the community that has produced him. The course is essentially practical. Very little theoretical matter is considered. The plan is to study as far as possible social conditions and social problems in Minnesota-those that our students will come in contact with in the course of their teaching experience.

A few basic definitions precede the study by way of introduction and a very brief statement of the place of sociology among the sciences and what sociology is. Social phenomena and social problems are really the latest products of organic evolution, and hence the evolutionary background is clearly established as early as possible. All this is as an aid to the understanding of social facts and conditions and in the interpretation of these facts. The physical, mental, moral, and religious characteristics of all the nationalities making up the American people are studied, this being a very effective aid in getting a clear conception of the many and varied social problems peculiar to the United States. This leads to the treatment of the questions of population and immigration with a full and definite study of the causes and results of isolation and congestion. Stress is laid on the facts of rural sociology, and then the village and the city are studied somewhat less in

detail. The fundamental social institutions of the family, the church, the state, and the school are examined in the light of their origin, development, present structure, function socially, and their possible destiny. A general view of the negro problem and a brief examination of socialism are undertaken. In conclusion, the abnormal problems of crime, poverty, and pauperism are looked into. Thruout the course, the social function of education is continually set before the student. There has been a demand for a more advanced course as an elective, and this has been met by an intensive course in social problems, which so far has covered in detail the problems of crime, intemperance, poverty and pauperism, and feeble-mindedness in its social aspects. It is likely that the problems considered will be varied from year to year.

The course covers a period of one term of twelve weeks, with five recitations a week. All the work is covered in recitation and not in lecture form. The texts used are Ellwood's Sociology and Modern Social Problems, Wright's Outline of Practical Sociology, and Gillette's Constructive Rural Sociology. No text has yet been used in the advanced course. Much collateral reading is required and also the reading of the newspapers and the current magazines. The term theses are on practical problems and local conditions. Much attention is paid to social surveys and the collection of social facts. Visits to the state institutions constitute a valuable part of the course to such institutions as the state prison, the schools for the deaf, dumb, feeble-minded, the epileptic colony, school for the blind, and the school for dependent children, the charity organizations, etc.

The result has been capacity classes. The subject-matter is human and approached from the human side. It helps to render the student human. It helps to correlate the school with the community. It sends the teacher out with some idea and knowledge of the social conditions that he will meet in the communities where he is to work; equipped with the facts of social organization and of the social forces; and with an understanding of social problems. During the year 1913-14, there have been 280 students in sociology alone, thirty-eight of these in one class of the advanced course. The advanced course has been given but once thus far, in the spring term.

DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND PRACTICAL ARTS

SECRETARY'S MINUTES

OFFICERS

President-ARTHUR L. WILLISTON, principal, Wentworth Institute...

Boston, Mass.

Vice-President-MAY GEARHART, supervisor of drawing, public schools.. .Los Angeles, Cal.
Secretary-IRENE E. MCDERMOTT, director of household arts, public schools.. Pittsburgh, Pa.

FIRST SESSION-MONDAY FORENOON, JULY 6, 1914

The meeting was called to order by President Arthur L. Williston in the Madison School, St. Paul, Minn., at 9:30 A.M. In the absence of the secretary, Wilson H. Henderson, director of industrial education, Hammond, Ind., was appointed secretary pro tempore.

The following program was presented:

"Report of the Committee on Vocational Education and Vocational Guidance"Robert J. Fuller, superintendent of schools, North Attleboro, Mass., chairman.

"The Economic Significance and Relationships of Vocational Education"-John A. Seeger, president, Seeger Refrigerator Company, St. Paul, Minn.

"Vocational Education-Its Social Relationships"-Helen L. Sumner, industrial expert, Children's Bureau, Washington, D.C.

Discussion: Edwin G. Cooley, Chicago, Ill.; P. A. Dietrichison, Stillwater, Minn.; Mrs. T. Vernette Morse, Chicago, Ill.; Arthur L. Williston, principal, Wentworth Institute, Boston, Mass.; R. W. Heimlich, River Falls, Wis.; Sophonisba Preston Breckinridge, assistant professor of social economy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; and David Snedden, commissioner of education for Massachusetts, Boston, Mass.

SECOND SESSION-TUESDAY FORENOON, JULY 7, 1914

The meeting was called to order by President Williston in the Lodge Room of the Masonic Temple, at 9:30 A.M.

The following program was presented:

"President's Address-Should Manual Training and Technical High Schools Abandon Their General and College Preparatory Aims and Become Efficient Secondary Schools of Applied Science ?"-Arthur L. Williston, principal, Wentworth Institute, Boston, Mass. "Vocational Education-Its Terminology"-Carroll G. Pearse, president, State Normal School, Milwaukee, Wis.

"The Place of Industrial Education in a Rational School System"-Arthur H. Chamberlain, secretary, California Council of Education, San Francisco, Cal.

In the absence of the author, a paper entitled "Lessons Learned from Ten Years' Experience in Industrial Education," by Charles A. Prosser, secretary, National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, New York, N.Y., was read by Robert J. Fuller, superintendent of schools, North Attleboro, Mass.

These papers were discussed by G. W. A. Luckey, dean, Graduate School of Education, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr.

THIRD SESSION-WEDNESDAY FORENOON, JULY 8, 1914

FINE AND APPLIED ARTS SESSION

The meeting was called to order by the president at 9:30 A.M.

The following papers were read:

"The Need in America for Schools of Applied Art and the Necessity in American Industries for Art Leaders and Designers of the Highest Grade”—Maurice I. Flagg, director, Minnesota State Art Commission, St. Paul, Minn.

"Art Appreciation for the Masses"-Robert Koehler, director, Minneapolis School of Art, Minneapolis, Minn.

"Art Courses in Elementary, Intermediate, and High Schools”—M. Emma Roberts, supervisor of drawing, Minneapolis, Minn.

"Art Education as a Part of General Culture"-Tyler McWhorter, professor of applied design, St. Paul Institute, St. Paul, Minn.

FOURTH SESSION-WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 8, 1914

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SESSION

The meeting was called to order by the president at 2:45 P.M.
The following program was presented:

"The Use of the Factory and Office Buildings for Vocational Education in New York City"-John H. Haaren, associate superintendent of schools, New York, N.Y. "Trade Agreements in Industrial Education of Apprentices in Chicago"-William M. Roberts, district superintendent of schools, Chicago, Ill.

"The Apprenticeship and Continuation Schools of Milwaukee, Wis."—R. L. Cooley, principal, Milwaukee, Wis.

"The Natural Growth of Industrial Education"-Frank M. Leavitt, associate professor of industrial education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

At the close of the program, a business session was held, at which, after a full discussion, it was voted to instruct the chairman to recommend to the business meeting of the Association the change of name of the department, of which notice had been given a year ago, from the present name, "Department of Manual Training and Art Education" to "Department of Vocational Education and Practical Arts.”

FIFTH SESSION-THURSDAY FORENOON, JULY 9, 1914

HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS SESSION

The program of this session was arranged in co-operation with the Amercan Home Economics Association.

The session was called to order in the large hall of the Masonic Temple at 9:30 A.M., by Grace M. Shepherd, state superintendent of public instruction, Boise, Idaho.

Louise McDanell, department of home economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., was appointed secretary pro tempore.

The following program was presented:

"The Renovation of the Home thru Home Economics"-Alice P. Norton, dietitian of Cook County Institutions, Chicago, Ill.

"Woman's Noblest Calling"-Mary F. Rausch, director of home economics, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

"Home Economics in the Islands"-Miss Ferguson, supervisor of home economics, Porto Rico.

Short discussions on the relation of home economics to the other work in the schools were given by the following; Susan M. Dorsey, assistant superintendent of schools, Los Angeles, Cal.; Minnie Coulter, principal of Lincoln School, Santa Rosa, Cal.; Louise McDanell, department of home economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.; and David Snedden, commissioner of education for Massachusetts, Boston, Mass: