DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARY'S MINUTES OFFICERS President-W. R. HODGES, president, Associated Minnesota School Boards.. Sleepy Eye, Minn. Santa Fe, N.M. FIRST SESSION-WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 8, 1914 The meeting of this department was called to order in Arcanum Hall, Lowry Building, by the secretary at 2:35 P.M. In the absence of the president, who was detained at home because of illness, L. N. Hines, superintendent of schools, Crawfordsville, Ind., presided. The first in the order of business was the appointment of a nominating committee, to which the chair named: T. J. Jones, superintendent of schools, West Allis, Wis. Theodore Hanson, principal, Valley City, N.Dak. D. H. Painter, principal, Seward School, Minneapolis, Minn. The first paper on the program was read by Frank Henry Selden, director, department of mechanical science, State Normal School, Valley City, N.Dak., on "Problems in the Successful Teaching of Mechanical Science." This was discussed at some length by Wilson H. Henderson, director of industrial education, Hammond, Ind.; and Frank H. Ball, director of industrial education, Pittsburgh, Pa. The next paper was on "The Heating, Lighting, and Ventilating of School Buildings," by James M. Ingold, secretary, Board of Education, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which was discussed by S. A. Challman, state commissioner of school buildings, Minneapolis, Minn. J. M. Malmin, secretary, Board of Education, Blue Earth, Minn., read a paper entitled "A State Teachers' Employment Agency under the Supervision of the Department of Public Instruction." E. T. Critchett, assistant inspector, state high and graded schools, and director, State Teachers' Employment Bureau, St. Paul, Minn., then discussed "The Success of a State Teachers' Employment Agency Law after Two Years." The nomination committee reported as follows: For President-O. M. Plummer, director, Board of Education, North Portland, Ore. For Vice-President-Edward C. Elliott, professor of education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. For Secretary-Frank M. Bruce, publisher, American School Board Journal, Milwaukee, Wis. Motion made and seconded to adopt report. FRANK M. BRUCE, Secretary PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS PROBLEMS IN THE SUCCESSFUL TEACHING OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE FRANK HENRY SELDEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL Briefly stated, the difficulties of introducing mechanical science courses are the same as those attending the introduction of any improvement. It is the tendency of the established order to interpret the improvement in terms in harmony with itself and to make it in reality nothing but a changed form of something in the old order, and then, after having taken all the newness out of it, to discard it as being no improvement and of no value. In tracing the school-shop movement, we learn that this is exactly what has been done and that we are now in yet another stage that of attempting to find some new material after the original movement has been rendered abortive and set aside. To state the principle concretely, the school-shop movement has been robbed of its vitality, and now attempts are being made to gain the values that should have resulted from the original movement by the establishment of all sorts of trade, continuation, vocational, and similar schools. It is not my purpose to name any specific remedy for the present condition, but rather to point a sure method that will lead, not only to finding the remedy, but also to a certainty of its being applied. I believe you will not object to the ideas I advance, simply because they are new, or because, from a superficial consideration, they may appear to be the same as have been considered in times past. Nor will you give them less attention because they appear to be at variance with the doctrines of some of our most esteemed leaders of educational thought. I can do no more than suggest some plan of action that will lead to the determining of what is best; for the duty of bringing the best out of these conditions rests upon the administrative part of the educational machinery. However much we may wish to shift some of this responsibility to superintendent or teacher, yet in the final analysis the board is responsible. Many a superintendent would do more effective work if he knew that his board members were so thoroly informed of what was being done that they were definitely in sympathy with his work. Many teachers would work harder and get far better results did they know that the details of improvements were known and appreciated by those in authority. When, by such a searching inquiry as I suggest, the administrative factor is thoroly informed, there can be no doubt as to what action will be taken, for the great majority wish our schools to yield the largest possible returns in good to all. Last, but not least, the whole educational machinery would run smoother and accomplish far more if every unit felt that there was such a definite knowl edge of what was being done that there would be no mistakes in rewarding the efficient and in eliminating the inefficient. It has been my opinion for some time that the most urgent need in solving the present problems in education is a more extensive study of these problems on the part of school-board members. As I have listened to the many eloquent addresses at this meeting, this need has been greatly emphasized, and I have been compelled to add to the list of serious difficulties that of the great power of the highly trained intellect to enforce with great appearance of wisdom the most ill-advised theories in regard to the school-shop movement. This appears to result, not from any lack of desire to say and do that which is best, but rather from the difficulty of getting a proper grasp of a movement that is based upon subject-matter with which these people had no experience as they passed thru their school work. To gather the necessary information on which to base judgments is not easy. May I encourage you to take up this important task with a conviction that nothing but first-hand facts are to be used by those in administrative positions. May I also suggest that there is sometimes a vast difference in the conclusions that are drawn from casual observation and from the searching inquiry. We have in our administration of schools too many judgments formed upon casual observation and hearsay testimony. We see men in these positions deciding important questions on information of a kind that would be given no weight whatever in determining their business activities. Probably the most common error in judging of any part of school work is the neglect to consider the personal factor. We should consider not what the pupil is on leaving school, but rather to what extent and in what manner the school has worked a change. This is especially true in determining the school value of any mechanical or industrial work. We need to make a close inspection to determine how many pupils are helped by the school shop and how many simply survive it. To know that certain boys go out from the school shop into industry and succeed is of no consequence whatever in determining the value of the shop work; because there are in every community boys who will succeed in spite of bad schooling. That which must be determined is the actual effect of the work by tracing the various pupils thru the school and out into industry. As has been said, we must count the failures, we must determine the number who have been helped and also those who have fallen out by the way, and then we must determine if in any school or by any system of work these failures could have been avoided or to any extent lessened. It is "dead easy" for a teacher to point to a few successes and then lay the blame for the failures to the lack of ability on the part of those who fail. In any American community there are both boys and girls who can do most excellent work in wood and metal if provided with tools, materials, and a place in which to work. Therefore if the teacher can point only to some nice finished projects as the result of his work it is quite possible that the money spent for that teacher has been wasted. The pupils who have not achieved success, those whose work usually is not shown, are the ones whose records should be most thoroly scrutinized. It is the special duty of the administrative part of education to determine with certainty whether these failures are due to the pupil or to the mistakes of the administration in selecting an incompetent teacher or an incompetent superintendent who is not getting the best out of the teacher. From a somewhat extensive study of this particular question in regard to shop work, I can say that with pupils of similar talents attending various schools the proportion of failures to successes varies from nearly all failures in some schools to nearly all successes in other schools. This means that the administrative part of the educational machine is badly out of repair in some cities; it means that those in authority are being satisfied with results far below that which should be gained. And I may add that I have sometimes found those who are the most deserving of censure to be those who are most outspoken in their certainty that their shop work is of the best. But this is not all. The pupil of limited talent is the very one who needs help, and, however limited his talent, if he is above idiocy, the greater is the necessity of raising his level of industrial efficiency, for he is certain to join the ranks of industry, while the one of large constructive talent, tho making a record in the school shop and helping out on exhibition day, is almost certain to enter some other line. For the constructive faculty that may shine in industry is the same as that which makes the great business man and the great professional man. Now why this great difference? For neither the efficient nor the inefficient teaching is confined to any particular class or type of schools or to any particular geographical area. I think you will find, if you investigate with proper care and thoroness, that it largely depends upon whether we teach principles or processes. It matters little by what name the work is called or in what kind of school it is given. You will find many gradations from the all-process to the largely-science teaching in schools of all grades, and sometimes great variations in the same school system, even in the same building. I have seen excellent instruction in science in the common graded schools and the merest sham at teaching processes in keeping with the methods of bygone ages in nationally known trade and industrial schools. This could not be were the administrators doing their duty. The fundamental principles of working solid materials may be taught successfully and thoroly by the use of wood alone in the one-room country school, in the consolidated school, in the regular high school, and in the technical school. On the other hand, pupils may spend long hours in the making of things from toy doll houses to real dwellings, from the useless sloyd models to sets of furniture; they may work every material from |