DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

SECRETARY'S MINUTES.

FIRST SESSION.

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, July 10, 1890. The Department of Industrial Education and Manual Training met in the Central Park Church, at 3 P. M.

The meeting was called to order by the President, Andrew J. Rickoff, of New York, who made a few opening remarks.

In the absence of the Secretary, C. A. Bennett was appointed Secretary pro tem.

The entire session was devoted to the "Report of the Committee on Nomenclature and Classification of Manual Training Work," which was read by the chairman of the committee, C. M. Woodward, of St. Louis.

The discussion was entered into by Miss Alice Stockham, of Chicago, Miss Topelius, of Finland, and others.

Finally, it was decided to postpone further reading of the report until the next session, and the meeting adjourned.

C. A. BENNETT, Secretary pro tem.

SECOND DAY.-JULY 11.

The meeting was called to order by the President, Mr. Rickoff.

In the absence of the Secretary, W. L. Steele, of Galesburg, Illinois, was appointed Secretary pro tem.

The President appointed a Committee on Nomination of Officers, as follows: John Ogden, of North Dakota; C. A. Bennett, of St. Paul, Minnesota; and Davis, of Sioux Falls, Dakota.

C. M. Woodward, of St. Louis, read the remainder of the "Report on Nomenclature and Classification of Manual-Training Work."

A general discussion followed.

The Committee on Nomination of Officers, made the following report:

President-Lewis McLouth, Brookings, South Dakota.

Vice-President-William Sayre, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Secretary-George S. Mills, Toledo, Ohio.

This report was adopted.

The President offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved. That the President of this Department be requested to arrange for a "Report on the Course of Training and material to be used in the Primary and Grammar Grade of Schools," which report shall be submitted at the session of 1891. The Department then adjourned.

W. L. STEELE, Secretary pro tem.

REPORT UPON CLASSIFICATION, NOMENCLATURE, AND PRACTICAL DETAILS OF MANUAL TRAINING.

[PREPARED AND PRESENTED BY C. M. WOODWARD, ST. LOUIS.]

It should be said that the gentlemen whose responses form the major part of this report are persons directly in contact with manual training, and that they speak from experience.

Mr. Sayre is the principal of the highly successful manual-training high school in Philadelphia; Mr. Belfield is the director of the Chicago ManualTraining School; Mr. Anderson, a graduate of the Worcester Polytechnic, is the principal of the Cleveland Manual-Training School; Mr. Mills, a graduate of the St. Louis Manual-Training School, is principal of the manualtraining department of the Toledo school; Mr. Crawford has been for several years superintendent of the schools of Tidioute, Pa., where manual training has been incorporated for five or six years; Mr. Kleinschmidt, a graduate of the St. Louis Manual-Training School, was for two years in charge of the Denver Manual-Training School, and one year in charge of the mechanical department of the A. & M. College of Florida; Mr. Bennett, a graduate of the Worcester Polytechnic, is the principal of the St. Paul Manual-Training School.

I regret very much that the other members of the committee, Prof. Landreth of Nashville, Mr. Ford of Baltimore, Supt. Dutton of New Haven, and Principal O'Neil of New York, did not respond.

Of those not on the committee, Prof. Ordway, after years of supervision of the mechanical work of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has had in charge the Tulane High School, of New Orleans. Mr. Kilbon is principal of the manual department of the schools at Springfield, Mass. Mr. Steinert, a graduate of the St. Louis school, has had three years' experience of actual teaching; he is now at Elgin, Ill. Mr. Bumann, also a graduate of the St. Louis school, has been in charge of the manual department of the Omaha high school from its beginning. Mr. Booth, after several years of academic work in the St. Louis school, is now principal of the Cincinnati school.

The right of these men to speak with authority should not be called in question.

--In so far as this report contains views and opinions not ascribed to others by name, the chairman alone is responsible.

PRACTICAL DETAILS OF MANUAL TRAINING.

REPORT.

The numbered questions which follow were prepared during the winter, and sent not only to members of the committee, but to many others likely to be interested in them. Answers have been received from seven members of the committee, and from Messrs. John M. Ordway, of New Orleans; E. R. Booth, of Cincinnati; John B. Steinert, of Elgin, Ill.; Geo. B. Kilbon, of Springfield, Mass.; and A. M. Bumann, of Omaha.

The views of these gentlemen are incorporated in the report, very briefly when they agree with the chairman, and more fully and exactly when they differ, and when they take decided new ground. It is hoped that the opinions of all are duly expressed.

It seems fitting to say at the outset, that we have reached a stage in the history and development of manual training when its general educational value may safely be assumed. Its struggle for existence is over, and we can now with propriety devote our energies to the work of improving its details and of assigning it to its appropriate place.

As would be expected of any new feature in education, there is great diversity of opinion in matters of details. The exhibits of manual-training work now in this city (St. Paul) are a sufficient evidence of this; and yet this should excite no surprise. It is probable that equal differences exist in regard to methods and appliances for teaching geography and reading. Hence it seems highly desirable that in place of arguing longer for the educational, economic, moral, and physical value of manual training, we discuss details.

1. The first question related to the nomenclature peculiar to manual training. It is convenient to secure uniformity in the use of names and definitions. We are all agreed that the name "Forging Shop" should be used in place of "Blacksmith Shop."

All but Mr. Bennett are opposed to the use of the name "Carpentry" and "Carpenter Shop." The name "Woodworking Shop" meets with the greatest favor in cases where joinery, carving, and turning are all done in the same room. If but a single kind of woodwork is done in a room the shop should be named accordingly as the "Joinery Shop," the "Turning Shop," the "Carving Shop," the "Pattern Shop," etc.

Prof. Ordway thinks "Woodworking" means too much. "Woodworking," he says, "includes wood-turning, coopering, wheelwright's work, pattern-work, and carving; it is better not to use the term in a limited sense."

Mr. Kilbon objects to the term "Shop" as misleading and unsuited to a school. He would use "Tool-Room" instead. "Laboratory" has been used by some and objected to by others, as already appropriated by the natural science studies. It will be remembered that the late Courtlandt Palmer spoke of the building where tool instruction was given, and where tool practice was obtained, as the "Tool House."

The majority favor the continued use of "Machine Shop" as the name for the shop where metals are wrought cold, provided there be but one room. Mr. Kleinschmidt prefers "Machine-Tool Shop." Prof. Ordway says: "Machine Shop' is certainly objectionable for any proper school shop. I prefer to speak of the 'Iron-Turning Room,' the 'File Room,' &c."

Mr. Sayre has two rooms for cold-metal work, one with machinery, the other without. He says:

"I object to the terms Bench-Work or 'Vise-Work, Carpentry,' Blacksmithing,' as savoring too much of the commercial shop, and too suggestive of trades.' I particularly object to the term · Machine Shop,' as the words convey an idea directly opposed to that involved in manual training. I think the less machinery used in a manual-training school the better. The introduction of several complicated machines, such as planers, shapers, drill-pressers, screw-cutting lathes, is too suggestive of a manufacturing or commercial establishment, and is in danger of jeopardizing the very object for which manual-training schools exist, viz.: Teaching and learning the use of tools, the methods of working materials, and the construction and use of shop-drawings, where the mastery of tools, materials, and methods is the end in

view.'

Beyond the steam-engine for the purpose of furnishing motor power for the grindstones and lathes (and also to give the pupils the opportunity of studying steam-engineering), I would not go any further than to provide one of each of the machines above mentioned simply to familiarize the pupils with their uses, and to facilitate certain processes which have already been taught to be done by hand."

Mr. Sayre stands quite alone in thus limiting the amount of machine practice; though that subject was generally not touched upon. Mr. Booth and Mr. Bennett approve of the term "Machine Shop" because "it is used in commercial establishments," thus standing at the other extreme.

As to some of the terms used in joinery there is great variety. Three words are used to express the fact that the details of a completed joint are invisible, viz.: blind, secret, hidden. The greater number prefer “blind." The term is a little forced, though it may be said that at no point does the joint look out an observer. The words "secret" and "hidden" are objected to as appearing to have a sinister meaning. As to the use of the word "dowel," Mr. Mills and Mr. Kleinschmidt declare that it may properly be applied only to joints in which "a pin or pins form the essential feature of the joint."

We desire to protest strongly against the use of the word "mechanical” as descriptive of a kind of drawing. Yesterday Mr. Aborn, of Cleveland, made, freehand, what he called a mechanical drawing. It was merely a freehand projection-drawing. It is probable that "mechanical" usually signifies "with instruments." To prevent all obscurity, it is suggested that "instrumental" be used to describe all drawing in which instruments are used. It is difficult to see why an orthographic projection should be called mechanical any more than a linear perspective, if both are made freehand. They are equally projections on planes.

2. Should we recognize as manual training properly so-called experimental work in physics, chemistry, or dynamics? Should we not insist that manual