school, in the consolidated school, in the rural high school, and in the agricultural high school. He has also described three rural-school buildings planned and constructed with reference to providing facilities for industrial education. The school in each building is distinctively a rural school but is in a way connected with and under the control of a higher educational institution. One of these schools is connected with the agricultural department of Cornell University; one is connected with the State Normal School at Macomb, Illinois, and the other with the State Normal School at Kirksville, Missouri. Each presents a phase of organization different from the others, and shows the possibilities in the rural school under proper organization and with adequate support.

Dr. Bailey also discusses school gardening and manual training in the rural schools and presents a summary of the best obtainable information as to what is being attempted in the eastern, central, and southern states in the field under consideration.

That part of the report prepared by the chairman of the committee discusses the preparation of teachers for work in the field of industrial education. He considers the scope and character of preparation necessary for teachers of industrial subjects in the small rural school, in the consolidated school, in the rural high school, in the industrial high school, of which we have a number of types in this country, and in the agricultural college. The conditions under which this preparation can be secured at the present time and desirable modifications of these conditions are pointed out. This part of the report was elaborated somewhat, because of a suggestion made by the United States Commissioner of Education while its preparation was in progress, to the effect that at this time there is a wave of enthusiasm on this subject of industrial education sweeping over the country, creating a demand for teachers of industrial subjects which it is impossible to supply, and that unless the supply is rapidly increased, disastrous results will follow the inauguration of this phase of educational effort under poorly prepared teachers.

I should say in justice to individual members of the committee that since it was appointed, three of its members have been called to new lines of work; Mr. Hays, from the Minnesota Agricultural College, to the office of assistant secretary of agriculture, and Mr. Bayliss and Mr. Carrington, each from the state superintendency to the presidency of a state normal school. In each case, their new duties have made such demands upon them that they have found it impossible to give the amount of time to the work of the committee which they would have been glad to give and which the other members of the committee would have been glad to have them give.

I have no apologies to make for the failure to prepare such a report as we had hoped to prepare, but simply can say that we have done the best we could under the circumstances, and believe we have made some progress. We hope that the Council will deem it wise to appoint another committee who shall take up this matter, and carry it on, and shall have sufficient funds to do definite and valuable work, and shall present, from time to time, the results of their investigations to the Council for its consideration.

No funds were available for the publication of this report and it is submitted to the Council without being read, for such disposition as may be decided upon by the proper authority.

Respectfully submitted for the committee,

L. D. Harvey, Chairman.

I. DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM

Education should articulate with the activities of life. This statement needs no explanation and no defense. The only question is one of the means to be employed to realize it.

The rural school does not articulate with the activities of life. It does not teach the essentials. Yet the rural school affords the only school-training that the great majority of the rural people ever receive. Probably less than five per cent. of the pupils in rural schools ever go beyond those schools. In most cases, the years of schooling are few even then. The compulsory education laws usually do not apply to pupils above fourteen years of age who have other employment. Moreover, the school period is often short, ranging from three months to nine; most farm boys of working age do not attend school in summer. It is evident, therefore, that the rural school is not meeting the needs of the people, altho the people themselves may not know it. City schools have changed radically within a generation. Rural schools are changed only in incidentals here and there; they are in a state of arrested development.

The rural school must continue to afford the training for the greater part of the rural population. It is neither possible to supplant it, nor desirable to try to do so. In some regions, present school districts may sometimes be consolidated to advantage, but they will still be rural schools; in other large regions, consolidation is not to be recommended. While the rural schools should articulate with the schools above them or beyond them, they should be complete in themselves as far as they go, and should exist for themselves. They should train for life as well as for high school or college. Of the pupils who enter the public schools in the United States (statistics of 1902) only 11 per cent. reach the high school and 2 per cent. or less go to college. How to revive and advance the rural school is now the greatest problem in educational policy.

Interest in the rural school is now active and widespread. The investigations of the committee show that every state and territory and every Canadian province is alive to the question. Not one of them, however, has worked out anything like a complete plan or system, let alone putting it in actual practice. The whole subject is in the experimental and formative stage. The greatest wisdom is required to direct this new interest.

The discussions of the problems of the rural school a hot confined to the main agricultural regions nor are they most active there. They are equally keen and progressive in states that are dominated by other industrial interests. This indicates that the present interest is founded on real educational sentiment and needs, not merely on the demand of a particular occupation or profession.

So far as the official attitudes of states and state departments of education are concerned, the interest in the rural school problem expresses itself chiefly in six ways: (1) the adoption of syllabi in nature-study, agriculture, or domestic science one or all; (2) the making of mandatory laws compelling the teaching of these subjects in the common schools; (3) the adopting of a textbook; (4) the holding of institutes or summer schools in which these subjects shall be taught to teachers; (5) plans for increasing the efficiency of supervision of rural schools; (6) general propaganda work by means of lectures, leaflets, and correspondence. In one or another of these ways practically every state in the Union has taken official action.

The existing institutions in which teachers may be trained for the industrial work in rural schools are chiefly seven: (1) the regular normal schools, which are more or less effective for this work in the Middle West; (2) county trainingschools for teachers, of the type of those in Wisconsin; (3) normal departments in colleges of agriculture, of which one has been in operation in the College of Agriculture at Cornell University for two years, and another one of which is now provided for at the Massachusetts Agricultural College; (4) normal institutes; (5) summer schools; (6) training-classes in high schools; (7) correspondence courses. These institutions will supply the present demand; but it cannot be long before a more definite and concrete effort will be needed. Perhaps a new kind of normal institution will be forthcoming. It would seem, however, that strong normal departments in a few of our agricultural colleges would be able to set the problem before the people and to prepare the way for the organization of effective agencies to meet the necessities. In the meantime, normal institutes and correspondence work can be of great service. The former has been demonstrated in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the latter at Cornell.

How far the regular education departments of colleges and universities can effectively aid in this work is very problematical. Their point of view is usually such that they cannot readily adapt themselves, and they are removed from land and are not possessed of the requisite technical knowledge. Teachers College in New York City is now making an arrangement with the College of Agriculture at Cornell University whereby the pedagogical and agricultural sides may be brought together. Most pedagogical departments are aware that they are under the necessity of dealing actively with industrial education in rural communities.

In the teaching of these industrial subjects to children, the work must begin with the concrete. It must be practical and have direct relation to the lives of the pupils and the affairs of the community. It is a common practice to approach the subject from the point of view of its evolution, and to follow its gradual development thru the centuries or else to build up a scheme of classified knowledge concerning it. This may interest the teacher, but it is not naturally interesting to the pupil, and it does not lead him to an understanding of himself or his environment, nor fit him for the insistent duties of life. If

1

an example is wanted, it may be taken from the common practice of teaching to children the idea of the evolution of dwellings, beginning with the structures erected by savages and coming down to present times, whereas the child ought first to be taught how to build a comfortable, sanitary, artistic, and durable residence; or, from the practice of teaching the plant environment by trying to give the pupil a complete and classified view of the vegetable kingdom; or from the old custom of beginning geography by an account of the universe or the solar system. The natural and useful method is to have the child begin with the real things of his life; if he continues in school long enough he may learn the classified science and the evolution of the subject. The primary object of school-teaching is to develop the child, not to develop the subject.

In a rural community, all the customary activities should find some expression in the school as a means of putting the pupil into touch and sympathy with his environment: (1) the natural objects in the region and the character of the country; (2) the means by which the people in the community live; (3) the household or domestic affairs; (4) the civic affairs, or the way in which the human activities are organized and governed. All this is nature-study in its best and broadest sense. These subjects may be taught in separate periods or classes; but the fundamental means is a complete re-direction of the school activities so that vital experimental work will be a very essential part of the school life. This re-directing of school-teaching, in both country and city, is taking place at the present time, altho silently and unobtrusively.

Even with the present funds and the present equipment, very much may be done to put the rural schools into touch with local life and problems. This can come about by establishing a new point of view, a new intention on the part of the teacher, a new philosophy and method of education. This, however, is not all that the rural schools need. They must have more money for teachers, equipment, and maintenance. In some cases, funds can be combined to advantage by consolidating two or more districts, but this is not a fundamental or universal method. In the great majority of cases, rural school districts are now large enough if local interest and sentiment are to be developed or maintained. Given better supervision, then the states can well afford to appropriate more money to these schools, always on the condition, however, that the communities respond and co-operate. It is more necessary for the commonwealth to maintain effective rural schools than to maintain canals and highways, or to engage in reformatory and eleemosynary enterprises for the benefit of those communities.

A NEW KIND OF SCHOOL BUILDING

Not only must the school programs be re-directed, but the facilities themselves must be reorganized and extended. Land should be as much a part of rural schools as the building is. This land should be used for outdoor laboratories in the form of school garden and demonstration grounds. The building itself should be reconstructed or added to, in order that at least one workroom may be added. One type of building exists in practically all the rural school

districts in the northern states, showing that new or local ideas have not yet worked themselves out into these schools. Moreover, these houses are of the same kind as those erected when public education first came into existence. As a suggestion of some of the new ideas in rural school buildings, the following account is submitted of a new structure on the grounds of the First District Normal School, Kirksville, Mo. (President John R. Kirk). The details given below (which are a part of a printed circular) do not show the attic or second story arrangement. The stairway leading up from the manual-training shop turns just over the front entrance and leads into the upper story. In this upper story is a good room, eleven feet square, well warmed and ventilated, the distance from the floor to ceiling being seven feet. To the north of it are two other rooms, each seven by twenty one feet. The square room has an abundance of light from the south, but two long, low windows are now being inserted a little below the middle of the roof on each side so as to give both forenoon and afternoon light. This room is easily heated. It will be furnished with well water from the pressure tank. It is proposed to call this "the agriculture room" and to encourage the establishment of a department of agriculture.

A MODEL RURAL SCHOOL ON THE NORMAL SCHOOL CAMPUS

This model rural schoolhouse has been designed and constructed to show that a rural school in any part of Missouri can, for the investment of about $350 in addition to the usual cost of a good building, have all the conveniences and comforts that can be secured in any city schoolhouse.

It is the intention to have in this schoolhouse, within the near future, a model rural school, the children to be transported in covered vehicles to and from the school. This is to be a model school, not a practice school. It is to exemplify the best things which a school board and a good teacher with good facilities can do in and for a rural school.

This building is the culmination of a long-cherished hope. The designer while state