Whatever may be said of the indirect results of physical culture, respect for manual
labor, and handiness for the emergencies of daily life, the benefits of manual train-
ing in the New York public schools are not conceived to be social or economic or
utilitarian.
The possibilities, both theoretical and practical, point in a different direction, as
I have tried to show. Some of these possibilities have become certainties under
the very eyes of expert teachers, whose judgment was held in abeyance until they
16
had exchanged theories for facts. Such limitations as are extrinsic to the subject
largely depend for their removal upon the activity of the committee of the board
of education.
Such other limitations as appear to be intrinsic, but really lie in a misconception
of the end in view, or of the means to be applied, will be removed by the progres-
sive training of the teachers, for in this, and in this almost alone, lies every educa-
tional hope for the future.
The experiment was looked upon as successful a year ago. It is no longer an
experiment. In every case expectations have been more than realized, and there is
no doubt that manual training has come into New York City public schools to stay.
Principal F. S. Capen, of the Xew Paltz formal School, in his
remarks on this report said:
A wrong opinion prevails with reference to the subject, and this is the reason
why it meets with so much opposition. I heard a paper and discussion in the State
association at Brooklyn, and the subject met there with very much opposition. It
meets with opposition oftener, perhaps, than it meets with favor. AVhen I have
been asked whether I favor it or not, I have always so far said I do not know.
But I am prepared to say here, in the light of the paper just read, that if that is
manual training I am in favor of it. The opinion prevails largely with teachers,
and still more largely with those who 6end their children to our schools, that man-
ual training means the learning of a trade, that it means making mechanics, cooks,
seamstresses, etc. That, of course, we can not do in the schools, and it is a mistake
to undertake it. Just as much a mistake to undertake to do that as it is to make a
theologian, or a lawyer, or a teacher in a college. It can not be done and do thor-
ough work. If manual training is to be used to make men and women more compe-
tent to whatever they undertake to do in life, then we can use it.
In the annual report to the board of education for 1890 the number
of schools and departments pursuing the manual-training course of
study is stated to be 37, and the whole number of pupils registered in
this course is 19,904, with an average attendance of 19,482. The
schools consist of male grammar departments 7, female grammar
departments 8, mixed grammar departments 1, primary departments
13, and primary schools 8.
There were 185 classes in sewing, containing 5.720 pupils ; 26 classes
in cooking, containing 891 pupils; and 52 classes in workshop (wood
working), containing 1,690 pupils.
All the pupils received instruction in the English branches and in
drawing (free-hand and mechanical), and modeling in clay was carried
on from the lowest primary through five of the eight grammar grades.
The course pursued in this class of schools seemed to be meeting with
general approval, and the instruction was efficient.
The report states that —
Page 11
Presented as published in 1899. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
A modernized reading is not available for this page yet. You are seeing the original text.
Whatever may be said of the indirect results of physical culture, respect for manual
labor, and handiness for the emergencies of daily life, the benefits of manual train-
ing in the New York public schools are not conceived to be social or economic or
utilitarian.
The possibilities, both theoretical and practical, point in a different direction, as
I have tried to show. Some of these possibilities have become certainties under
the very eyes of expert teachers, whose judgment was held in abeyance until they
16
had exchanged theories for facts. Such limitations as are extrinsic to the subject
largely depend for their removal upon the activity of the committee of the board
of education.
Such other limitations as appear to be intrinsic, but really lie in a misconception
of the end in view, or of the means to be applied, will be removed by the progres-
sive training of the teachers, for in this, and in this almost alone, lies every educa-
tional hope for the future.
The experiment was looked upon as successful a year ago. It is no longer an
experiment. In every case expectations have been more than realized, and there is
no doubt that manual training has come into New York City public schools to stay.
Principal F. S. Capen, of the Xew Paltz formal School, in his
remarks on this report said:
A wrong opinion prevails with reference to the subject, and this is the reason
why it meets with so much opposition. I heard a paper and discussion in the State
association at Brooklyn, and the subject met there with very much opposition. It
meets with opposition oftener, perhaps, than it meets with favor. AVhen I have
been asked whether I favor it or not, I have always so far said I do not know.
But I am prepared to say here, in the light of the paper just read, that if that is
manual training I am in favor of it. The opinion prevails largely with teachers,
and still more largely with those who 6end their children to our schools, that man-
ual training means the learning of a trade, that it means making mechanics, cooks,
seamstresses, etc. That, of course, we can not do in the schools, and it is a mistake
to undertake it. Just as much a mistake to undertake to do that as it is to make a
theologian, or a lawyer, or a teacher in a college. It can not be done and do thor-
ough work. If manual training is to be used to make men and women more compe-
tent to whatever they undertake to do in life, then we can use it.
In the annual report to the board of education for 1890 the number
of schools and departments pursuing the manual-training course of
study is stated to be 37, and the whole number of pupils registered in
this course is 19,904, with an average attendance of 19,482. The
schools consist of male grammar departments 7, female grammar
departments 8, mixed grammar departments 1, primary departments
13, and primary schools 8.
There were 185 classes in sewing, containing 5.720 pupils ; 26 classes
in cooking, containing 891 pupils; and 52 classes in workshop (wood
working), containing 1,690 pupils.
All the pupils received instruction in the English branches and in
drawing (free-hand and mechanical), and modeling in clay was carried
on from the lowest primary through five of the eight grammar grades.
The course pursued in this class of schools seemed to be meeting with
general approval, and the instruction was efficient.
The report states that —