To the Editor:
In your issue of March 22 there is a reference and quotation from the statement of “Principles and Policies that Should Underlie State Legislation for a State System of Vocational Education,” adopted at the December meeting of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education in Philadelphia, that tends to give a wrong impression of the attitude of the society regarding the matter of dual control referred to in Professor Dewey’s very clear and forcible article in the same issue.[[4]]
It may be stated without reservation that the executive committee of the society are unanimously of the belief that the best way to administer the new provisions for industrial education rapidly being enacted into laws in various states is by a state board of education which has all forms of education under its control.
The committee that developed the statement, however, recognized that in some states where no board of education exists and state control is represented by a superintendent of instruction, it is possible that the initial development of this new work may be best secured for a short period by a separate board of control. This point of view is embodied in a paragraph relating to state control in the statement of “principles and policies,” as follows:
“Effective administrative control, on the part of the state, of both vocational and general education, requires the existence of a State Board possessing sufficient powers, effectively to supervise all forms of education receiving financial aid from the state. Should such a board not exist, in any state, or should it be found that an existing board is unprepared to deal effectively with the establishment and promotion of vocational education, then it is expedient that a special administrative Board of Control for Vocational Education shall be established until such time as a state board properly qualified to deal with all forms of state-aided education shall exist.”
The feeling of the representative committee which formulated the statement of “principles and policies” and which gave it careful consideration and discussion at the meeting at Philadelphia, was that such a separation of control while not desirable as a permanent arrangement, might under some circumstances be of value in effectively launching the new movement, might better secure a fair trial of new methods, and better arouse public opinion to its consideration.
The paragraphs quoted in The Survey do not relate to the matter of state control, which is the point under discussion in Professor Dewey’s paper, but to the question of separateness of instruction being accorded vocational schools and classes. By separate organization in this connection is meant a separate school organization. Separation to this extent, it is safe to say, a great majority of teachers and other educators who have been intimately connected with real work in industrial education (not merely with manual training as an element in the general course of study), thoroughly believe in as essential to effective results in this field. Such separateness of organization as is specified in the quoted paragraphs, is typified by the organization of the Manhattan Trade Schools for Girls, by the New York Vocational School for Boys, and by the various other vocational schools at Rochester, Albany and Buffalo in this state, all of which are administered by regular local school boards.
C. R. Richards.
[Director Cooper Union.]
New York.