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.