DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 062 065

ED 349 475

AUTHORTITLE
PUB DATENOTE

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERS

Fleming, Louise E.; Saslaw, Rita S.
Rockefeller and General Education Board Influences on
Vocationalism in Education, 1880-1925.
Oct 92
42p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theMidwesterr Educational Research Association (Chicago,
IL, October 1992).
Speeches/Conference
Historical Materials (060)
Papers (150)
MFO1 /PCO2 Plus Postage.

Career Choice; Donors; *Educational Finance;*Educational History; Influences; *Philanthropic
Foundations; Postsecondary Education; *Private
Financial Support; Secondary Education; *Vocational
Education; Youth Programs*General Education Board; *Rockefeller (John D)

ABSTRACT

Through philanthropic donations, Joh. D. Rockefeller
and the General Education Board (GEB) encouraged vocationalism in
education during the years 1880-1925, the Progressive Era. Evidently,
Rockefeller believed that the best education for poor youth was
vocational, presumably so they would be able to maintain occupationsin their adult lives. This precedent set by Rockefeller was continued
by the GEB after its founding in 1903. The GEB was known for its
expenditures that rescued schools from desperate circumstances. Yet
the programs they recommended time and again advocated vocational
offerings for students who would not attend college. The problem withthis approach was not with opening doors to poor children, as thephilanthropists viewed their donations, but with closing doors to any
other area a student might choose to pursue. They believed astudent's destiny was known and there the future lay. Actual programchanges under GEB auspices showed that vocational education was both
the goal and a result of their involvement. For example, to stimulate
agriculture in the South, GEB insisted that young people's education
should consist primarily of agriculture and domestic science. GEB
members were greatly concerned with the good of society, which would
benefit from trained farmers and workers to serve it. (The three
sections of this paper contain a total of 64 reference notes.)(YLB)***********************************************************************
AeproouctIons suppilea by zuh6 are tne best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************

ROCKEFELLER AND GENERAL EDUCATIONBOARD INFLUENCES ON VOCATIONALISM
IN EDUCATION, 1880-1925

Presented at Midwestern Educational Research Association
October, 1992

Louise E. Fleming
Ashland University
Rita S. Saslaw

The University of Akron

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and improvement"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

EDUCX1:10NAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)i

174t/us document has been reproduced asreceived Iron, the peson or orgen.zat,onor.o.nat.ng a
C Mawr changes have been made 10 improve
reDroduCt,on quality
Pomis 01 vie* or opmfonS stated .n in.s docu.

mem do not necesseray represent of ficrai
OERI posilion or polfCy

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."BEST COPY AVAILPLE
21

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the roles of John D. Rockefeller
and his established Board. the General Education Board (GEB), in encouraging
vocationalism in education during the years, 1880 to 1925. Vocationalism, in thisstudy, refers to what generally was regarded as the basic purpose for education.

It does not refer to offering supplemental manual courses, but it refers to thesubstitution of education for itsown sake for education for future role in the job
market.

This major change in definition occurred during the Progressive Era

when many of society's institutions were being questioned and redefined.'

This change in what schools were expected to do was brought about bymany factors. The changing student populace was a major factor, as more andmore children filled and over-filled classrooms and as more and more of thechildren came from poor families. many of them immigrants. Therefore, somechanges occurred as a result af the humanitarian impulse, as people andorganizations sought to make education understandable and meaningful. However,

not all of the people advocating changes had the interests of the children in

their hearts.

It will be seen that some business people systematically anddeliberately acted to stimulate vocationalism in schools. particularly for children

who were rural or poor. This study focuses on the role of Rockefeller and theGeneral Education Board in influencing the reworking of course offerings foryouths who appeared to be destined for manufacturing or agriculture.

Part One

Personal Influences: Contributions ofJohn D. Rockefeller to Vocationalism in Education

The John D. Rockefeller family gained a reputation for educational

contributions, beginning with the elder Rockefeller. John D. In 1903 heestablished the General Education Board to handle his educational
philanthropy. At the same time, he maintained control over the GEB and

its use of his money. Rockefeller established a precedent for giving in

the years before its foundation. One precedent he set was to endow
programs that encouraged vocational training, especially for poor youth.
This precedent was then continued by the General Education Board.

As the story unfolds it is evident that Rockefeller believed that thebest education for poor youth was vocational, presumably so that theywould be able to maintain occupational positions in their adult lives.
The difficulty with philanthropy directed toward vocational programs isthat although, in the eyes of the benefactors, the young people werebeing given a chance. that chance was severely limited to whatevertraining program the students took.
This period. 1880 to 1925, represents the Progressive Era, an eraof great changes in the social and political arenas. One extraordinarychange took place in the redefinition of school from an institution for

those who did not have to work to an institution for all children.

Aslaws began enforcing this expectation, the backgrounds of the students
who attended schools began changing. More and more students from

immigrant families flocked to school. seeking a better life than their24parents had had. More and more of these students were oppressively
poor.

The first part of this study will examine examples of donations tovocational schools and programs by John D. Rockefeller in the earlyyears, continuing into the years of the GEB. Before the mass move ofchildren into schools, many children did not attend school at all, forced

to seek a living at an early age. It was to these types of young people
that many of Rockefeller's donations were aimed. One of the better ofthese endeavors was the New York School of Applied Design. Thiselementary school trained girls as architects. interior decorators,
jewelers, illustrators. and wallpaper and cloth designers. This school
was noted for being a pioneer in vocational training for women.

Rockefeller was not the only industrialist backing this school; also
enclosed in a correspondence was a clipping th

noted a similar gift ofmoney from J.P. Morgan.'

Another educational concern to which Rockefeller contributed wasthe Public Education Association (PEA). PEA programs were not solely

vocational; yet they, like many other programs of their time period,

distinguished between poor and rich children and the education theyshould receive. Rockefeller gave sums annually to this group from 1913
to 1930.

Sums ranged from $500 to S5000. These donations appear tohave begun with a request in 1913 to underwrite the publishing of theHanus Report, a report on New York City public schools. one of whose
recommendations included expanding vocational training. Later lettersoffer clues to some of PEA's concerns. In 1924 Howard W. Nudd,

director of PEA from 1914 to 1940, wrote that for five years they had
been "grading" children according to intelligence and physical ability
3and adapting courses of study to them. In 1927 he boasted further of aprogram at Public School 61 in Manhattan which adapted schooling to

the abilities of the children they served. In this school children weregrouped according to "mental measurements."3

Previous to the Hanus Report, the PEA, like many of its

progressive counterparts. began to view education as a panacea for mostof society's ills. Early in the twentieth century they advocated mans,
educational reforms, such as vocational education and vocational
guidance. This they based on a belief in the intrinsic abilities andinabilities of the individual, expecially those of the immigrant.

Theypursued vocational education even into the lowest grades. 4
The PEA president from 1909-4925, Charles P. Howland, hadconnections with the Rockefeller famely and served as a trustee of theCentral Education Board (GEB). Also Abraham Flexner of the GEB was a.

leader in PEA, as were Leonard P. Ayres of the Russell Sage Foundation,

Clyde Furst of the Carnegie Foundation, and George D. Strayer andNicholas Murray Butler of Teachers College."

Another connection that involved Rockefeller with vocational

education was Pratt's Institute in Brooklyn, New York. Rockefeller
himself established it as a technical institute for poor children. A letterfrom T.D. Kellogg states, "I learn of your establishment of Pratt's

Institute, and the intelligent ideas you are seeking to work out inproviding practical educational training for the poor."6 Rockefeller also
donated small amoants to the Wilson Industrial School and the
Educational and Industrial Union. A donation to the latter was offered

upon condition that they raise an agreed-upon sum from other sources.
46This school was run by Emily Huntington. It began in 1874. Huntington
was responsible also for founding "Kitchen Garden" classes, later tobecome the Kitchen Garden Association which featured domestic

industrial education for poor and working girls.' Rockefeller also
served as a stockholder of Cleveland Manual Training School for several
years. On January 4, 1892 E.P. Williams wrote to Rockefeller asking forhis signature deeding the school to the city of Cleveland. Rockefeller
signed the document but dated it December 28. 1891. However,

Cleveland refused to accept the school.

8

Apparently, Rockefeller also served as a trustee of the First Ward
Industrial School in Nev. York. This school operated both a day andnight program and served those who were "too poor or too disregarded
to attend public schools." The first correspondence. in 1885, notes that

he had been elected unanimously as a trustee and requests permission

to use his name on their literature. Athough no answer is filed, one
can infer his acceptance because another correspondence of 1894

announces his election as director of the school. Again no answer
evidences his acceptance.'
Another school to which Rockefeller donated was the Manhattan
Trade School for Girls. This school trained poor girls who were forced

to work at ages 14 or 15. These girls, boasted V. Everett Macy, lacked
earning capacity when they came. Then the school obtained positions

for them in factories and trained them in trades. They learned such
subjects as trade math, trade English, and knowledge of materials,
design. and color. Additionally, they learned physical training andhygiene, art. millinery, pasting, dress making, and machine operating.
5Rockefeller promised $25,000 on condition that they raise $200,000. This

promise lapsed, presumably because they failed to raise the designatedsum.

He pledged again in 1908 and 1910. The 1908 pledge was fulfilled.

This school was also funded in its early years by two officials of the
Public Education Association.1 0

Rockefeller also contributed annually to the Industrial Education
Association. Its founder, Grace Hoadley Dodge, daughter of a wealthy

industrialist, began a long, charitable career in 1874 by teaching Sunday
School classes (which she organized into a sewing and health club),sewing classes, and classes with the Industrial School of the Children's
Aid Society (CAS). The latter was provided for children who were toopoor to attend public schools. They were immigrant children. and CAS
supplied food and clothing for them. These classes emphasized sewing,cooking, and handwork."

In 1876 Dodge was invited to participate in teaching "Kitchen

Garden" classes, a take-off on the concept of "kindergarten."

These

classes were offered to young girls, and in them, they were taught workthrough play. They learned about such topics as cleanliness, mending,cooking, baking, scrubbing, and ettiquette. The ladies organized theseclasses into the Kitchen Garden Association in 1880. Their purpose wasto promote domestic industrial arts among the laboring classes and topromote uniform teaching methods. These classes spread throughout theworld. 12

In 1881 Dodge began meeting with girls who worked at a silk
factory. These meetings were organized into a society in 1884.

Otherswere founded later: This society offered classes for working girls in
68

practical skills such as dress making and machine operation. Dodge also
facilitated "talks" on topics of interest, including wages and health.13
In 1884

ige and others dissolved the Kitchen Garden Associationand founded the Industrial Education Association (IEA). Its broader

principles included, "To study, devise, and introduce methods andsystems of domestic and industrial training into schools" and "To form

special classes for technical training." The members were anxious todevelop "hand power" as well as "brain power." The organization
offered classes in sewing, cooking, and manual training while Dodge

actively promoted the cause. They were very successful, and people
began clamoring for industrial education. Dodge was appointed as acommissioner of education for New York City in 1886.14

With a donation IEA hired Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia

College as their president. The IEA's work grew in the area of

preparing teachers for industrial education. They developed into the
New York College for the Training of Teachers which was given apermanent charter as Teachers College in 1892.

Dodge served astreasurer. She actively pursued funds, making friends with many
young philanthropists, such as V. Everitt Macy and some of whom
attended school with John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

15

Apparently, Dodge was also an acquaintance of the Rockefellers;

she wrote to both Mr. and Mrs. Rockefeller and met with them personallyat times. Dodge was a fervent advocate of her organizations, as is clear

in her correspondence. She effusively thanked them for their gifts,

using such phrases as it was "a pleasure to know that your sympathies
were with us. . ."; you are "kind and interested in our efforts"; the7exhibition has been a .:;uccess in making our association known. Some ofthe objects she listed were eliminating overcrowded classes, beginningvacation schools, and expanding the organization into other cities.

Herstatement of purpose for the IEA was to promote manual and industrial

training, to disseminate information, to secure its introduction into

schools, and to train teachers and organize classes in "special
branches," for example domestic training in schools and orphan
asylums. It

Some of her plans she listed for 1888 included teacher training
and improved salaries for teachers in cooking, sewing, industrial
drawing and modeling, mechanical drawing, and wood working. "Thedemand is great," she states. She continued to ask and receive yearly
donations from Rockefeller. In 1889 she reported that she had only

received 565,000 in pledges. J. Pierrepont Morgan and H. McK Twombly47

had each pledged S10,000, she stated."

These are a few examples of donations that John D. Rockefeller

made. indicating a continuing interest in providing vocational and evenindustrial training for children who were to go on to manual and factory
jobs following or during their schooling. That there was rampant
poverty among families of working children is known. That many ofthese children were from immigrant families and lacked the basic skills

to make a living is also known. Therefore it is understandable thatmany philanthropists sought to help such young people acquire
vocational skills. What remains remarkable is that they were not taught

a liberal education or expected to go beyond manual occupations.

Obviously. the accepted belief was that the poor and immigrant children
810were inferior and that a technical training was sufficient. These
examples provideinsight into some of the philanthropic activities that

occurred in education. They richly illustrate that John D. Rockefeller
and other philanthropists influenced the expansion of vocational

education in the Progressive Era.
This precedent set by Rockefeller was continued by the General
Education Board after its foundation in 1903. The second part of thisstudy will examine some examples of GEB philanthropy directed at
spreading vocational education. The GEB is known for its expendituresthat rescued schools from desperate circumstances. Yet the programs
that they recommended time and again advocated vocational offerings forstudents who would not attend college. Again, the problem is not with

opening doors to poor children, as the philanthropists viewed their

donations, but with closing doors to any other area a student mightchoose to pursue; it is with the belief that a student's lot was known

and that there the future lay. The GEB continued their influences
beyond their first 20 years. but much of the foundation for vocational
education, for training to specific ends, was laid within this very shortperiod of time.

9

NOTESLouise E. Fleming, "Liberal Arts to Vocationalism: Changes in the
Function of Secondary Education 1880-1920, and Certain Issues Surrounding
Those Changes" (Ph.D. diss., The University of Akron, 1990), 3-5.
1.

2.

Starr J. Murphy, to Mrs. Hopkins, 5 February 1906; ? to John D.

Rockefeller, 2 March 1916; Elihu Root, to J.D.R., clipping enclosed: "Morgan Gift
to Art School," 8 March 1916; W.S. Richardson for J.D.R., to Frank Tilford, 6 May
1916. Rockefeller Family Archives. RG 2. Educational Interests series. Box 32.
Folder 175. Rockefeller Archive Center.
? to John D. Rockefeller, 3 July 1913; J.D.R., to W.K. Brice, 13 May 1914:
J.n.R., to W.K. Brice, 31 May 1916; J.D.R., to W.K. Brice, 8 March 1917; Howard W.
Nudd, to J.D.R., 9 November 1917; Howard W. Nudd, to J.D.R., 4 December 1917;
3.

J.D.R., to Abraham Flexner, 23 April 1919; N.W. Davis, to J.D.R., 21 May 1919;

J.D.R., to W.K. Brice, 28 June 1920; J.D.R., to Nudd, 30 March 1921; J.D.R.. to Nudd,

16 February 19t.2; J.D.R., to Nudd, 14 March 1923; Howard W. Nudd, to W.S.
Richardson, 15 March 1924; W.S. Richardson, to Nudd, 31 March 1924; W.S.
Richardson, to Nudd, 26 March 1925; W.S. Richardson, to Nudd, 29 April 1926:

Howard W. Nudd, to W.S. Richardson, 19 April 1927; Richardson. to Nudd 12 May
1927; Richardson, to Nudd, 19 May 1928; Richardson, to Nudd, 1 May 1929; John

D. Rockefeller, Jr., to Nudd, 15 May 1930. Rockefeller Family Archives. RG 2.
Educational Interests series. Box 3. Folder 93. Rockefeller Archive Center. Sol
Cohen, Progessives and Urban School Reform: The Public Education Associationof New York City, 1895-1954 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College.
1964), 83, 126.
4.

Cohen, 8, 67, 72-74.

5.

Cohen, 81-84.

T.D. Kellogg, to John D. Rockefeller. 8 March 1887. Rockefeller Family
Archives. Box 23. Folder 176. Rockefeller Archive Center.
6.

M.A. Stone, to John D. Rockefeller, 26 April 1887: M.A. Stone. to J.D.R.,
16 December 1890. Rockefeller Family Archives. Box 45. Folder 33G. Elizabeth C.
Scofield. to John D. Rockefeller, 21 August 1889; Elizabeth C. Scofield, to J.D.R..
27 August 1889. Rockefeller Family Archives. Box 37. Folder 293. Rockefeller
Archive Center. Abbie Graham, Grace H. Dodge: Merchant of Dreams (New York:
The Womans Press, 1926), 61-62, 64.

7.

8.

E.P. Williams, to John D. Rockefeller, 4 January 1892; ? to John D.

Rockefeller, 20 May 1892; E.P. Williams, to J.D.R., 27 September 1892. Rockefeller
Family Archives. Box 49. Folder 366. Rockefeller Archive Center.

10

Iti

George De Ferrel Leed, to John D. Rockefeller, 3 February 1885. Rockefeller
Family Archives. Box 23; Henry M. Alexander, to J.D.R., 5 June 1894. Rockefeller
Family Archives. Box 1 New York City. Rockefeller Archive Center.
9.

Starr J. Murphy, to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 13 March 1906; John D.
10.
Rockefeller, to ?, 4 April 1906; John D. Rockefeller, to ?, 8 April 1908; John D.
Rockefeller, to ?, 1 February 1910. Rockefeller Family Archives. RG 2. Educational
Interests series. Box 31. Folder 175MI. Rockefeller Archive Center. Cohen, 72.
Biozraphical Dictionary of American Educators. 1978 ed. v. 1. "Dodge,
Grace Hoadley." Graham, 48-50, 63).
11.

12.

Graham, 62-65.

13.

Graham, 69-70, 83-90.

14.

Graham, 121-124, 127-134, 159, 163-164.

15.

Graham, 164, 166, 169. 178. The alternate spelling of Macy's first nameis due to different spellings in different sources.

Grace H. Dodge, to John D. Rockefeller, 10 April 1886; Grace H. Dodge,
to J.D.R., 18 January 1887; Grace H. Dodge, to J.D.R., 26 March 1887; John D.
Rockefeller, to Grace H. Dodge, 26 March 1887. Rockefeller Family Archives. Box
12. Folder 87. Other letters were also written to the Rockefellers soliciting funds
for the IEA, presumably by a secretary or a treasurer. The following letters16.

pertain to that category. ? to John D. Rockefeller, 13 May 1885; ? to Mrs.
Rockefeller, 3 July 1886; John S. Bussing, to John D. Rockefeller, 15 March 1887.
Rockefeller Family Archives. Box 6. Folder 47; Milbarb B. Cary, to John D.

Rockefeller, 21 February 1889. Rockefeller Family Archives. Box 6. Folder 51; J.
Cattell, to John D. Rockefeller, 3 July 1886; J. Cattell, to JDR, 1 December 1886.
Box 7. Rockefeller Archives. Rockefeller Archive Center.

Grace H. Dodge, to John D. Rockefeller, 23 January 1888; Dodge, to
17.
J.D.R., 6 February 1888; Dodge, to J.D.R., 8 February 1888; Dodge, to J.D.R., 4
January 1889; Dodge, to J.D.R., 4 December 1889; Dodge, to J.D.R., 20 November
1890; Dodge, to J.D.R., 27 November 1890; Dodge, to J.D.R., 17 December 1891.
Rockefeller Family Archives. Box 12. Folder 87. Rockefeller Archive Center.

11

13

Part mwo

Board Influences: Contributions of the General Education Board
Toward Vocationalism in Public Schools, 1905-1925

John D. Rockefeller, a nineteenth and twentieth century

philanthropist, founded the General Education Board in 1903 inorder to direct his educational contributions.

This study

addresses their programs that led to the growth of vocationalism
in public education during the early period of their development.
It will be seen that their spirit of philanthropy greatly
enhanced the development of vocational programs, especially foryoung people who, in their opinion, would seek manual employment,
especially agricultural.

Three problems are central to this partof the study and will be examined.

The first is John D.

Rockefeller's control over the GEB.

The second is the GEB's

control over their programs (although they often insisted thatthey had none.)

Finally, the third is to document actual programchanges under GEE auspices that show vocational education as botha goal and a result of their involvement.

First, it is significant to note that the activities of the
GEB had to reflect that of its benefactor, John D. Rockefeller:
In making my recent gift to the General Education Board
I provided that two- thirds of the gift should beapplied to such specific objects within the corporate
purposes of the Board as either I or my son might fromtime to time direct..

.

.

While the Board members also developed their own philosophy
regarding Board endowments, Rockefeller and his son, John D.

14Rockefeller, Jr. oversaw its activities.

Sometimes Rockefeller,

Jr. participated on a committee; other times he stamped his
approval at the end of a report or memo.

On still otherA

occasions he wrote a follow-up memo expressing his approval.

more subtle way that they maintained control was by hiring
personnel whose agendas matched theirs.

An example of the relationship between board and benefactor
can be seen in the 1914 report of an "in-house" committee.

Thecommittee was formed to recommend the most "fruitful" areas

foreducational investigation.

Serving on the committee were Jerome

Greene, Wallace Buttrick, and Abraham Flexner, friends of theRockefellers and members of the board of the GEB.

Their report,

confidential to Board members, described the two directions of
GEB programs:

extensive, to extend educational facilities where

they had not been before, and intensive, to make existing
programs more responsive to needs.

The former included two

Southern programs, Professors of Secondary Education and Rural
School Supervisors.

The latter included experiments toperpetuate what the Board termed the "ideal rural school."This

report corroborates their interest in promoting vocational
education, and it further indicates special interest in effecting

programs in areas, such as rural schools, where they could makean impact.-

The committee report suggested that surveys be done in all
the states.

The states would pay for these surveys, while theBoard would provide the support staff.
13

15

They envisioned emulation

14

between the states that would result in educational"improvements."

They also wanted the GEE to help the states

select counties in which to develop model educational systems,
including agricultural clubs and county training schools.

They

expected that these models would influence other counties andreshape other schools; thus "the ideal rural school, pictured by
the chairman and authorized by the Board, could be realized more
effectively.

.

"

Their part, according to the report, would

be to support county industrial teachers and to contributeindustrial eauipment.

They also recommended five "important

phases of educational experience" to investigate and publish,
including city school surveys, training of teachers, andindustrial education.

Furthermore, they added four areas thatthey termed "urgent." These included organizing county and statesurveys which would recommend educational changes.

John D.

Rockefeller, Jr. stated in a follow-up memo that he appreciatedand valued the report.?

Another example of Rockefeller control and GEB interest in
vocational education is a 1915 committee whose recommendations
regarding "educational research" included a study of the Gary
Schools.

Rockefeller served as the chair of this group.

Abraham Flexner, second secretary of the GEB, addressed theirfindings:"Following this,I hope very much that we can enter

upon the larger problem of industrial and vocational training in
the public schools."

In fact another committee was formed laterthat year, in order to study industrial education.

16

This

15

committee reported that states had been working to foster
industrial education, both within and outside of public schools,
and that a national commission had been formed to propose thatthe federal government fund vocational and industrial schools.

The Board selected Leonard Ayres, the efficiency-minded educator
who had written Laggards in Our Schools in 1909, to conduct theindustrial survey.
Although Wallace Buttrick, appointed by Rockefeller as thefirst secretary of the GEB stated that the GEB's "one policy is

to have no policy,' it would appear that the Board operated
under many predetermined policies.

For example, under theirauspices, many educational programs turned from largely academic

to largely vocational, with an emphasis upon agriculture anddomestic training in rural areas.

The problem was not so muchthe addition of vocational courses but the replacement oftraditional curricula, that they expended significant amounts ofmoney and energy in order to offer vocational subjects but none
to increase or improve academic offerings.

The GEB, as a group,

tended to view education as preparation for future employment,

which, in turn, hinged on the family's employment and economic
status.

For example they believed, and did not question, thatrural children needed agriculture and domestic science to preparethem to be farmers and wives of farmers.

In the curriculum, they

manifested this belief by simply not encouraging academics forthese children while they applauded efforts to vocationalize
their programs.

17
BEST COPY AVAILABLE

16

Also, although in correspondence GEE personnel never forced
their agents to follow their dictates, remarkably

agentsalways seemed to agree with their employer.

One way the GEB

influenced their agents was by conferences.

For example, aseries of letters between Henry Pritchett of the Carnegie

Foundation and members of the General Education Board
demonstrates that they met with their agents privately before theconferences began.

They requested:

A rather private conference with these men [the high school
inspectors] so that we may get at real things and not waste
time and opportunity at a more public meeting where thefriends would talk to the galleries.'
GEB officers also distributed tentative recommendations
which the supervisors usually accepted.

Evidence indicates that

this move was intended to exert more control over conference
results.

For example, following a conference in 1924, two of the

GEB's field agents reported to the president of the GEB that the
proposals had paralleled exactly the recommendations of the
GEB.'

The GEB sponsored conferences for Rural School Supervisors
who acted as agents for the GEB in Southern elementary schools.
A 1914 conference statement included a proposal that ruralschools be the center of community life.

This same reportsuggested that each principal be trained in agriculture and thateach school have at least one teacher trained in domestic scienceor household economy.

Following the report, Abraham Flexnerconfirmed the GEB's interest in the "entire rural school
problem."5

18

17

Another conference of Rural School Supervisors in 1917

proposed simplifying the elementary curriculum and, in bothsubject areas and textbooks, omitting "minor facts" and"secondary matters."

Additionally, they recommended that school

facilities include classrooms, a library, laboratories,classrooms for domestic science and farm mechanics, a school
garden, and a demonstration plot.

Their suggestions included

courses such as "home building," "farm life," and "rural
economy. no'Background letters for this partiCular conference also

provide insight regarding GEB control over their programs andhired agents.

The Rural School Superisors had planned to attend

another conference which they had attended annually.

Uponlearning of their decision to attend this conference, the GEB

gave them permission to attend but informed them that the GEB
would not provide the funds to do so.

One rural school agent

summarized his correspondence with the GEB regarding thisconference, that the GEB officers "were not inclined to favor"
the planned meeting.

As a result, the rural school agents did

not attend the conference, but the Board scheduled another one
for later in the year.

One issue discussed at a 1919 conference which GEB officials
was, "What Forms of Industrial Work Can Be Profitably Introduced
into Country Schools?"

Thc account included such projects thatwere already in progress as farm mechanics, cooking and sewing,

woodworking, "practical" agriculture, and industrial work.

8

Attendance at conferences was only one way the GEE
popularized their ideas.

Other examples that illustrate GEEinterest in promoting vocational education abound.

For example,

Board members expressed their personal beliefs about education inarticles and "Occasional Papers."

Occasional Papers weredeveloped to provide GEB members a platform from which todisseminate ideas.

They were distributed in large numbers and,in some cases, Abraham Flexner sent them to selected people andrequested a response.
Occasional Paper Number One was The Country School ofTomorrow, by Frederick Gates, a member of the boardof trustees.

In it Gates called for dropping educational traditions:

to teachstudents not to be philosophers, men of science, lawyers,
doctors, or politicians but to meet the "lowly" needs of rurallife.

He suggested that educators teach "every industry in the

district," such as would be found in the kitchen, barn, dairy,and shop.

According to Gates students should learn health, how

to make clothing, how to cook, and what and how to eat, and theyshould learn in model kitchens and model homes.

Further, headdressed the importance of scientific farming, and he envisioned
a community of young workers producing in agriculture, sewing,
the kitchen, the dairy, the orchard, and the lawn.

He minimized

the importance of the "three R's" and suggested they only betaught within the realm of the child's experience.-3

In a letter to Charles Eliot, former Harvard president andmember of the GEE upon his retirement, Abraham Flexner addressed

20

19

Gates' proposal, stating that the Board had been authorized topromote such an experiment in rural education.

Eliot's responsereferred to a surgeon who had been compelled to study Latin andGreek:He believed that he got as much appropriate mental
training out of the languages as he would have out of
natural history and mechanical studies. He was of course
deluded; but he did not know that.

Flexner's return letter agreed with Eliot."
Charles Eliot wrote Occasional Paper Number Two, Changes
Needed in Secondary Education, in which he supported practicalcourses, elimination of memory work, and use of concrete
experiences.:`

The GEB issued a press release approving Eliot's

paper, reiterating that the best knowledge came from observationof the senses.

They recommended for poor children more hand,ear, and eye work, such as drawing, carpentry, turning, music,
sewing, cooking, and the sciences of observation (chemistry,pi;yi&ulture and work in a school garden.

Occasional Paper Number Three, A Modern School by Abraham
Flexner, also dealt with subject matter in schools.

He supported

the need for the rudiments of education but not for courses whose

purpose it is to "train the mind.""man educated in the modern sense

Rather, he maintained that a.

.

.

will be contentedly

ignorant of things for learning which no better reason than
tradition can be assigned."

He preferred studies that served"real purposes," which he divided into four fields: science,industry (including learning a manual skill and work in

21

20

Although he recommended

industry), aesthetics, and civics.

algebra and geometry for those who would later attend college,
for those "who would not need it," he recommended industry.In addition to the Occasional Paper, Flexner wrote somearticles that appeared in a popular magazine.

In one article hestated that mental discipline did not carry over to othersubjects, except in particular categories.

Virgil is just as

valid as learning to bake a pumpkin pie, he declared:

eithertask should only be performed for enjoyment or for a purpose.

According to the article, if a student was not planning to attend
college, he should not study Latin.

He further maintained thatformal grammar and arithmetic should not be studied beyond a few
basics if one did not need them.

Another article proclaimed that

schools should concern themselves with what children naturally
do, offering vocational and purposeful subjects, replacing Latin,

math, ancient history, and "bookish" science.A fourth member of the GEB, Wallace Buttrick, discussed thepoor state of agriculture in the South.

His report called for

agricultural schools, one in every consolidated district, andpractical textbooks to teach agriculture.

He warned that "nature

study," such as it was known then, was too cultural and notpractical.These directly-stated philosophies of Board members informed
the programs which they established. In keeping with theirinterest in vocational and agricultural education, they

appropriated funds and hired personnel who fostered these aims in21

public schools, particularly in the rural South.

The GEB

undoubtedly chose the South because it was the most fertile
ground for their ideas on vocational education.

At the time,

their systems were new, disorganized, highly rural, and did notehibit the independence of midwestern schools.

In this light

the GEB adopted a program in 1905 which involved hiring

professors of secondary education to represent them in improving
high schools in the South.

These professors served as catalysts

to expand offerings in practical courses such as agriculture,sewing, and carpentry."
Early reports by the professors would indicate that mostexisting schools offered highly academic programs, with suchelectives as agriculture, manual training, domestic science,school garden work, and bookkeeping.

These same reports also

seem to indicate that the professors supported these curricula.

However, as time progressed the professors expressed urgency for
vocational education, particularly agricultural and domestic.

For example, Professor of Secondary Education, Joseph S. Stewartof Georgia recommended a highly academic program in his reports
until 1906.

This attitude changed following a visit to a private

industrial school. He boasted to Wallace Euttrick about the work
which he had observed at the school, in the home, dairy, garden,barns, and woodworking shop.

This visit led to his recommending

higher taxes to support schools.

Furthermore, that Fall, theGeorgia legislature passed legislation to build an agricultural
high school for every congressional district.

Stewart had

22

assisted in formulating the curriculum for these schools:
English, mathematics, history, science plus agriculture, shop
work, laboratories, and farm plots.

Buttrick advised him tooversee these schools, to get the best men to run them, and towrite him monthly reports.22

Another professor of secondary education, Charles G. Maphis
of Virginia wrote to a superintendent in 1912 blaming him for hishigh dropout rate.

He accused him of placing too much stress on

preparing students for professions;courses of study, equally emphasized:

he then recommended parallelclassical, business,

agricultural, domestic arts, and so forth.

He stated, "Yourschedule administers practically the same diet to all alike,though their tasks may be different and their needs may vary."Heurged the superintendent to require less homework, tostrengthen the commercial courses, and to add manual training,domestic science, and homemaking. "Your attendance is far too
low," he concluded.21

This example illustrates what the other participating
professors seemed to think, that academic requirements turned
away students.

As Gates, Flexner, and Eliot had rejected theidea that certain subjects were more worthwhile than others, andhad stated that the curriculum ought to reflect what the childneeded for his or her future occupation, these professors seemed
to embrace the belief that students should attend school toprepare themselves for a future vocation.

According to a third

professor of secondary education, L.L. Friend of West Virginia,

ra

23

agriculture was not offered seriously as it should be.

Not many

schools offered domestic science and manual training, hereported, but where these courses had been introduced, highschool instruction was in closer contact with life.

He alsorecommended practical application of chemistry, hygiene,
geometry, and drawing.

Furthermore, he reported that several

high schools were offering commercial courses and emphasizing
practical English. Other professors reported similar results invocational expansion.

Some oversaw the building of agricultural

high schools or the addition of industrial and household
more schools.

arts in

All indicated that these courses represented"progress" and that the changes were welcomed."
Another way that GEB members advanced their philosophy
regarding vocational education was by working through stateboards of education in the South.

They often gave money to theseboards to help them establish certain programs, with the ideathat the state would eventually fund the entire program.

They

hired agents to represent the state in stimulating betterschools.

One of these agents, a state high school inspector for

the GEB in South Carolina, reported in 1920-21 that 33% of South
Carolina's secondary pupils were in vocational courses, making up

11.2% of the total teaching time in the state. Another of
their agents recommended that one school district reopen its
manual training shop.

A third agent reported that one departmentof home economics had been "made right," "a full time teacher

well qualified having been employed.""

25

24

The GEB also appointed rural school supervisors, referred toearlier regarding conferences, in order to expand rural educationin the South and to back such programs as consolidation,
increased tax suppert, organization, salary and training ofteachers, and length of school terms.

In addition to theirinvolvement in these categories, the supervisors backed expansionof vocational education.-

Many of the rural school supervisors

expressed the belief that it was the job of public educators toassure the future of agriculture and domestic science.

For

example, school people often officiated at fairs where children's
agricultural and domestic products were displayed.

One suchexhibit was described by the Kentucky rural school supervisor.
He saw "real dresses, and real canning,.

.

.real plows, realgates, and real axe-handles" in both "the regular school work andthe work in manual training, domestic science, agriculture, etc."

Another supervisor wrote about student contests anddemonstrations in baking, sewing, and agriculture.

:n anotherstate a county fair included competitions in physics, writing,maps, drawing, spelling, music, culinary arts, needle work,

manual training, farm and garden work, and club work.
Many other examples evidence involvement of the rural school
supervisors with vocational agriculture and domestic science.
The rural scho81 supervisor of South Carolina sent a letter tohis county supervisors, encouraging them to read two pamphlets
regarding vegetable growing and preserving.

He urged them topromote manual training, cooking, homekeeping, and agricultural

.2

25

clubs in schools.

A workshop provided by another supervisor inSouth Carolina emphasized manual training for boys and domestic
science for girls; in addition, he recommended that industrial

work be taught in every sconl and that home and farmdemonstration work be closely allied with school.

Another of thestate supervisors reported that his "progressive teachers" gave
regular and systematic instruction in agriculture to boys andtomato growing and canning, home gardening, cooking and sewing,home making, and house keeping to girls.

He, as other ruralschool supervisors, worked to expand county demonstration schools
to instruct teachers in proper methods for teaching cooking,sewing, music, and practical agriculture in order "to increase
the professional efficiency of the teachers."23

All of the supervisors, at one time or another, reported"progress" in expansion of agriculture, gardening, home economics

and domestic science, and manual training in schools):

Other"progress" involved a gift of $7,000 for a domestic science
department in Charleston, South Carolina.

The rural school

supervisor from South Carolina later wrote Frederick Gates of the
GEB, complimenting him on his Occasional Paper on rural schools.

He cited some examples of domestic science and agriculture inschools of South Carolina, including one school in which theteachers taught on farms and in homes of the community.

Furthermore, to dispense with "boring" curricula, this supervisor
established a school in an old farmhouse, with a workshop forboys and a kitchen for girls.

He did not teach academics but had

26

the students grow vegetables and make wooden articles.

Students

learned from measuring gardens, dividing profits, and reading
recipes and books about birds):

GEB responded to him by asking

him to participate in studying "interesting and significant
experiments" in rural education.

Two major topics he chose

were

agriculture and homemaking.32

A different source pertinent to this discussion of rural
southern educational projects is an article that praised GEB
involvement in farm demonstrations and building dormitories forcounty high schools.

Their activities included introducing theteaching of domestic science and aiding agricultural anddemonstration work.
Southern education was not the GEB's only target of
influence.

They also acted upon the surveys, referred to earlier

in a Board report.

These were conducted nationally, bothstatewide and locally, and were comprised of a committee and achair who was selected by the GEB.

They conducted a survey ofMaryland schools in 1915 and paid three quarters of the cost from
Board funds.

"Shake-up Expected" read the headline that preceded

the Board's final report.

The recommendations included

vocational training in industrial sections and agricultural in
farming areas.

In 1916 the State legislature accepted the GEB

report and enacted many of their recommendations into law.34

The GEB also surveyed the famous schools of Gary, Indiana.

These schools attempted to become the epitome of redefinededucation:social services, recreation, adult education, and

26

27

manual training.

Believing that children had different

abilities, interests, and employment opportunities that must berecognized, they also offered vocational courses.

Boys regularly

took courses in shop work, carpentry, electrical work, plumbing,and painting,while girls participated in domestic science,restaurant work, and secretarial skills.

Many people expectedthat Gary schools would prepare skilled laborers for the mills of

Gary. Although the survey was conducted in 1916, the reports
came out in a series beginning November 1918.

The GEE found, notthat the program was deficient but that the administration was.
In fact, they praised the "genuine life activities."3C

Another survey, in 1919, took place in Tarrytown, North
Tarrytown, and adjoining districts in New York.

The GEE foundthat Tarrytown High School met college entrance requirements but
did not "neglect the needs of students who desire to pursue thecommercial course or to work in the area of industrial andhousehold arts."

They commended North Tarrytown Junior High foradding a vocational course to the regular courses and for
endeavoring to give a "practical turn" to regular courses andadding manual training for boys and cooking for girls.

But they

recommended that both the junior high and the high school broaden"the practical opportunities

.

.

.

certainly in commercial work

and in the household arts for the girls and in the industrial
arts for boys."3"

An inheritance of $1,650,000, left for the education of thepoor in Winchester, Virginia, prompted a request to the GEB for a

29

28

survey.

A news clipping of 1920, published by the Winchester

Chamber of Commerce, explained the outcome of the GEB's study.
They planned an athletic stadium, auditorium, art-history museum,dispensary and center of hygiene instruction, swimming pool,gymi2asium and shower baths, domestic science and home economics

laboratories, cafeteria lunch facilities, open air classroom foranemic or convalescent children, vocational and pre-vocational
shops for agriculture and industry, library-study room, and an

agricultural laboratory and experimental orchard.'
A GEB survey in Indiana, 1921 to 1922, concluded that
vocational education was inadequate and limited.

They

specifically recommended agriculture for all boys and home
economics for all girls, as part of their regular education
program.

In fact, a news paper report stated that the study

favored vocational education "beyond all other forms ofeducation."13

When considering the influence of the General Education
Board, their activities are educational, as well as the outcomesof their programs.

Additionally, other sources address theimpact of their programs on schools:"It is difficult tooverestimate the value of the several general studies in public
education financed by the Board," concluded an in-housereport.'

The report praised the "far reaching" effects ofProfessors of Secondary Education, which had taken place in
twelve states, and Rural School Supervisors.

Among GEB successes

the report included a two-year demonstration of rural supervision

30

29

in Indiana, which had resulted from the Indiana Survey.

Other

successes included "helping" southern secondary education byextending the cooperative farm demonstration movement and byimproving facilities, teachers, attendance, legislation, and"suitable" courses of study:

They emphasized the importance of placing in the
curriculum subjects which would prepare boys and girls
for living a useful life--for example such subjects asagriculture and home economics. As a result some of thesouthern states established farm life or agricultural
Reform of curriculum remains,as one of theschoolsmajor problems facing educational leaders.'.

.

.

Not all of their programs achieved their desired ends,
however.

A later memorandum bemoaned that those surveys which

they had funded had been publicized as General Education Board
surveys.

This had caused political problems for them, it stated,making it hard for their representatives to put theirrecommendations into effect.42

Another source that supports the thesis of Board control ofprogram outcomes is a policy statement by GEB officials:"The

Board, however, has the right to terminate its support if theessential purpose of the Board in making the appropriation is nolonger being carried out."

The statement then cited examples of

personnel hired and fired in such a manner.

Although this policy

was not directly stated until 1932, the implication was that thispolicy had been in effect for a long time, as the examples
referred to past experiences.43

These examples, expressed by Board members themselves,indicate that the GEB wielded much greater control that they had

31

30

admitted to previously.

An excerpt from an article by anothersource attests to the influence that the GEB wielded in the
education community.

Although the quote addresses a more general

problem than vocational education, it does illustrate that

Rockefeller and other industrialists influenced public educationin many areas and with powerful results:

We view with alarm the activities of Carnegie andRockefeller foundations, agencies not in any way
responsible to the people, in their efforts to control thepolicies of our state institutions; to fashion after theirconception and to standardize our courses of study, and tosurround the institutions with conditions which menace true
academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy
as heretof.pre preserved inviolable in our common schools,
normal schools, and universities.
Of course GEB officials denied such motives but chose not to
respond publicly.

A final area, relating indirectly to the topic ofRockefeller and General Education Board influences on
vocationalism, provides evidence of activities corresponding to
education according to expected vocational destination.

Two

psychologists, Lewis M. Terman and Robert M. Yerkes, wrote to the
GEE, seeking support for a program of vocational guidance foryoung people leaving school and for businesses hiring them.

Theyalso wanted to diagnose children with intelligence levels near
the borderline of "mental deficiency" and to introduce a threetiered educational format for public schools.

These ideas

stemmed from tests that they had developed for the military andwhich had separated and trained personnel according to "ability."
Yerkes claimed that it was not undemocratic to base training upon31

test results, but rather, he stated that his program gave a "mana proper chance to learn."

He said that he had been bombarded byrequests for such tests to use in schools.*1-

Yerkes attacked the present educational system because it"ignored individuality" and was undemocratic.

Instead, his

proposal tracked students, according to test scores, into three
separate schools which educated for professions, industry, or
manual jobs.

What would normally be kindergarten through 5th

grade would be a three year program for the high track, four forthe medium track, and six for the low track.4

Abraham Flexner received letters expressing approval for
Yerkes' proposal from two men whom he had consulted.
credit, Flexner approached Yerkes cautiously.

To hisHe suggested thatthe proposed program made schooling too complex, but he alsosuggested some trial programs.

Yerkes sent a pamphlet which

explained the Army program, enumerating his complaints about
education:"low grade" children receive far too much attention,

he stated, while "high grade" children are sacrificed.

Finally,

Fexner notified Yerkes that the GEB was donating $25,000 for themto develop intelligence tests for school childrenj
This illustration ties into the study, as evidence that the
GEB did influence outcomes within public education.

Perhaps, inthis case, the climate was right for testing and it would havemade its way into public schools with or without GEB support;

nevertheless the GEB did get involved and did fund what turned
out to be controversial at best, even in today's schools.

32

Likewise, perhaps vocational education would have worked its way
into the curriculum, given the culture and social constraints ofthe time; yet GEB influence cannot be denied.

To summarize this study, the three central problems must be
reviewed.

John D. Rockefeller and his son did maintain controlof the money and programs which the GEB directed.

This control

was financial as well as by presence on committees, approval ofdecisions, and hiring of personnel.
control over its own programs.

Also the GEB maintained

GEB officials funded conferences

for their field representatives, presented them with an agenda,

met with them privately as a group, and influenced theconclusions accepted.

Regarding outcomes of their programs-

Professors of Secondary Education, Rural School Supervisors, andstate agents--although Board officers appeared not to interferewith the field work or recommendations, all of these programs
took a vocational turn, strongly advocating agricultural anddomestic education.

In surveys as well, GEB findings included praise forvocational programs and expressions of urgency where they did notappear to be strong.

Additionally, publications by Board members

stated their desires'to see vocational education emphasized,
academics deemphasized, and agricultural education glorified.

They, as well as other sources, corroborated the influence that
GEB programs wielded in the public arena.

Finally, the donation to develop testing for school children
crystallizes the thesis that the GEB and its founder and mentor,

34
BEST COPY AVAILABLE

33

John D. Rockefeller believed that children ought to be educatedaccording to what was supposed to be their occupational outcome.
Rockefeller, himself, funded several programs to this end,
providing vocational training for poor children.

Yet the factthat they assumed children would take jobs based on their own
social and economic backgrounds is also obvious in theirstatements and their donations.

The most extraordinary and obvious inference that can be madefrom the entire study is that John D. Rockefeller and his agent,
the General Education Board, acted as if people's destinies wereset and that education should parallel these destinies andprepare people to meet them.

Further, it may be stated that thedestiny of the children of the South was closely tied to therural nature of their environment and the lack of a highly
formalized school system.

Apparently, for example, it bothered

GEB members not the least that, in order to stimulate agriculturein the South, young people's education should consist primarilyof agriculture and domestics.

It must also be remembered thatthe members of the Board were greatly concerned with the good ofsociety which would benefit from trained farmers and workers toserve it.

Further study needs to be done concerning other industrial
philanthropies.

In addition, exploring the individual states inwhich the GEB had its progams would be enlightening and may
indicate specific influences.

Also, numbers of students involvedin vocational programs may be compared with such personal

34

statistics as family income and occupation.
The benefit of this study lies not in placing blame or
praise, but in observing actions.

Again, the problem is not thatthey tried to help but that the "help" assured that the poor orrural young people who received the benefactions would serve
society in particular ways and that doors to other life styles
were closed.

Whereas urban schools did need to change many of

their practices in order to welcome immigrants, and whereas ruralschools, especially in the South, were extremely poor and needed

money and attention to better their programs, the changes thatensued may not have been the blessings that were publicized.
can be concluded that John D. Rockefeller and the General

Education Board did exert a powerful influence on the growth ofvocational education during the years, 1880 to 1925.

However, it

can be questioned that this growth of vocational education helped
the field of education to serve children or, rather, to serve thestructure of society.

36

35

NOTES
1. John D. Rockefeller, to General Education Board, 15 August
1907. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 345. Folder
3569. Rockefeller Archive Center.
2. Jerome Greene; Wallace Buttrick, and Abraham Flexner, to membersof the GEB, October 1914. General Education Board records. Series
1. Box 346. Folder 3586. Rockefeller Archive Center.
3.
Ibid. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to Jerome Greene, 24
November 1914. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 346.
Folder 3586. Rockefeller Archive Center.

Abraham Flexner, GEB, to Henry Pritchett, The Carnegie
Foundation, 23 June 1915. General Education Board records. Series
1. Box 207. Folder 1991. Judson, Frissell, Rose, and Flexner, GEB
Committee, to GEB, report, 27 October 1915. Judson to Abraham
Flexner, GEB 18 December 1915, General Education Board records.
Series 1. Box 353. Folder 3650. Rockefeller Archive Center.
4.

5. Abraham Flexner, I Remember: the Autobiography of Abraham
Flexner (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1940), 217.
6.
E.C.
Sage, GEB, to Henry S.
Pritchett, The Carnegie
Foundation, 6 March 1909. General Education Board records. Series
1. Box 207. Folder 1990. Rockefeller Archive Center.

7. "Report on Conference held in Baltimore, April 22, 23, and24, 1919, with the State Agents for Rural Schools and the State
Agents for Negro Schools, and at Old Point Comfort, April 25, 26,
and 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1919, with the Professors of Secondary
Education and the State Superintendents," and "Detailed Reports ofConference of State Supenintendents, Old Point Comfort Virginia,
April 28, 29, and 30, 1919." A.A. Murphee and John W. Abercrombie,
to Wickliffe Rose, GEB, 27 December 1924. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 267. Folder 2779. Rockefeller Archive
Center.
8.
William Knox Tate, "Statement of Proposals adopted bySouthern Education Council and Special Committee of the Conference
for Education in the Sounth, Louisville, Kentucky, April 8, 1914,"
to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 25 April 1914.
General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 201. Folder 1910. Abraham Flexner, GEE, to
R.H. Wilson, Oklahoma, 8 March 1915. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 300. Folder 3135. Rockefeller Archive

Center.

9. J.B. Brown, Tennessee, "Declaration of Principles Preparedby Rural School Agents," to Wallace Buttrick, 2 July 1917. General
Education Board records.
Series1.
Box 275.
Folder2862.
Rockefeller Archive Center.

36

10. C.J. Brown, Louisiana, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 3 April
1917, and Abraham Flexner, GEE, to C.J. Brown, Louisiana, 4 April
1917 and 11 April 1917. General Education Board records. Series 1.
Box 88. Folder 782. Rockefeller Archive Center.

11. "Report of Conference of State Agents of Rural Schools,
April 22-24, 1919," to GEB. General Education Board records. Series
1. Box 275. Folder 2863. Rockefeller Archive Center.
12. Wallace Buttrick, GEB, to Leon S. Merrill, Maine, 11 May
1915. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 275. Folder
2864. Rockefeller Archive Center.
13. Frederick T.
Gates, The Country School of Tomorrow,Occasional Papers, No. 1 (New York: General Education Board, 1924),

6-11.

14. Abraham Flexner, GEB, to Charles Eliot, GEB, to Abraham
Flexner, 24 July 1916. Abraham Flexner, to Charles Eliot, 27 July
1916. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 270. Folder
2797. Rockefeller Archive Center.
15. Abraham Flexner, GEB, to Professor Paul Shorey, Chicago,
29 January 1917. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box
275. Folder 2864. Charles H. Judd, Chicago, to Abraham Flexner,
GEB, 30 November 1915. General Education Board records. Series 1.
Box 261. Folder 2700. Rockefeller Archive Center.
16. "Defects in American Educational Methods," press release,
6 March 1916. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box
261. Folder 2700. Rockefeller Archive Center.

GEB,

17. Abraham Flexner, A Modern School. Occasional Paper No. 3,
April 1917. General Education Board recoras. Series 1. Box 352.
Folder 3636. Rockefeller Archive Center.

"Parents and Schools," The Atlantic
18. Abraham Flexner,
Monthly, July 1916, 29-30. "Education as a Mental Discipline," The
General Education Board
Atlantic Monthly, April 1917, 452-462.
records. Series 1. Box 268. Folder 2770. Rockefeller Archive
Center.
19. Wallace Buttrick, GEB, report, date? General Education
Board records. Series 1. Box 303. Folder 3169. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

Wayne E. Fuller, The Old
Universiy of Chicago Press, 1982).
20.

Country

School(Chicago:

21. William A. Link, A Hard Country and a Lonely Place:
Schooling, Society, and Reform in Rural Virginia (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 117-118.

37
22. Joel C. Dubose, Alabama, to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 19
August 1907. "Rules and Regulations for the Government of theCounty High Schools of Alabama with Course of Study and List of
Textbooks for These Schools," June 1911.
General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 13. Folder 109. W.H. Hand, South Carolina,
report to GEB. 18 October 1906. Report to Buttrick, 3 October 1907.
General Education Board. Series 1, Box 128, Folder 1173. Joseph S.
Stewart, Georgia, to Buttrick, GEB, 3 July 1905, 15 November 1905,
8 May 1906, 3 September 1906, 10 November 1906. General Education
Board records. Series 1. Box 57. Folder 505. Rockefeller Archive

Center.

23. Charles G. Maphis, Virginia, to Superintendent (copy toGEB), 23 May 1912. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box
180. Folder 1686. Rockefeller Archive Center.

24. L.L. Friend, "Annual Report of the State Supervisor ofHigh Schools of West Virginia for the School Year 1911-1912," toGEE. November 1912. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box
190. Folder 1782. Rockefeller Archive Center. McHenry Rhoads,
Kentucky (copies to Buttrick, GEB), 2 September 1913, 3 October
1913, General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 77. Folder
674. B.W. Torreyson, Arkansas, "Education Progress in Arkansas,
June 1914-June 1915, to GEB. General Education Board records.
Series 1. Box 22. Folder 192. Jno Thackston, Florida, to E.C. Sage,
GEE. 14 April 1914. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box
35. Folder 318. Thomas P. Bailey, Mississippi, report to GEB.
December 1908. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 93.
Folder 829. Rockefeller Archive Center.

25. B.L. Parkinson, South Carolina, "Annual Report of B.L.
State High School Inspector for 1920-21," 25, 28.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 129. Folder 1183.
Rockefeller Archive Center.
Parkinson,

26. H.M. Ivy, Mississippi, Report to W.E. Bond, Mississippi,
30 October 1920. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 94.
Folder 836. W.S. Cawthon, Florida, Report to GEB, 5 October 1920.

General Education Board records. Series 1.
Rockefeller Archive Center.

Box 32. Folder 290.

27. Fosdick, Adventure in Giving, 65-69. James D. Anderson,
The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935 (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 86. W.F. Feagin,
Alabama, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 21 April 1916. General Education
Board records. Series 1. Box 18. Folder 155. Abraham Flexner, GEB,
to J.N. Powers, Mississippi, 1 July 1914. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 8. Folder 868. Rockefeller Archive Center.

28. "Summary of Reports of Mr. T.J. Coates--State Agent for
January 1, 1916." General
Rural Schools in Kentucky, July 1, 1915
Education Board records. Series 1. Box 81. Folder 710. "Report of

39

38

L.C. Brogden--State Agent for Rural Schools for North Carolina,
November 1915." General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 275.

Folder 2863. "Third Annual

School Fair, Monroe County, October

1915," pamphlet. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 26.
Folder 232. Rockefeller Archive Center.

29. W.K. Tate, South Carolina, to GEE, 18 September 1912.
"Summary of Reports of Mr. Lueco Gunter, State Agent for Rural
Schools in South Carolina, July 1, 1915-November 1915." General
Education Board records. Series 1. Box 131. Folder 1198. L.C.
Brogden, North Carolina, to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 13 February
1915, Report of 11 February 1915 enclosed. L.C. Brogden, to E.C.
Sage, GEB,
19 December
1917, Report of Conference.
General
Education Board records. Series 1. Box 113. Folder 1028. Rockfeller
Archive Center.
30. J.T. Calhoun, Mississippi, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 20
September 1916. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 98.
Folder 868. M.L. Dougan, Georgia, to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 12 May

1917. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 69. Folder
601. J.L. Bond, Arkansas, to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 31 December
1914, and to Abraham Flexner, GEE, 2 October 1915, and to a county
superintendent, DATE? General Education Board records. Series 1.
Box 26. Folder 230. J.B. Brown, "Brief Statement of Progress in
Rural Schools of Tennessee, 1915-1916." General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 157. Folder 1463. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

31. William Knox Tate, South Carolina, to Wallace Buttrick,
GEB, 16 May 1908. Tate, to Frederick Gates, GEB, 12 July 1912.
Wallace Buttrick, GEB, to W.K. Tate, South Carolina, 16 July 1912.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 201. Folder 1906.
Rockefeller Archive Center. Fosdick, Adventure in Giving, 73.

32. Abraham Flexner, GEB, to W.K. Tate, South Carolina, 14
September 1916. W.K. Tate, to Flexner, 14 October 1916. General
Education Board records.
Series1.
Box353.
Folder 3647.
Rockefeller Archive Center.
33. Mrs. John D. Eammond, "The Work of the General Education
Board in the South," The South Atlantic Quarterly, October 1915.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 353. Folder 3647.
Rockefeller Archive Center.
34. "General Board to Do It," Baltimore, Maryland Sun, 23
December 1914. "Shake-up Expected," Baltimore, Maryland News, 22
November 1915. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 276.
Folder 2882. Copy of legislation, Maryland State Legislature, 1916.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 276. Folder 2886.
Frank Bachman, GEB, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 4 Decomber 1914.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 207. Folder 1991.

39

Rockefeller Archive Center.
Ronald D. Cohen, Children of the Mill: Schooling andSocietyin
Gary,
Indiana,
1906-1960(Bloomington:
Indiana
University Press, 1990), 37-38.
35.

36. The following clippings explain GEB findings:
Tristram
Walker
Metcalfe,"Gary
Plan anExperiment;
Administration
Defective," The Globe and Commercial Advertiser, 4 December 1918.
Tristram Walker Metcalfe, "Pupils Do Just About as They Please in
Schools of Gary," The Globe and Commercial Adveriser, 6 December
1916. "From current issue of Manual Training and Vocational
Education," newspaper? December 1918. Boston Evening Transcript,
clipping 26 May 1919. "School Life," Departmentof the Interior,
Bureau of Education, 10 (16 December 1918). General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 297. Folder 3098. Rockefeller Archive
Center. Henry W. Holmes, "The Gary System Examined," The American
Review of Reviews, 612-613. Charles R. Richards, "Industrial Workof the Gary Public Schools," Industrial-Arts Magazine. General
Education Board records.
Series1.
Box297.
Folder 3099.
Rockefeller Archive Center.
37. "The School Situation at Tarrytown, North Tarrytown, andAdjoining Districts," report to GEB, 1919, 3,8. General Education
Board records. Series 1. Box 268. Folder 2772. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

38. R. Gray Williams, Virginia, to Wallace Buttrick, GEB, 28
February 1917. Wiliams, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 5 June 1917.
General Education Board records. Series 1 Box 305. Folder 3179.
Winchester, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, article in The Apple
Core, 27 October 1920. General Education Board records. Series 1.
Box 305. Folder 3184. Rockefeller Archive Center.

39. "Chapter VII, Vocational Education," rough draft of GEE
survey report, date? "High Spots in the School Survey," The
Indianapolis News, 23 November 1922. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 311. Folder 3249. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

Report on Public Education, GEB, 24 June 1924. General
Education Board
records.
Series1.
Box
313.
Folder3275.
Rockefeller Archive Center.
40.

41. "What the General Education Board Has Done to Encourage
South," 11 December 1926. General
Education Board records.
Series1.
Box
313.
Folder3275.
Rockefeller Archive Center.

Secondary Education in the

42. "Memorandum RE: Surveys and Field Service," 6 May 1927.
General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 313. Folder 3275.
Rockefeller Archive Center.

40

43. Jackson Davis,
GEB, to Trevor Arnett, GEE, "General
Principles in Dealing with State Superintendents of Education," 8
December 1932. General Education Board records. Series 1. Box 269.
Folder 2777. Rockefeller Archive Center.

44. "Final Draft of Reply to Resolution of National Education
Association," July 1914. General Education Board records. Series 1.
Box 329. Folder 3463. Rockefeller Archive Center.
45. Lewis M. Terman, to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 18 January 1917
and 31 January 1917. Robert M. Yerkes, to Abraham Flexner, GEB 19
January 1917 and 17 January 1919. Yerkes, "The Mental Rating of
School Children," to Flexner, 31 January 1919. General Education
Board records. Series 1. Box 308. Folder 3223. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

46. Robert M. Yerkes, "The Mental Rating of School Children,"to Abraham Flexner, GEB, 31 January 1919. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 308. Folder 3223. Rockefeller Archive
Center.

47. Abraham Flexner, GEB, to Dr. C.M. Campbell, 30 January
1919. Flexner, to Dr. Harry M. Thomas, 30 January 1919. Campbell,to Flexner, 4 February 1919. Thomas, to Flexner, 6 February 1919.
Flexner, to Yerkes, 5 Febuary 1919. Yerkes, to Flexner, 13 Febrary
1919. Flexner, to Yerkes, 1 March 1919. General Education Board
records. Series 1. Box 308. Folder 3223. Rockefeller Archive
Center.