The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1901-05-30

would certainly be his opportunity to
exclaim: ct told you SOP
In another column of this paper will
be found an article from the pen of
Conrad Shearer, in which he sets forth
some very good reasons for opposing
the idea of introducing agriculture
into the schools. Mr.. Shearer believes
that the school curriculum is already
oyercrowded with fads and fanCies,
while the fundamentals are being sad
1y neglected. The number of bones in
the human body and the number of
petals of the rose are not, according to
Mr.. Shearer, as essential factors IN the
informant ton of the young man as good
penmanship and accuracy at figures.
If the young man is educated IN these
basic branches he will be able to pick
up the science of agriculture with con-
siderable a1acrity when he comes to
settle upon it as his vocation.
There is no doubt great deal of
good sense in what Mr.. Shearer says.
The theorist has almost had his day IN
educational matters. Indeed, the OPP
position has become so we'll developed
that even educators themselves who,
sad to relate, are too much disposed to
take up with attractive theories, are
beginning to question the ACCESSIBILITY
of lacking more fri11s onto the
school course. Since this has been the
age of educational fads, largely the
result of a social desire on the part OF
parents and society in general to make
it's Youngsters, of both sexes, young
men or women before their time,
Supt. Harvey asks, relative to the agri-
cultural idea, if it be another fad. 1t
no doubt is, and will very likely be
treated to a reception about as wei
come as Mr.. Shearer has given it.
Tor while it is fad, it has the misfor-
tune of coming just at time when
popular sentiment is turning against
such things, and of being such
a fad as will least appeal to the ele-
meat of weakness that has most con-
tributed to the fringe and fri1l policy
that has gotten hold of the public
school system.
But while the pendulum had GER
tain1y swung to its limit in one direc-
ton, there is danger that it may pre-
scribe too great an arc and that the
school system may run into the other
danger of being too circumscribed. 1t
is in this respect that Mr.. Shearer
seems to make mistake. It is sim
cere1y to be hoped that the schools will
not become infatuated with the idea
that the young man must be cut out on
strictly business pattern. A COM
mercia1ized common school system
would be the worst thing that could
befal1 the schools of this country. A
surfeit of weights and measures is
Just as undesirable as a surfeit of
trash. If all that the common schools
stood for was to grind out business
fixtures that could drop into their
place in the great industrial machine
and stay there until they wear out,
they would have comparatively little
to do. Indeed the best possible train
ing for a business career is bust
ness. Teach boy to read and write
and do his arithmetic, and ali
he needs to fit him best for business
is to turn him out into business and
let him grow up in it. But that,
thank heaven, is not the sphere of
the public school. It's field of serv-
ice is far broader than that. It is
to educate, to develop the faculties
of the mind. It should teach our
youth to reason. It should cu1ti-
vate their tastes. It should direct
their minds to e1evating and en-nob-
ling reading, and above all, in the
United States, il should instruct
in the principles of true American cit
izenship. It should teach them to un-
derstand their own government; to
know thoroughly it's history; to appre-
ciate its principles and its institutions.
In a word, it should teach In American
to be an American, and point the way
to the highest and most complete man
hood. This does not imply ga little
Latin and less Greek" 1t does not
imply a smattering of all the branches
that constitute our higher education.