Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-12-11
STEWART Tells
Of utah Method.
Answers Queries from Member
Of Roosevelt Country
Life Commission.
CULTURAL EDUCATION
separatc High school Idea Is Not
Fuyorcd--How Teachers
Arc Trained.

on Nov. 81, Prof. William X. Hart
or the Massachusetts Agricultural col
lere. and Il member OF the Roosevelt
commission to Investigate country life
addressed the following queries to Prof.,
William M. Stewart, OF the University
OF Utah:
/. Is your department. offering
courses with direct reference TO the
preparation of teachers OF agriculture?
II so what is your line of approncil, /,
q. does the matter receive emphasis as
a part Of a methods course in science,
or in a more specific way i'll a course
by itself, or is the matter treated in
an Incidental way; as part of the work
In general method?
ence as being entitled to. II place IN
the curriculum as an independent sci
encc or5aS a supplemental part OF the
science now in the public schools?
8. If you We're supervising the put
ting of agriculture into Il school of
secondary grade would you favor max
ing it an applied science after the study
of botany chemistry, and physics, or
allowing Tito precedc those in an in-5
Guctive way?
A. Do you favor separate high
schools for agriculture, or should ittall
be taught in such schools as now exist?
STEWARDS REPLY.
To tile above questions, Prof. Stew
art made reply as follows
l. Our department in cooperation
with the Agricultural College Of Utah,
is Offering courses with direct refer
ence to the teaching OF agriculture.
See inclosed statement from the cat
alogue. Our line OF approach is through
nature, study, which is Il prescribed
subject of the Normal course, We !
give emphasis to agriculture also as
part of the methods course in science
In fact, we give one course to train
students as specials teachers In agri-
culture and another course which
makes agriculture incidental as n part
of the work in methods.
2. We regard the subject of agricul-
ture entitled to a place in the high
school curriculum as an independent
science; but in the elementary schools
we think it should be a supplemental
part of the science work taught now |
given.
g. We should prefer agriculture in |
an inductive, observational and eXper- |
mental way to precede the study OF |
botany, physics, chemistry, etc, SO that
the science problems arising out of |
agriculture could be solved by a study
of these subjects after the need for
them has been experienced. In the col
legc, technical, agriculture should
follow more thorough courses in
botany, chemistry, etc
FAvoRS ONE SCHOOL.
4. We do not favor separate high
schools for agriculture We think it
would be great economic and edu-
cational mistake to have parallel sets
OF high schools. First, because the |
agricultural student needs the cultur-
al influence of regular high school
quite as much as the present
high schools need the practical phases
of agriculture and other subjects. So,
too the socializing influences of com
life in the high schools would
be minimized and in part lost if agri-
cultural students should be in any way
separted from the other students of
high school grade. Such a separation |
would undoubtedly result in q dpuli-
cation Of work leading to contest
between the two systems Of high
schools for appropriations. The linz
moral effect Of this kind of rivalry is
bad. have known communities SO ar
rayed against one another as to even
the family and almost dis
ntegrate the home. besides turning
educators into ward heelers" and
! am intensely Interested in the work
IF training teachers for agriculture
Ind will appreciate any information
n suggestion that you can give me
long this line. We are Il young state
md of course only just beginning to
,uild up an educatiorr institution The
beginning in agriculture with us is very
rude indeed, and we are glad to well
ONE the advice from our older sister !
tates.