Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 31.djvu/630

 3. It in a sort recognized, what is now known as the "elective system," be it of mind or hand, for they are to work "at that Art, Mystery, or Trade, that he or she most delighteth in." 4. The necessity of moral and religious training in public schools is asserted. Matthew Arnold has recently reiterated the necessity of this, and no doubt greatly astonished many of his readers, by asserting that he finds to-day, in the public schools of Germany, a recognition of the fitness and propriety of religious instruction and an enforcement of the same, which can not be found either in England or the United States. 5. A fostering policy by the State was urged. How? In the very way that the great public-school system of our land has been established. 6. No distinction was made between the rich and the poor, the Indian's child and the Quaker's child. With a charity that marked everything done by a Quaker, this education was to be the priceless possession of all; with the foresight which was equally characteristic of the Quaker, he prophesied that these schools would be in a measure self-supporting. In the light of to-day was this a false presumption?

Lastly, how significant is the quotation from Yarenton, who is styled by Dove, the "Father of English Political Economy"!—significant, in that it reveals to us the food upon which our colonial statesmen fed; also, because of the index-finger pointing to Germany, from which so many modern educational ideas have sprung.

Whether Budd was the first to suggest this system of co-education of mind and hand in America, we do not know. He certainly must have been among the first. Remembering that he was a colonial statesman of West Jersey growth, this fact assumes added interest, when it is recalled to mind that in all probability the first public schools in this country to establish an industrial department were those of Montclair, New Jersey, and they not until September, 1882, nearly two hundred years after Budd's treatise appeared.



REAT scientific truth is expressed in the statement frequently heard that all kinds of work tend to run into specialties. Specialization is the order of the day. The term specialty is most frequently used in speaking of those sections into which the practice of medicine has been divided; but, in reality, we are all specialists. There is no more striking difference than this between our industry and that of a tribe of savages, or of a swarm of bees. The bees in a swarm are all engaged in the same few and simple operations. One bee does not exclusively make wax and another honey. Perhaps 