5. Structural and Decorative Design. Among other requirements for a course in woodwork and drawing as stated in the foreword is this: "At least a few problems should be given which involve invention or design or both, thereby stimulating individual initiative on the part of the pupils." The present outlines in woodwork and drawing have been planned with this in mind. In the seventh grade the pupil is given little opportunity to exercise his initiative in either woodwork or drawing. The reason for this, as has been previously stated, is a firm belief that initiative in any subject to be of value must be based upon a fair knowledge of the subject matter dealt with, its limitations and its possibilities. In other words, that appreciation must precede invention or initiative.

With the limited time allowed manual training, at most one-half day each week in the general educational scheme, a seventh grade beginner has about all he can well manage in becoming familiar with his subject matter, with learning to handle his tools and work his material.

But one group in the seventh grade will admit of decorative design. These problems, Group VI, have purposely been made simple as to woodwork that the pupil may give most of his attention to the design. In eighth grade, modifications of outline and dimensions of any project are permitted where a fair degree of merit is shown. Modifications of joints or fastenings are not to be made, however, unless a pupil wishes to transfer a project from some other group into the group in which the class is working.

In high school the pupil is expected to "work up" in his drawing class projects original in so far as his ability will permit, subject to limitations mentioned hereafter.

Eighth grade boys are expected to make at least one application of decorative design to the pieces of woodwork made. The projects made by the high school boys are, as a rule, not so well calculated to. take decorative design. Their efforts at decorative design will come later in connection with the metalwork of the first year.

In high school the design is to be taught by special drawing teachers who have informed themselves of the limitations of the shop methods when it comes to applying these designs. It is for the shop instructor to specify the kind of joint or joints that are to be used and the material, also the limitations as to decoration. Present methods of organization in high schools hardly permit of the teaching of shopwork and design and by the same instructor, which is the ideal way providing, of course, that the instructor is expert in both. This is a combination difficult to find. It is gratifying, however, to know that some schools are insisting that their shop men become informed in design as well as shopwork.

While these drawings are being worked up in the drafting room the pupil's shop periods are given over to the making of the exercise joints and mastering the principles involved in their making. By the time these exercises are completed, the working drawing will be completed ready for use in the shop.

The proper correlation of design and shopwork is not a problem beyond solution, because of the direct relation of the two departments, providing there is a strong administrative head able to secure proper esprit de corps. In the grammar schools, however, the problem becomes less satisfactory of solution by correlation.

The first objection lies in the fact that the regular grade teacher has both boys and girls to teach and the problems must therefore be the same for the whole room. The second objection lies in the fact that the problem in design has to pass thru too many hands before it reaches the boy. If design is to be taught to the best advantage, it must have the interest of the teacher and she must,have an intelligent understanding not only of the subject of design but of the particular problem that is to be presented. The difficulties in the way are not insurmountable where the drawing supervisor herself presents the problem to the pupils. Even here, however, one frequently finds the drawing supervisor so much more interested in the freehand drawing that her dislike for the design makes her unfitted for such correlation work.

When, however, as is the case in cities, the drawing supervisor must reach the pupils thru the regular teacher, correlation becomes in most every instance a farce. The teaching of design is another imposition on an already overburdened grade teacher. Very seldom does she understand the problem and it becomes a distasteful subject to be got over in the easiest way possible. Department teaching in the upper grammar grades would do much to aid in the correlation of drawing and shop. Until this is made possible, we can hope for little in the way of results from grammar school correlation, unless it be in a small system where the supervisor teaches the children directly.

The whole subject of design as it relates to woodworking is a constant source of discussion among manual training shop men. Many good teachers insist that design has no place at all in a course in woodworking. Others admit that it ought to have a place but feel that the results obtained do not justify the time spent upon it. Still others approach the whole field of woodworking from the side of design, tool processes and organized woodworking subject matter being mere incidents to the problem in design.

Like every extreme position each of these points of view has good in it, but there is sufficient error accompanying each to impair the validity of the conclusions and to make the resulting applications unhappy as related to ordinary public school conditions.

The whole subject of design as it relates to the manual training shop is one that has demanded thought on the part of the author. It is one of those places where teaching theory failed to bring efficiency either in the results obtained in design or in the reaction upon the boy. He has been forced to the opinion, from his own experience and from his observation of the efforts of others to teach design to grammar school pupils, that the cause for dissatisfaction and discouragement is due to our insistence upon one and only one method of presentation - the inductive or synthetic.

In judging results we must consider the results obtained from every member of a class and the good each boy has got out of his experience. This efficiency test most effectively excludes the exhibition of a few "accidentals" as evidence that our method is the correct one. There is no reason why design should seek justification on any ground other than that offered by other subjects.

Inductive or synthetic teaching of design has its place; so also has the deductive or analytic. Happily those educators who insist on the use of one method or the other only are becoming few. In other subjects we are finding that the teaching results which demand the respect and approval of educators of safe and sane judgment are obtained by the use of both methods interchangeably. There is no formal notice when one is to be used or the other - whichever method fits the occasion is used without apology. This is right; to do otherwise is to sacrifice the boy or girl for the sake of the method. We are all agreed that the child is the more important consideration. In fact, some psychologists tell us that induction and deduction are one and the same process, the difference being merely a matter of emphasis. It is this difference in placing the emphasis that we seek to discuss.