The progressive farmer and southern farm gazette., July 13, 1912, EDUCATION SPECIAL., Image 1

About The progressive farmer and southern farm gazette. (Starkville, Miss.) 1910-1920

Image provided by: Mississippi Department of Archives and History

                
EDUCATION SPECIAL.
IBEM FABH EAEETTE
A Farm and Home Weekly for
Missii Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee.
BIRMINGHAM, ALA.,—MEMPHIS, TENN.
Vol. XXVII. No. 28. SATURDAY, 13, 1912. Weekly: 3d a Year.
^^^_■—,i——"i
Practical Agriculture For Our Public Schools
THE greatest need of Southern agriculture is more agricultural
knowledge. The difference between 200 pounds of lint cotton
and 500 pounds to the acre is knowledge. The difference be
tween 15-cent butter and 30 cent butter is dairy knowledge. The
differehce between the three-cent steer and the six-cent steer and
between the cow that produces 150 pounds of butter fat in a year
i and the one that produces 300 pounds is livestock knowledge.
The difference between the man who earns $200 a year and the one
who earns $1,000 is the difference in their ability to convert knowl
edge into products needed by the race. The difference is not mus
cular but mental. The efficiency of the individual is measured by
his knowledge and his ability to utilize that knowledge for in
creased production.
The writer on a visit to a town in North Carolina was told that
| the best farmer in the county was Mr. H. Mr. H. was a lawyer.
On questioning another man as to wrho was the best farmer in the
county he was told that the best farmer was Mr. F. Mr. F. was
also a lawyer. On relating this difference of opinion to a third
person without mentioning the names of anyone we vcere promptly
told that the two men named as the best farmers in the county must
be Mr. H. and Mr. F. Here was good evidence that these two law
yers must have been generally regarded as among the best farmers in
that county. The next question of interest was: Why were these
two lawyers goou larmers : oome saiu uiey uau ueuei lanu, ouiers
that they had the capital necessary to do good farming and still others
said that while they raised large crops these were not grown the most
profitably. No one stated that these men were the best farmers be
cause they did the best thinking and had the most farming knowledge
and yet these were probably the true reasons. Certain it is that others
who had as good land and larger capital did not obtain as great profits
from their farming. These men had learned to study any problem
which came up for solution, as they did a case in their successful
I legal practice, and in solving agricultural problems they sought and
; obtained the knowledge and experience of others, just as they con
j suited court decisions in solving legal problems. In short, they used
greater knowledge, because they added to their own experience the
facts obtained in the work and experience of others.
Our problem today is to increase the stock of agricultural knowl
edge possessed by the men who till the soil. Because 90 per cent of
those who attend the common schools never get as far as the high
schools, many insist that we must teach agriculture in the high grades
of the rural grammar schools. Others as positively affirm that agri
culture cannot be taught below the high schools. Many reasons are
given to support both contentions.
Perhaps this difference of opinion is due to the usual cause of
such differences—a lack of understanding of what the proposition of
increasing agricultural knowledge among rural children means. In
teaching children the multiplication table we teach them facts which
are used more or less throughout all practical applications of math
ematics to their future lives. Does anyone contend that we cannot
teach children the multiplication table so as to make it effective in
application to their future work? Perhaps if we sought to acquaint
our children in the farm home and in the school-room with basic
facts about their future work as well as we do to teach them basic
facts in mathematics and grammar, we should find less trouble in
teaching agriculture in the public schools.
Why is it that children do not know the general meaning of the
words “rations,” “nitrogen,” “protein,” etc., as they do the 1
meanings of the words, "mountain," “island,” “noun" and
“adjective?”
The reason is because words of the former group have no place
in the conversation of the home, nor in our text-books; while
words of the latter group are learned in the study of geography and
grammar and are used in home conversation.
Any word or fact that will add to our understanding of agricul
tural practice could as well be learned in the teaching of arithmetic,
geography, grammar, etc., as are our ideas of stocks, bonds, interest,
etc., learned in the study of arithmetic. Why teach an understand
ing of percentage through problems involving the finding of the in
terest on $2,000 for one year at six per cent, in preference to teaching
the same understanding of percentage by problems involving the j
finding of the number of pounds of nitrogen in 2,000 pounds of cot
tonseed meal containing 6 1-2 per cent of nitrogen?
In the one case we teach, in addition to the mathematical processes
involved, something of interest and in the other we might teach these
same mathematical processes and in addition something of cottonseed
meal and nitrogen. Which is of the greatest importance to rural
children? Which will better equip the children to think on and solve
the problems which arise in after life? Is not the purpose of educa
tion to train to better thinking, and how can good thinking be done
on the problems arising in the life of the farmer if he does not acquire
a knowledge of the facts and principles underlying those problems ?
It is needless to inquire further into our problems or seek further i
for means to solve them so long as the average rural child has a school
term of from only four to six months duration and our text-books
deal with matters foreign to the life of the children. We must solve
these two problems for they are at the foundation of all our future
progress.
FEATURES OF THIS ISSUE.
A “FIELD DAY”—VVhat It Did for the Schools of Sumter Coun
ty, South Carolina. q
A RURAL SCHOOL LABORATORY—VVhat One Teacher Did With
Little Equipment. 7
A TEACHERS’ COLLEGE FOR THE WHOLE SOUTH—The Greut
Peabody College for Teachers and Its Work. 1H
CONSOLIDATION NECESSARY—Why the Little One - Teacher
School Cannot Do the Best Work . 15
FENCES AND PASTURES—What “Harrow” Thinks About Them :t
GROOMING THE HORSES—How to Do It, and When, and Why. . . I :t
HOW SOME SCHOOLS WERE MADE BETTER—A Batch of In
teresting Experience Letters.>.. 17
JUST A BIT OF EDEN—A Charming Letter From Mrs. Patterson H
MANUFACTURING A DROUTH—How the Farmer Can Do It. 4
MID-SUMMER WORK FOR THE SHEPHERD—Valuable Sugges
tions by Mr. French. 12
SCHOOLS THAT FIT THE CHILD FOR LIFE — Some Reasons
Why Our Schools Do Not Impress the Child as They Should ... 10
STORIES OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCE—Three Splendid Prize
Letters . 5
THE IRISH FARMER AND HOVr HE LIVES—Intimate Glimpses of
the Emerald Isle. 11
TRAINING THE CHILD AT HOME—One Mother's Experience. ... t>
WHAT IT COSTS TO RAISE COTTON—Some Farmers Pay Entire.
ly Too Much for This Crop. 4