THE 



NATURE-STUDY REVIEW 



DEVOTED TO ALL PHASES OF NATURE-STUDY IN SCHOOLS 



Vol. 5 APRIL, 1909 No. 4 



THE RELATION OF NATURE -STUDY AND AGRICULTURE 

 IN ELEMENTARY RURAL SCHOOLS 



By DICK J. CROSBY 

 Specialist in Asricultural Education, U. S. Office of Experiment Stations 



[Read at a meeting of American Xature-Study Society, Baltimore, 

 Dec. 29, 1908.] 



In opening this discussion on the relation of nature-study and 

 agriculture in elementary rural schools, let me try first to clear 

 the ground a little; that is the first thing the farmer has to do — • 

 clear his ground. I want to remove some of the misconceptions 

 concerning agriculture as a school subject. In other words, I 

 want to anticipate some of the criticisms likely to arise, some of 

 the objections to the subject that have been raised by school 

 men. Like most farmers who choose to "grub" among the rocks 

 and stumps on "new land," I shall probably spend most of my 

 time today clearing away obstructions, and leave the cultivation 

 of the soil to those who follow me in the discussion. 



As the first clearing process let us consider the purpose of 

 teaching agriculture in the elementary rural schools. The ptir- 

 pose is not to teach a trade. At least I am sure that none of us 

 would advocate the introduction of agriculture into the ele- 

 mentary schools for the purpose of teaching the boys a trade or 

 of putting them under an apprenticeship. There is no place in 

 the first eight grades of the rural school for trade teaching. 

 And moreover, apprenticeship is not a necessary accompaniment 

 of learning the principles of agriculture. Agriculture is more 

 than a trade. 



The purpose is not to keep the boys on the farm. It is not a 

 function of the public schools to keep boys anywhere, except 

 possibly (to use a questionable American idiom) to keep them 



93 



