Learning for Work by Connie Goddard provides historical context and a unique perspective on industrial education in the United States around the turn of the twentieth century through descriptions of manual training schools and their founders – institutions that, unlike Tuskegee and the Hampton Institute, are not widely known. The book provides a fascinating look at the philosophies of leading industrialists, community leaders, and educators involved in the manual training movement, as well as the social changes that drove this movement in the US during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

In the first chapter, the author provides a thorough introduction to the history of the Chicago Manual Training School (CMTS) and the individuals involved in its founding. The school was supported in both purpose and financing by the Commercial Club of Chicago, whose prominent members included notable historical Chicago names such as Marshall Field and George Pullman. Drawing extensively on primary literature, the author articulates the the school’s mission and the philosophies of the leaders who ran it or served on its board. Henry Belfield, the school’s first director, described this “new education” as “training of the brain and of the body, the just and harmonious development of every organ” (p. 2). Men were instrumental in the manual training movement in Chicago, and the author introduces the reader to Charles Ham, a strong advocate for manual training in Chicago, whose writings about the subject are referenced in other chapters of this book. In addition, several women who were education innovators in the city, notably Jane Addams at Hull House, are also mentioned as advocates of this model of education. The author also describes the school’s curriculum and includes diagrams of some student work, including drawings, woodworking, metalworking, and an engine built in the machine shop.

In the next chapter, Goddard expands the focus on the manual training movement in the 1800s to include developments in other parts of the country, while maintaining a clear connection to the movement’s roots in Chicago. She discusses key historical figures whose philosophies influenced manual training, including Comenius, Froebel, and Pestalozzi, as well as John Runkle (from MIT in Boston), Calvin Woodward (from Washington University in St. Louis), and Victor Della Vos (from Russia). The author also provides an in-depth analysis of the differing philosophies of two lesser-known figures in American manual training education: Nicholas Murray Butler, head of the New York College for the Training of Teachers, and William Torrey Harris, superintendent of St. Louis Schools and contemporary of Calvin Woodward. Butler supported manual training in schools, whereas Harris believed that school should prepare students for society and saw little value in manual training. Charles Ham, a Chicago manual training influencer and author on the subject, debated the issues raised by these gentlemen, particularly Harris. Goddard writes about other manual training schools in Chicago, including the Armour Institute founded by meatpacker Philip Danforth Armour, as examples of the growth of the manual training movement in the city. She goes on to write about how the schools compared to the CMTS and how factors such as industrialization and the labor movement took resources and attention away from the CMTS, ultimately leading to it being absorbed into the new School of Education at the University of Chicago in 1897.

For readers interested in learning more about John Dewey and the Dewey School in Chicago, Chapter Three provides an in-depth discussion of the school, its history, and the differences between Dewey’s philosophy and manual training advocates in the city. Goddard attempts to describe the “new education” in the city and the relationship between arts and crafts, industrial arts, and manual arts using many quotes from the leaders of these movements. The differences are subtle and one can get confused by the nuances. All of this is included to provide context for the demise of the CMTS.

In the subsequent chapters, the author describes lesser-known manual training schools: the Bordentown (New Jersey) Manual Training and Industrial School for Colored Youth (Chapter Four) and the Ellendale (North Dakota) Normal and Industrial School (Chapter Five). Both were initially focused on secondary education. The Bordentown school, which opened in the early 1890s, was modeled after the Chicago Manual Training School, with mornings spent in academic studies and afternoons in manual training. One unique difference, in addition to serving solely Black students, was the inclusion of military training for boys. Goddard includes interesting insights into manual training and industrial education for Blacks after the Civil War and the various educational leaders whose philosophies influenced or challenged the school, including Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois.

The manual training “school of the prairie” in North Dakota was influenced by Calvin Woodward and enjoyed strong community support. Unlike the Chicago and Bordentown schools, which relied on wealthy patrons, the 1889 North Dakota state constitution provided for the establishment of half a dozen schools, including a manual training school. The resulting Normal and Industrial School in Ellendale was publicly funded from its inception. The author highlights several unique features of this school, such as its inclusion of teacher training in manual arts and allowing students to take only one or two courses rather than be a full-time student at the school.

In the book’s final chapter, Goddard addresses the varying historical narratives written about vocational education and details the debates leading up to the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. This includes an analysis of the educational theories of Dewey and Prosser, framing them as “agency” versus “efficiency” in the context of vocational education. Goddard suggests that secondary vocational education in the early twentieth century ultimately followed the path of agency, as championed by Dewey. This contradicts what contemporary education textbooks suggest, yet she supports this view with examples from the Ellendale and Bordentown schools and Cuban’s observations about implementation of early 1900s federal vocational education legislation.Footnote ¹

The book concludes with an epilogue that traces the histories of the Bordentown, NJ and Ellendale, ND schools after 1920 until their closures by the state agencies in charge of them at the time. Goddard notes that there are gaps in the literature about these schools – a point that I agree with – and I would argue that another manual training school in the Midwest is worth noting. While she mentions Wisconsin several times in the context of manual training, she overlooks the influence of Henry Belfield, CMTS president, on the Stout Manual Training School, founded in Menomonie, WI in January 1891. Funded by James Huff Stout, a local lumber company owner and friend of Belfield, the school was a department of the local public school system, located next to the high school, and offered manual training for boys and domestic science for girls. In 1899, the Stout Institute introduced teacher training for kindergarten and primary teachers, a post-secondary program for those who had completed high school. Four years later, it expanded to include training teachers of manual training and teachers of domestic science. Given the author’s call for further research, institutions like the Stout Institute – particularly those involved in training teachers of manual arts and domestic science – would be valuable additions to the historical record.

Goddard’s book provides a fascinating look at the lesser-known history of manual training within the US and a deep exploration of individuals whose philosophies influenced this movement. Overall, the book is well-written, although an excessive use of semicolons in the first few chapters is distracting and requires careful reading. The book is also timely given current actions in the US related to education, which contrast with the support for education at the turn of the twentieth century. This book describes the wealthy industrialists and other individuals who were committed to investing in education as a means of strengthening their communities and preparing individuals to contribute to society. A key point repeated throughout the book – underscored with quotations from both benefactors and leaders of the manual training movement – is that manual training was never just about preparing people for jobs. Rather, it sought to combine both academic and manual education equally – the hands and the mind working together to advance learning and increase understanding about the value of all work. As Ina Randall, a 1901 graduate of the North Dakota Manual Training School, eloquently stated: “The school that elevates labor and honors the laborer, the school that trains man in his natural elements, the school that not only instructs but educates, not only teaches how to think but how to do – the secret of the progress of civilization” (p. xiii). For those interested in studying the history of manual training in the US beyond what is typically presented in textbooks, I highly recommend this book.