Connie Goddard, author of Learning for Work: How Industrial Education Fostered Democratic Opportunity, answers questions on her new book.
Q: Why did you decide to write this book?
The book rather told me to write it. Several questions came together, some about schools in Progressive Era Chicago, particularly the work of John Dewey. Why did he ignore the Chicago Manual Training School when it was under his purview at the University of Chicago? He was a great advocate for many of CMTS’s priorities – a mix of academic and work-related courses. So, what happened there?
Others came from my experience teaching in a New Jersey prison: why were my students on the inside when I was free to come and go? While there, I learned about a Deweyan and Du Boisian school not far away, but it had closed in the 1950s as a result of school integration. Might attending such a school have altered the fates of my students? A few decades later, industrial arts programs in high schools were curtailed. Was that really necessary? Or was it an unfortunate consequence of an arguably misguided belief in “college for all”?
Q: What is the most interesting discovery you made while researching and writing your book?
Many of the people who have written disparagingly about industrial education didn’t really know what it was. It was not lessons designed to make automatons of compliant young people; instead, it was courses in accounting, in dressmaking, in carpentry and mechanics and basic electricity, in cooking and nutrition – courses that teens could take to figure out the sort of work for which they were most suited. These programs also provided academic courses designed to give students a glimpse of life beyond their own time and place.
A related discovery – Dewey and Du Bois, two of the most prominent philosophers and social critics of their time, lived and worked within walking distance of each other during much of the early 20th century. But they met only a few times over all those years. That’s one of the many prices we’ve paid for racism. The two could have learned something from each other that would have benefitted us all – but that didn’t happen.
Q: What myths do you hope your book will dispel or what do you hope your book will help readers unlearn?
I like this question about unlearning – too many historians have a jaundiced view of industrial education; they have tended to regard it as a means for an elite – economic, social, whatever – to maintain control over the less privileged. The origins of industrial education are actually quite the opposite: whether it was called manual training, domestic arts, or vocational education, it was designed to encourage all children, regardless of class or background, to remain in school and thus have an opportunity for a more promising future.
Q: Which part of the publishing process did you find the most interesting?
Ah, I suppose this part. As I spent much of my early career as an editor, I know the design and production part of publishing. But I’m learning so much more about how books are promoted in the electronic age. And the questions: Should I start Tweeting? Use Instagram or Linked-In? And how do I lure more people to my website?
I recall talking to a writer many years ago, who said “When I write it and you read it, it’s art. But in between it’s all business.” Right now, that’s where I am!
Q: What is your advice to scholars/authors who want to take on a similar project?
I’m inclined to think that the right project will take you on. As a journalist, I learned that most articles acquire a life of their own, telling the writer what to do, to add or delete. A book is about the same: listen and follow where the story leads.
Q: What do you like to read/watch/or listen to for fun?
For fun, I aim for more communal projects than writing: going to concerts, plays, museums. Or listening to a good book while riding my bike or walking my dog.
Connie Goddard is a journalist and independent scholar who has coauthored two previous books about Chicago.