This research has been supported by the National Institute of Education, Contract No. 400-79-0019. The opinions expressed herein, however, are those of the author alone, and no endorsement of the contents of this paper by NIE is implied.

1. Figures on female labor force participation were drawn from Elliot, W. and Brownless, Mary, Women in the American Economy: A Documentary History, 1675–1929 (New Haven, 1976) p. 9. The quotation is from Woody, Thomas, A History of Women's Education in the United States (New York, Vol. 2 1929) p. 16.Google Scholar

2. Perhaps the best discussion of the development of vocationalism in American education can be found in Lazerson, Marvin and Norton Grubb, W., American Education and Vocationalism: A Documentary History, 1870–1970 (New York, 1974), “Introduction.” For a more general discussion of this period in educational history, see Cremin, Lawrence, The Transformation of the School (New York, 1961), and Krug, Edward, The Google Scholar Shaping of the American High School, 1880–1920 (New York, 1964). For alternative interpretations see Spring, Joel, Education and the Rise of the Corporate State (Boston, 1972); Tyack, David, The One Best System (Cambridge, 1974); and Lazerson, Marvin, The Origins of the Urban School: Public Education in Massachusetts, 1870–1915 (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

3. For a discussion of this issue in the context of industrial education generally, see Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School, p. 229; also see Cremin, , The Transformation of the School, p. 56. There is no historical monograph on the development of the home economics movement or the home economics curriculum itself.Google Scholar

4. Proponents of home economics later traced the roots of their cause back as far as 1789. See “Dates in this History of Home Economics,” Journal of Home Economics (October 1911):388 (hereafter referred to as JHE). Also see “The Educative Value of Cookery,” Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1888–1889, Volume One, (Washington, 1890) p. 419.Google Scholar

5. For an overview of this process see Cremin, , The Transformation of the School, p. 32. Cremin emphasized the role of organized labor and businessmen's associations in promoting manual labor. These organizations almost always saw manual education as male education, a point which underscores the different purposes which educators and laymen alike assigned to male and female training in this period. For a sample of Calvin Woodward's views regarding manual training, see his article “Manual, Industrial and Technical Education in the United States,” in Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1903, Volume One (Washington, 1904) p. 1019, a piece excerpted from the Encyclopedia Americana. Also see Fisher, Berenice, Industrial Education (Madison, 1967) p. 76. Another reflection of the greater interest expressed by educators and other proponents of manual education in boys was enrollments in these courses. Of sixty six industrial and manual training schools surveyed by the Commissioner of Education in 1896, only 35 offered courses in sewing and cooking. Many such schools excluded women altogether. Enrollments nationally in manual education courses that year paralleled this pattern: males outnumbered females by nearly two to one. By 1902 the number of manual training schools in the U.S. had multiplied dramatically, to over two hundred thirty, and a substantially larger portion of these schools were coeducational. This openness was reflected in the male/female ratio, which was about 3 to 2, including both elementary and secondary schools. But the ratio of men to women in secondary manual education classes, where the social purposes of the manual training movement were most evident, remained close to two to one. Manual training, particularly as it was associated with vocational concerns, was a male dominated curriculum throughout the opening decade of the twentieth century. See “Statistics of Manual and Industrial Training, Branches Taught,” Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1896–97, Volume Two (Washington, 1898) p. 2285; and “Manual and Industrial Training,” Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1902, Volume Two (Washington, 1903) p. 1964.Google Scholar

6. For an elaboration of these points, see Cremin, , Transformation of the School, Two, Chapter, “Education and Industry.” One of the key features of this shift was the growing role of the National Association of Manufacturers, followed by the American Federation of Labor, both of which threw their weight behind trade education, or training in specific skills associated with certain occupational categories. Woodward and other early advocates of manual education were opposed to trade education because they believed it to be too skill-specific. In this regard, see Fisher, , Industrial Education, p. 75. Cremin appears to have overlooked this issue, and treats manual education and trade education as synonomous.Google Scholar

7. An account of the proceedings of the NSPIE convention is given in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1909, Volume One (Washington, 1910) p. 194. For an overview of the discussion of women, see Bulletin No. 6 of the NSPIE, “Industrial Education of Girls.” Also see Krug, , Shaping of the American High School, p. 226.Google Scholar

8. The quote is taken from the constitution of the AHEA, reprinted in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1909, Volume One, p. 178. Also see “Home Economics” on page nine of the same volume for an overview of home economics as a new area of study.Google Scholar

9. Richards, Ellen H., “The Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement,” JHE 3:2 (April 1911): 117, 122. Also see Terrill, Bertha M., “A Study of Household Expenditures,” JHE, 1:4 (December 1909):399; Warbasse, James P., “The Education of Girls in Domestic Sociology and the Arts of Homemaking,” JHE, 3:1 (February 1911):52; Kinley, David and Fetter, Frank A., “Economics and Household Science,” JHE, 3:3 (June 1911):259.Google Scholar

10. See, for instance, Eggleston, Katherine, “What Ought to be Done to Make the Schools Useful to Our Daughters?,” Women's Home Companion, 36:9 (September 1909):20; Snedden, David, “Current Problems in Home Economics,” JHE, 6:5 (December 1914):430; and Burdick, Anna Zalor, “The Wage-Earning Girl and Home Economics,” JHE, 11:8 (August 1919):327.Google Scholar

11. Richards, , “The Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement,” p. 122; Condit, Elizabeth C. and Harvey, L. D., “A School for Homemakers,” Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1911, p. 313. Also see Condit, Elizabeth C., “Teaching Home Economics as a Profession,” JHE, 11:6 (December 1910):591, and “Progress in Vocational Education,” Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1913, Volume One (Washington, 1914) p. 252.Google Scholar

12. Craig, Agnes Houston, “Report and Recommendation on Domestic Art Education,” JHE 4:3 (June 1912): 272; Gilbreth, Frank, “Scientific Management in the Household,” JHE 4:5 (November 1912):438; Terrill, Bertha M., “A Study of Household Expenditures,” JHE 1:4 (December 1909):399; Richards, Ellen, “The Outlook in Home Economics,” JHE 2:1 (February 1910):17.Google Scholar

13. Richards, Ellen H., “Wanted: A Test for ‘Man Power’,” JHE 5:1 (February 1913):60.Google Scholar

14. Hansen, Annie L. Mrs., “The Work of the Domestic Educator,” in The Education of the Immigrant, Bulletin No. 12. U.S. Bureau of Education, 1914, p. 7; Sill, Mather Dr., “Malnutrition of School Children in New York City,” JHE 1:4 (December 1909):396; Kitteredge, Mabel H., “The Need of the Immigrant,” JHE 5:4 (October 1913):315; and “Methods of Americanization” (Editorial), JHE 11:2 (February 1919):85.Google Scholar

15. For discussion of early efforts to adapt home economics to “education for life,” see Lawrence Cremin's account of curricular reform in Denver in the twenties, in Transformation of the School, 301. Fora broad discussion of the twenties as a period of conservatism generally, see Hicks, John D., Republican Ascendency (New York, 1960) passim.Google Scholar

16. See Kinley, and Fetter, , “Economics and Household Science,” p. 225. They argued that housework ought to be socially recognized as work. Other discussions of housework as a peculiarly female vocation include Education for the Home, Bulletin No. 18, Bureau of Education, 1910, p. 7; “Homemaking as a Vocation for Girls” in Cooking in the Vocational School, Bulletin No. 1, U.S. Bureau of Education, 1915, p. 7. Interestingly, proponents of home economics stressed its vocational value less as time wore on. In the 1920s articles in the JHE increasingly stressed such themes as good family relations and the moral value of clean living. In 1919 a survey of school principals and superintendents across the country revealed that nearly 40 percent felt that home economics was included in the curriculum for cultural rather than vocational ends. The remainder felt that vocational purposes were most important. See “Manual Arts and Homemaking Subjects,” Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1920, Volume One (Washington, 1921) p. 23. For an example of the thinking that characterized supporters of home economics in the twenties see Winslow, Emma A., “An Experiment in Socializing Home Economics Education,” JHE 12:1 (January 1920):26; Zuill, Francis, “Objectives in Home Economics for the Seventh, Eighth and Nineth Grades,” JHE 16:3 (March 1924):107; and Winchell, Cora M., “Home Economics at the Crossroads,” JHE 18:10 (October 1926):553.Google Scholar

17. For a discussion of enrollment levels in these courses, see Rury, John L., “Women, Cities and Schools: Education and the Development of an Urban Female Labor Force, 1890–1930,” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1982) p. 295.Google Scholar

18. For a discussion of early courses in commercial subjects in American schools, see Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School, p. 6.Google Scholar

19. Public educators railed against what they considered to be the unscruplous recruiting methods employed by some of these schools: open solicitation of prospective students in the public schools, often with exaggerated accounts of the financial returns to attending a business school. And investigators charged with determining the quality of education offered in these institutions reported that some were run by men intent upon deliberately cheating people. Yet there were also established schools with deserved reputations for effective instruction in the various branches of commercial education. Apart from occasional flashes of information revealed in surveys conducted to uncover evidence of fraud in these schools, little is known about the educational opportunities they offered. Prior to 1890, fully eighty percent of all commercial instruction in the country was conducted by private business schools. For a discussion of the recruiting methods employed by private business schools, and educators' responses to them, see Lyon, Leverett S., Education for Business (Chicago, 1922) p. 284. Interestingly, Lyon suggests that recruiters for private business schools appealed more to female students than to males.Google Scholar

20. Lyon, Leverett S., A Survey of Commercial Education in the Public High Schools of the United States (Chicago, 1919) “Introduction.” Also see Lyon, , Education for Business, p. 5; and U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education, 1926–28, (Washington, 1930) p. 1058. For discussion of the way in which educators viewed the expansion of clerical enrollments, see Weiss, Janice, “Education for Clerical Work: A History of Clerical Work in the United States Since 1850,” (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1978) p. 135. Weiss accepts the candid observations of contemporaries that commercial education was an enormous boost to overall enrollment levels. My own research, however, indicates that enrollments rose in all different types of urban settings, independently of the type of labor markets they confronted. The rapid growth of commercial enrollments may have led some educators to believe that demand for commercial education was a driving force behind the growth of secondary education in this period, but enrollments clearly did not respond primarily to increased demand for clerical labor. See Rury, , “Women, Cities and Schools,” Five, Chapter, “Education and Employment.” Google Scholar

21. Lyon, , Education for Business, p. 5. The power of private schools to draw disaffected students away from the high schools with the lure of quick entry into the relatively well-paying world of office work was a common complaint among educators in this period. Yet the fact that the business schools were relegated to dealing with high school dropouts suggests that the high school business curriculum was the first, and hence for whatever reason the preferred, choice for most teenage youth seeking business related skills.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 284. In his survey of the commercial course in public high schools, Lyon found that only 14% of the high school courses were a year or less. Most private business school courses could be completed within five or six months. Lyon, , A Survey of Commercial Education, p. 13, On the dropout problem also see Thompson, F. V., Commercial Education in Public Secondary Schools (Yonkers, N.Y., 1915) pp. 92–96, and Leake, Albert H., The Vocational Education of Girls and Women, p. 354.Google Scholar

23. When educators discussed commercial education they generally started by acknowledging its rapid expansion, and turned to a series of recommendations for improving the business curriculum. These recommendations were virtually the same in every case. Perhaps the most important reflected an interest in fitting business education more perfectly to the needs of local business communities. The Committee on Business Education of the Kingsley Commission, a major high school policy review board, suggested that. surveys be conducted by local school authorities to determine the best combinations of courses to offer, along with the establishment of cooperative education programs involving local businessmen. Other studies of business education agreed. While most educators did not classify commercial education under the general rubric of vocational education, they did believe that it had to be fitted closely to the requirements of local labor markets. The Kingsley Commission report even went as far as to suggest that business courses be offered early in four year high school course, to give dropouts an opportunity to acquire business skills before leaving school. Despite their arguments that business education was valuable for both intellectual and practical purposes, educators suggested reforms principally designed to make it more practical and efficient as a form of job preparation. See Business Education in the Secondary Schools, U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 32, 1919, p. 19. This bulletin reprinted the report of the Business Education Committee of the Kingsley Commission. Also see Thompson, , Commercial Education in Public Secondary Schools, p. 30, and Lyon, , Education for Business, p. 170.Google Scholar

24. Allen, Evelyn W., “Home Economics in a Girl's Commercial High School,” JHE 13:4 (April 1921):148.Google Scholar

25. See Lyon, , A Survey of Commercial Education, “Introduction,” and Leake, , Vocational Education for Girls and Women, p. 334.Google Scholar

26. These figures have been derived from the Biennial Survey of Education, Department of Education, 1918–20 and 1928–30.Google Scholar

27. Lyon, , A Survey of Commercial Education, p. 45; Idem, Education for Business, p. 124; Thompson, , Commercial Education in Public Secondary Schools, p. 125; and Business Education in Secondary Schools, p. 14.Google Scholar

28. Lyon, , A Survey of Commercial Education, p. 15; Thompson, , Commercial Education in Public Secondary Schools, p. 82.Google Scholar

29. Lyon, , Education for Business, p. 297; Biennial Survey of Education, “The Public High School,” 1927–28, p. 1078.Google Scholar

30. Industrial courses for women were offered in cities across the country. Male enrollments in 1920 in industrial education courses were twenty times female enrollments. See “Public High Schools,” Biennial Survey of Education, 1920–1922. In 1910, however, one-third of all pupils enrolled in manual training and industrial schools at the secondary level were female. See “Manual and Industrial Training,” Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1910, p. 1242.Google Scholar

31. Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1914, “Progress in Vocational Education,” p. 269. Also see “Types of Vocational Secondary Schools,” in Vocational Education, Bulletin No. 12, U.S. Bureau of Education, 1912, p. 33.Google Scholar

32. See Leake, , The Vocational Education of Girls and Women, pp. 230–231 and 291.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., pp. 287–88.Google Scholar

34. Women dropped out of industrial schools, it appears, as rapidly as they did the comprehensive schools. Only a third of the Manhattan Trade School's 1200 students in 1914 eventually graduated. Another third dropped out after less than a month. See Leake, , Vocational Education for Girls and Women, pp. 290–291.Google Scholar

35. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1901, Volume Two, “Coeducation of the Sexes in the United States,” p. 1217.Google Scholar

36. For an overview of the debate over coeducation in this period, see Maxwell, John C., “Should the Education of Boys and Girls Differ? A Half Century of Debate,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1966.Google Scholar

37. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1901, Volume Two, “Coeducation of the Sexes in the United States,” p. 1218; Biennial Survey of Education 1920–1922, Public High Schools,” pp. 581–594. There is evidence that industrial education courses became more male dominated with time. In 1910 2.6% of all high school women were enrolled in such courses, along with 12% of all high school men. In 1920 only one percent of all high school girls were enrolled in these courses, as opposed to 21 percent of high school boys. Men clearly were moving into industrial education at a faster rate than women.Google Scholar

38. See, for instance, suggestions that women be excused from math courses in Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1913, Volume One, pp. 81–82; and Special Features in City School Systems, U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 31, 1913, “Segregation of the Sexes,” p. 52. Also see Maxwell, , “Should the Education of Boys and Girls Differ?,” p. 13 and 186.Google Scholar

39. Maxwell, , “Should the Education of Boys and Girls Differ?,” p. 63; Snedden, David, “Should There be a Difference in the High School Training of Boys and Girls?,” Yearbook of the New York High School Teachers Association (1907–8) p. 39.Google Scholar

40. See “Coeducation of the Sexes in the United States,” 1901, pp. 1219–1228; and Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1908, Volume One, “Coeducation,” p. 90.Google Scholar

41. For discussion of Boston's school system in this period, see Rury, , “Women, Cities and Schools,” Seven, Chapter, “Varieties of Adaptation: Local Studies of Women's Education and Women's Work.” Educators in other cities invoked the same principle, although few school systems matched the level of differentiation exhibited in Boston or New York. Both Cleveland and Chicago, for instance, experimented with establishing separate schools for men and women in this period. Smaller communities could ill afford the cost of erecting new schools to serve either men or women alone. Yet for larger school systems, faced with the prospects of expansion to begin with, establishing sex-segregated schools was less problematic. Differentiation, it appears, helped to undermine coeducation in several of the nation's leading school systems. Leake, , The Vocational Education of Girls and Women, p. 273; Maxwell, , “Should the Education of Boys and Girls Differ?,” p. 177; Thompson, , Commercial Education in Public Secondary Schools, p. 143.Google Scholar

42. Maxwell, , “Should the Education of Boys and Girls Differ?,” Conclusion.Google Scholar