The clamor for educational reform is not exclusive to this decade. There was another period of time in the history of our nation when school intensely studied and criticized. This historical time of educational was around 1900. The complaints then, were that schools were out of touch with the common person, there was too much emphasis on the classics academic studies, and a more relevant and practical approach to education was needed. Interestingly, the debate about education in the 1900s was the exact opposite of what was being said about education in the 1980s.

A leading advocate for a new type of education in the early 1900s was an agricultural educator. His name was Rufus W. Stimson. He is the father of several practices used in agricultural education today and implemented new approach to education that made a major impact on the WORLD.

The objective of this paper is to reacquaint the members of the agricultural education profession with the life and teachings of Rufus Stimson. A careful examination of his life, philosophy and teaching will provide the members with an insight into the evolution of agricultural education. This information may be useful in combating the current which are trying to diminish the importance of vocational agriculture

In volume 1, issue 3 (March 1929) of Agricultural Education, the editor, H. M. Hamlin, wrote (p. 2), "With this issue we are introducing a series of articles dealing with our current leaders. It is appropriate that this series with the stories of some of the older men in the profession and it is likely that none will question the choice of Rufus W. Stimson Massachusetts as the subject of the first article. . . . Unwaveringly for 20 years, he has stood for the best in agricultural education. A m cultural training, a gentleman and a scholar. . ."

Charles Prosser, author of the Smith-Hughes Act, (1929, p. 15) observed, "To the movement for efficient training in agriculture of secondary grade, Rufus W. Stimson has probably contributed more than any single man."

L. H. Dennis, former executive secretary of the American Vocational Association stated (1929, p. 14), "Dr. R. W. Stimson is one of the pioneers in agricultural education in the United States. Many of us have looked to him for leadership and inspiration in the development of agricultural education programs in the various states."

Stimson is called the Dean of agricultural education workers by Sutherland and Lawson (1948). Webb (1985) called Stimson the father of agricultural education. In a presentation to a class at Virginia Tech, Harry Sanders, one of the founders of the FFA, stated that Stimson was a man of extraordinary vision, and had in the 1930s accurately predicted the diversification of agricultural education as it exists today (Camp, 1985).

In the three volume Biographical Dictionary of American Educators (Ohles, 1978) Stimson is one of three agricultural educators listed.

Hammonds (1932, p. 18) wrote, "The editor [referring to himself] wishes that all you might know personally Doctor Stimson . . . If you know your agricultural education you will recall his contributions to vocational work as we know it today."

Who was Rufus Stimson? What were his contributions to the profession of agricultural education?

Rufus Whittaker Stimson was born February 20, 1868 on a farm near Palmer, Massachusetts to Horace W. and Harriet A. (Hunt) Stimson (Kornegay, 1978). He was educated in the public schools of Palmer. Stimson attended Colby College in Maine for two years and then went to Harvard University where he studied philosophy under William James. The works of Socrates, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, and Herbart occupied a prominent place on his desk (Stimson 1942). While at Harvard he took a course in the theory and art of teaching given by Paul H. Hanus Stimson received the A.B. degree in philosophy in 1895 and the A.M. degree in 1896. He next attended the Yale Divinity School and received the B.D. in 1897.

From 1897 to 1901, Stimson was a professor of English, ethics, and public speaking at the Connecticut Agricultural College (now the University of Connecticut). On October 4, 1899, he married Helen Morris. Stimson ascended to the position of acting president in 1901 and was made president shortly thereafter. He served as president of the Connecticut Agricultural College until 1908.

In 1908, Stimson became director of Smith's Agricultural School, a secondary school in Northampton, Massachusetts. In 1911, he was invited to become state supervisor of agricultural education for Massachusetts. He served in this position until he retired at the age of 70 in 1938.

After Stimson retired, he-continued teaching a Rural Problems Seminar at Simmons College in Boston which he had started in 1928 (Stimson, 1938). At the age of 71, Stimson received an appointment as a Research Specialist in Agricultural Education in the U.S. Office of Education for the purpose of writing a history of agricultural education (Stimson, 1940). The writing of the history was a massive project involving hundreds of people and over 5,000 pages of manuscript (Lathrop, 1947). Stimson called it a once-in-a-generation job. This book was published in 1942.

Stimson died on May 1, 1947 in Hyanis, Massachusetts. He was eighty years of age. At the time of his death, he had nearly completed a book on the leaders of agricultural education. The book was to contain biographical sketches of the leaders along with samples and excerpts from their writings (Lathrop, 1947). Frank Lathrop promised to finish the book with aid of H. M. Hamlin.

When scholars of the profession discuss the contributions of Rufus W. Stimson to the development of vocational agriculture "the project method" of teaching (often referred to as "the project" or "project concept") is what first comes to mind. The project method, as envisioned and implemented by Stimson in 1908, has made a profound impact on the vocational education profession. He was also responsible for other developments which affected the profession. Since the "project method" is considered to be his major contribution, a detailed discussion of the project method is included in this paper but his other contributions are also described.

To understand how the project method came into existence, one should start by carefully examining Stimson's tenure at the Connecticut Agricultural College.

Stimson's Professional career started at the Connecticut Agricultural College in 1897. He was a professor of English, ethics, and public speaking. In 1901, he was appointed acting president and was made president shortly thereafter. When he assumed the presidency he was described as ". . young, full of energy, and ambitious for the growth of the institution. He was by nature a publist" (Stemmons, 1931, p. 111).

Stimson believed in publicizing the institution and in working closely with community and state leaders. Prior to assuming the presidency, a major rift had disrupted the institution, destroyed the faith of the people of Connecticut in the institution and had caused the ouster of the previous president. Stemmons (1931, p. 112) reports,

Stimson built up the summer school for teachers (primarily through a course entitled "Agriculture and Nature Study"). He moved the agricultural experiment station to Storrs from Wesleyan. He brought electricity and the trolley to the campus, and increased the regular enrollment by nearly 700 percent. Stimson enlisted the support of the Grange in getting the legislature to fund a new building. Stimson invited the Grange to investigate the college. After visiting the campus, the Grange went, en masse, to the state capitol to support the request for additional funds. No room at the capitol was large enough to hold the people. The money was appropriated (Stemmons, 1931).

As president of the college he attended meetings of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations (AAACES). In addition to discussing college admission policies, courses of study, and other administrative matters, the group was concerned with agricultural instruction of secondary grade.

At the 1902 meeting of the AAACES Stimson heard President Cyrus Northrop of the University of Minnesota discuss the special agricultural school operated by the University of Minnesota (Stimson 1942). This school, somewhat typical of early agricultural schools, was of less than college grade, operated as a boarding school, and emphasized learning by doing through practice on the school farm. Stimson later visited this school.

At the 1904 meeting of the AAACES Stimson discussed the need for special training for boys who were going back to the farm. He indicated they did not need four years of college. He reported that a committee at Connecticut Agricultural College had worked out a two year course of study for these students (Stimson, 1905).

In 1906 Stimson made a presentation at the AAACES titled Student Labor (USDA 1907). It was common practice at that time to carry out the farming work of the university by using student labor. Stimson was against this. He was of the opinion that too many students stood around watching other students work and that forced labor on somebody else's farm was not ideal. His views were reflected in a paper he presented later to the American Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Teaching. In the paper he described an incident which dramatized why he did not advocate using student labor or school animals on school farms as the primary method for teaching students agriculture. Stimson was conducting a demonstration on how to judge Guernsey dairy cattle. After a young farmer had judged an extremely high quality bull, Stimson heard the young farmer state, "He ought to be a good one; the State owns him, and the State feeds him." Stimson noted, "Everywhere there is a tendency to discount college-owned or school-owned live stock and operations" (Stimson, 1912, p. 29).

Stimson twice served as chairman of the College Work and Administration section of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. This group was influential in getting the National Education Association (NEA) to add a department of rural education to their organizational structure (USDA, 1907).

On February 20, 1908, Stimson's 40th birthday, the following news item was published in the Hartford Courant,

In 1845, Oliver Smith of Northampton, Massachusetts died. In his will he left a fund of $30,000 to establish a farming school where young men could study agriculture. According to the terms of his will the bequest was to be allowed to accumulate. After a length of time, the people of Northampton were to elect a board of trustees and establish the school (Experiment Station Record, 1905).

In 1906, the trustees were elected and proceeded to establish the school. They first bought a farm and a herd of dairy cattle in preparation for the opening of the school (Stimson, 1942). Next, the trustees met with the state Commission on Industrial Education and discussed the search for a director. The chairman of the Commission, Paul Hanus of Harvard, recommended the trustees try to hire Rufus Stimson (Hanus, 1919). They did. The Commission approved Stimson as the new director of Smith Agricultural School.

Stimson assumed the director's position in 1908. He had new ideas on how to teach agriculture. One of his first actions was to request permission from the trustees to sell the dairy herd. He also requested that no dormitories be erected to board the students. The trustees were puzzled but had been told by Dr. Hanus to let Stimson have free reign (Stimson, 1942). How could agriculture be taught without school owned livestock and a place for students to stay?

Stimson prepared a brochure about the new school. In the brochure he outlined a new plan for the teaching of agriculture. STUDENTS WILL LEARN AGRICULTURE AT THE SCHOOL BUT APPLY WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED TO THEIR HOME FARMS THROUGH THE USE OF HOME PROJECTS. Based upon his experiences at the Connecticut Agricultural College and the empirical teachings of William James, Stimson believed this was the way agriculture should be taught.

During the 1908-1909 school year, Stimson worked diligently at developing the new school and installing the project concept. The project method of teaching soon proved to be successful (Thayer, 1928). Students applied modern agricultural practices on their own farms which increased student motivation. This culminated in increased agricultural productivity.

On November 15, 1909, a new Commissioner of Education was appointed in Massachusetts. The new commissioner, a professor of sociology at Columbia University in New York, had previously studied the problems of juvenile delinquents. He saw the need for a new type of education emphasizing vocations but his thinking about vocational education was still evolving. The name of the new commissioner was David Snedden.

In January 1910, Snedden brought one of his former graduate students to Massachusetts to serve as Deputy Commissioner for Vocational Education. This former student had taught high school English and science and had been a school superintendent in Indiana. When asked what he knew about vocational education, he ". . . replied that he 'didn't know a thing,' " (McKinny, 1956, P. 16). His name was Charles A. Prosser.

Both Prosser and Snedden were soon being educated by Stimson. They were impressed with the home project method used by Stimson (Snedden, 1917, 1929; Stimson, 1942). Stimson was not timid in sharing his philosophical views and beliefs with Prosser and Snedden.

Stimson also shared his views with another person Snedden and Prosser had recruited. This person, who later emerged as a prominent figure in vocational education for his task analysis expertise, was Charles R. Allen.

Stimson was asked to conduct a study, as a special agent of the department of education, on the need for expanding the teaching of agriculture in the state. Although Stimson conducted the research, the final report submitted in 1911 listed Stimson, Snedden, and Prosser on the report. This report stressed the need for additional programs in agriculture and indicated the project method should be used in any new programs (Monohan, 1912, p. 335). As a result of this report, the Massachusetts legislature passed new vocational legislation incorporating the suggestions in the report.

In 1911, Snedden asked Stimson to join the state department of education as state supervisor for agriculture. During Stimson's first year with the Board of Education, he traveled widely espousing the project method. The Massachusetts home project method was receiving considerable attention nationally. The previous year Stimson had traveled to Chicago to help organize the American Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Teaching (AAAAT). At the second meeting in 1911, as State Supervisor, he presented a paper entitled "The Smith's Agricultural School and Agricultural Education in Massachusetts" (Stimson, 1912a). The annual Report of the Commissioner of Education for the United States in 1911 (Department of the Interior, 1912, p. 355) contained an article describing Smith's Agricultural School. Both reports described the project method.

Stimson addressed the National Society for the Study of Education in Mobile, Alabama in 1911. His paper, 31 printed pages in length, contained a detailed description of the project concept. The terms improvement project, experimental-project, and productive project were described in detail. Stimson's (1912b, p. 35-36) definition of a farming project was as follows:

Prosser left Massachusetts in 1912 to become executive secretary of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education (NSPIE) (Barlow, 1976). As executive secretary he was very active in promoting vocational education. He traveled widely and made many presentations about vocational education.

Prosser was an ardent supporter and advocate of the project plan of teaching (United States Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education, 1914). In June 1913, he organized a meeting at Staten Island, New York for the state supervisors of agriculture in several Eastern states. Hawkins of New York, Dennis of Pennsylvania and Carris of New Jersey were three of the supervisors at the meeting. Also at the meeting was William T. Bawden, a journalist who was managing editor of Vocational Education. Prosser had Stimson speak about the project method. After describing the project method, Stimson invited the conference participants to accompany him to Massachusetts to observe this new method first hand (Heald, 1929; Stimson, 1942). Willingly, they accepted the invitation and spent several days with Stimson visiting schools, teachers and student projects.

The November 1913 issue of Vocational Education (p. 86-105) contained an article by Bawden titled "Types of Massachusetts Agricultural Schools". Bawden expressed his views of what he observed with Stimson in Massachusetts. In describing the results of the project method of teaching and the agricultural schools Bawden writes, ". . . the new kind of school is training in vocational efficiency, is developing boys and girls (underline mine) of energy and initiative, is fostering a spirit of independence and perseverance, and is accustoming young people to the experiences of successfully coping with real difficulties."

In 1915, an article entitled "The Massachusetts Home Project Plan of Vocational Agricultural Education" appeared in The School Review (a national journal of secondary education). The article was written by Stimson. A footnote indicated that the article was based on an address presented to the Harvard Teachers Association during which Stimson used colored lantern slides.

W. W. Charters, Dean of Education at the University of Missouri (and later Dean at the University of Illinois), visited Stimson in 1915 and observed the project method in action. Charters, a disciple and former student of John Dewey, was a noted curriculum theorist and a strong advocate of the problem solving method of teaching (Stewart, 1933). Charters was impressed with what he saw and said the project method was problem solving raised to the Nth degree (Stimson, 1942).

The Panama-Pacific International Exposition was held in San Francisco in 1915. This was an international exposition comparable to a world's fair. The state of Massachusetts had an exhibit at the exposition on State-aided vocational education (Foght, 1917a). The agricultural school movement and the project method were the focal point of the exhibit. Stimson was the main person responsible for the display. This exhibit won the Grand Prix (gold medal) award (Stimson, 1919, Kornegay, 1978).

In 1917, the Smith-Hughes Act was passed by congress and signed into law. One provision of the Smith-Hughes Act was "That in order to receive the benefits of such appropriation . . . such schools shall provide for directed or supervised practice in agriculture . . . The NSPIE was responsible for most of the provisions in the Act and it was no secret that Prosser drafted the original bill (Barlow, 1976). According to Deyoe (1943) and Thayer (1928) there was no doubt the work of Stimson served as the model for the supervised practice aspect of the legislation.

The Federal Board for Vocational Education was organized in August of 1917. Prosser became the Board's chief administrative officer. Layton Hawkins was brought from New York to head the agriculture work. Both men had learned about the project method of teaching from Stimson and had been exposed to his philosophy. The members of the Federal Board spent the first year establishing policy for the organization and administration of vocational education (McCarthy, 1952). Bulletin No. 21 (Agricultural Series No. 3) was published in 1918. It was The Home Project as a Phase of Vocational Agricultural Education. Hawkins (1929) acknowledged that the bulletin and project concept was based on Stimson's work.

Stimson remained busy during 1917. He continued serving as state supervisor, was assisting Paul Hanus with an evaluation of Hampton Institute in Virginia (Hanus, 1937) and was working on a book describing the project method of teaching. In 1919 the Macmillan Company published Stimson's 468 page book, Vocational Agricultural Education by Home Projects. The book had been scheduled for publication in 1918 but was delayed because of the war effort. Stimson's book served as a reference for the spate of books on the project method which followed.

In June 1918, Stimson presented two papers at the annual meeting at the National Education Association. One of the papers, "Effect of Rural Continuation School on Agricultural Efficiency," described several benefits of home projects. Another educator who also presented a paper at the 1918 NEA conference was William Heard Kilpatrick (NEA, 1918)

William Heard Kilpatrick, a noted professor at Columbia University, published an article in the September 1918 issue of the ' Teachers College Record titled "The Project Method." The article went into considerable detail discussing the merit, basic assumptions, and value of the project method. The article was well written and pedagogically sound. Kilpatrick made a statement (p. 320) in the article, which many people may have ignored; he said, "I did not invent the term [the project method] nor did I start it on its educational career. Indeed, I do not know how long it has already been in use." Later in his book Foundations of Methods (1925) Kilpatrick wrote,. . .. the merits of purposeful activity [referring to the project method] depend on how well it will work if given a fair chance and not at all on the name assigned to it and still less on who first used the name."

Kilpatrick's books, articles and presentations about the effectiveness of the project method received national attention and acclaim. His works have been cited many times. An entire issue of Educational Theory was published in 1966 in honor of Kilpatrick. In this issue, several distinguished authors told how the project method of teaching was used around the world. They espoused the project method as one of the greatest events to have occurred in education. It revolutionized education. During the excitement over the success of the project method, Kilpatrick came to be known as the genius behind the project method of teaching. His 1918 article and treatise in Foundations of Methods contributed to the misconception that he was the originator of the project method. Rufus Whittaker Stimson, the real father of the project method, had been forgotten.

A question could be raised concerning the validity of Kilpatrick's claim in 1918 that he did not know who originated the project method. Just a year earlier a graduate student, Theodore H. Eaton, at Teachers College of Columbia University published his dissertation, A Study of Organization and Method of the Course of Study in Agriculture in Secondary Schools. This publication was No. 86 in the Contributions to Education series of Teachers College. Eaton (p. 106) writes, "The use of the home project as a means to teaching agriculture is growing very rapidly. Chief credit for its development and spread is due to Dr. R. W. Stimson of Massachusetts."

Kilpatrick also made a presentation at the same NEA meeting earlier in the year in which Stimson discussed the project. As a professor interested in education, it is hardly conceivable that Kilpatrick had missed the eleventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (which contained Stimson's 1911 presentation), the publicity surrounding the Panama-Pacific Exposition, or Stimson's 1915 article in The School Review. Given Stimson's penchant for publicity, it is difficult to believe that Kilpatrick was not aware of Stimson's work.

It is equally hard to believe that Kilpatrick did not know nor care about the origin of the project method. When Kilpatrick was a graduate student, he was given the assignment of determining which was the first School in this country - the Boston Latin School or the Village School of New Amsterdam. Though both schools claimed to be first, it was generally accepted that the New Amsterdam school was the first in 1633. Kilpatrick conducted intensive research on the problem. He consulted Ecclesiastical Records of New York, sailing schedules from the old world, and other sources which Most historians had failed to check. He proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the accepted views were wrong. Tenenbaum (1951, p. 71) reported "His findings created. quite a stir in educational circles." Based upon this exacting research he obtained a part-time position teaching the History of Education at Columbia University. It is hard to imagine that a person with this type of background would say that it was unimp6rt6nt to know the origin of the project concept.

An explanation for Kilpatrick's denial of the origin of the project method, could possibly be found in his personal diary. Tenenbaum, who was given access to Kilpatrick's diary while he wrote William Heard Kilpatrick, Trail Blazer in Education (1951), provides several revealing facts. Apparently, Kilpatrick was afraid he would never achieve a reputation based on his own merit. His major contribution to educational thought had been to clarify the positions of Dewey (his mentor). In his personal diary, he constantly demeaned his own ideas and abilities. He was full of doubts. His diary entry for January 1, 1914 contained the following statement, "My success is much better as a teacher and student than as an investigator or original thinker. While I hope to become well known as a teacher and a writer, I have no reason to hope to make specific contributions to thought" (Tenenbaum, 1951, p. 88). It is this writers opinion that Kilpatrick saw the project concept as a chance for him to become know for something other than clarifying Dewey's work. This view is reinforced by an event in 1920.

One of Kilpatrick's doctoral students (Herring, 1920) decided to compile a bibliography of all the work which had been done on the project method. In his article, which was published in the Teachers College Record, the student wrote, "Indebtedness is acknowledged to Professor William Heard Kilpatrick of Teachers College, for suggesting that the bibliography be made, for beginning the collection of titles, and for criticizing the annotations." The student (p. 150) also stated, "Time has unfortunately prevented collection in some fields where contributions have been made. A discriminating annotated bibliography of the project method in AGRICULTURE (emphasis mine) is needed but is not included." Who decided not to include citations about the project method in agriculture? Was it the graduate student, or Kilpatrick?

Several professors at Columbia and at other universities were critical of Kilpatrick. These professors intimately knew of the work of Stimson. W. W. Charters was one of the critics. After visiting Stimson in 1915 Charters became a strong advocate of the project method. The writings of Charters (1923, 1924) and his graduate students (most notably Stevenson in 1921) acknowledge the role of Stimson in developing the project concept and criticize the definition of the project used by Kilpatrick.

Another professor who was critical of Kilpatrick was David Snedden. He had left Massachusetts in 1919 to rejoin the Columbia faculty. Tenenbaum (1951, P. 140) reports that Snedden was "a severe critic" of Kilpatrick's work. Perhaps one reason Snedden was critical of Kilpatrick was because he wanted to claim credit for the project method. Branom in the Project Method of Education (1919. p. 30) quotes Snedden thus, "In the early part of the present century 'some' of us began using the word 'project'.

An unbiased account of the evolution of the project method is found in V. T. Thayer's The Passing of the Recitation (1928). Thayer, a noted educational philosopher, wrote several important books during the first half of the twentieth century. He was a contemporary of Kilpatrick. He collaborated with Kilpatrick, Dewey, Bode, and others to write The Educational Frontier which was edited by Kilpatrick in 1933. In The Passing of the Recitation Thayer (p. 229) wrote:

Even though historical evidence indicates the project method of teaching was Stimson's greatest contribution to agricultural education (and to the universe of education) he made several other important contributions which have made an impact on the profession.

When Stimson supervised in a school he had two functions - teacher training and state supervision. He did not take his responsibilities lightly. Lathrop, commenting on Stimson, wrote (1947, p. 29) "When he visited a department he went over it with a fine-tooth comb. No details were overlooked. He was the most thoro (sic) supervisor I have ever observed in action." Not only did Stimson visit the school he insisted on visiting the project work of the students. Stimson personally visited every high school student in the state who was enrolled in agriculture during his tenure as state supervisor (Lathrop, 1938; Heald, 1929; Works, 1929).

Bawden, after his 1913 visit in Massachusetts, pointed out that Stimson's visits were not merely supervisory and inspectional but also furnished guidance and help for the teachers. During the drives to and from student projects Stimson would spend considerable time reviewing the days lessons with the teacher and providing suggestions for improvement of teaching.

Stimson was vitally concerned with the improvement of teaching. An address before the American Association for the Advancement of Agriculture Teaching in 1918 appears to have had much to do with the wide prevalence of the phrase "teaching teachers to teach while they are teaching" (Heald, 1929). Stimson's views on providing inservice education to teachers were highlighted in the fourth publication in the Agricultural Series of the Federal Board for Vocational Education (1918). He had specific suggestions for the professional improvements of teachers. In 1918, while most states were scrambling to get some type of teacher training started, Stimson had already been working with teachers for nearly ten years. It should not be surprising that the views of Stimson related to the preparation of teachers were closely heeded.

In discussing the traveling seminar Stimson (1919, p. 365) wrote:

In Foght's (1917) book, The Rural Teacher and His Work, the adult education program in agriculture in Massachusetts is discussed. Foght (p. 215) writes, "No other state probably has been quite so successful as Massachusetts in organizing vocational education for all its people, whether living in town or in the country. These schools comprise not alone day schools for boys and girls, but part-time schools for young people between fourteen and sixteen years, and also evening schools for grown men and women. The aim is to reach all the people of the commonwealth in need of help." Foght (p. 217) goes on to describe the three types of programs as they relate specifically to agriculture. The third type is designed for "Persons above seventeen years of age, regularly engaged in productive agriculture, who devote evenings to study at the schools. This group includes dairymen, truck-farmers, fruit-growers, etc." Fought describes the benefits of the program and concludes (p. 217), "Much of the success is due to the thoroughgoing supervision employed. The state supervisor [Stimson] cooperates closely with each local instructor. . ."

In Stimson's book (1919, p. 256) the conduct of evening schools for adults in agriculture was discussed. It appears Massachusetts, under Stimson's guidance, led the way in school based adult education in agriculture in the United States.

In referring to Stimson's contributions in agricultural education, Carris (1929, P. 4) stated, "It would be easier to write pages than sentences This is certainly true. Following is a brief list of additional contributions of Stimson.

If Stimson were alive today, he would have several things to share with the profession. Based upon his writings and the writings of those who knew Stimson, it is my belief that the following message would probably resemble what he would say to the members of the vocational agricultural education profession:

Lamar (1965, p. 18), in a call for leadership from the profession wrote:

Adler, M. J. (1982). The paideia proposal. New York: Macmillan.