began his attempt to reduce all perception to its lowest terms, ‘the A
B C of observation,’ as he afterward called it. It was while at Stanz,
for example, that he first adopted his well-known plan of teaching
children to read by means of exercises known as ‘syllabaries.’ These
joined the five vowels in succession to the different consonants,--‘ab,
eb, ib, ob, ub,’ and so on through all the consonants. From the
phonetic nature of German spelling, he was able to make the exercises
very simple, and thus to furnish a necessary practice in basal
syllables. In a similar way he hoped to simplify all education to such
an extent that schools would eventually become unnecessary, and that
each mother would be able to teach her children and continue her own
education at the same time.
[Sidenote: Suspension of combination of industrial with intellectual
elements.]
[Sidenote: ‘Syllabaries’ and other language exercises,]
[Sidenote: arithmetic,]
[Sidenote: geometry, and other studies.]
=Continuation of His Methods at Burgdorf, and _How Gertrude Teaches
Her Children_.=--From these experiments and concrete methods that
Pestalozzi started at Stanz gradually developed all his educational
contributions. But before the close of a year he was forced by
circumstances to remove to Burgdorf. Here, on account of the social
position of many of his pupils, he had to suspend his experiment of
combining industrial with intellectual training, although, as will
later be seen, his special efforts in this direction were greatly
enlarged and perpetuated by Fellenberg. He now devoted himself to
his ‘A B C of observation,’ and further worked out and graduated his
‘syllabaries.’ Language exercises were also given his pupils by means
of examining the number, form, position, and color of the designs,
holes, and rents in the wall paper of the school, and expressing their
observations in longer and longer sentences, which they repeated after
him. For arithmetic he devised charts upon which were placed dots or
lines concretely representing each unit up to one hundred. By means of
this ‘table of units’ (Fig. 34), the pupil obtained a clear idea of
the meaning of the digits and the fundamental processes in arithmetic.
The children were also taught the elements of geometry by drawing
angles, lines, and curves, and the development of teaching history,
geography, and natural history by this method of observation was
likewise continued.
[Sidenote: Success of the school.]
[Sidenote: Principles in his _How Gertrude_.]
Despite a want of system and errors in carrying out his method,
Pestalozzi seems to have produced remarkable results from the start.
Pupils poured in; a number of progressive teachers came to assist him;
many persons of prominence visited the school and made most favorable
reports upon its methods; and during the following three years and a
half the Pestalozzian views on education were systematically developed
and applied. While at Burgdorf also, he undertook a detailed statement
of his method by the publication of his _How Gertrude Teaches Her
Children_ (1801). This work does not mention Gertrude, but consists of
fifteen letters to his friend, Gessner. Like all of Pestalozzi’s works,
it is quite lacking in both plan and proportion, and is filled with
repetitions and digressions, but the following portion of the summary
of its principles, made by a biographer of Pestalozzi, may serve to
give an idea of his educational creed:
“1. Observation is the foundation of instruction.
“2. Language must be connected with observation.
“3. The time for learning is not the time for judgment and
criticism.
“4. In each branch, instruction must begin with the simplest
elements, and proceed gradually by following the child’s
development; that is, by a series of steps which are
psychologically connected.
“5. A pause must be made at each stage of the instruction
sufficiently long for the child to get the new matter thoroughly
into his grasp and under his control.
“6. Teaching must follow the path of development, and not that of
dogmatic exposition.”
[Illustration: Fig. 33.--‘Father’ Pestalozzi at Stanz. (The orphan
school in the Ursuline convent).]
[Illustration: Fig. 34.--The ‘table of units’ of Pestalozzi, copied by
Warren Colburn in the first edition (1821) of his _Mental Arithmetic_.]
[Sidenote: Great prosperity.]
[Sidenote: Syllabaries, and tables of units, fractions, and fractions
of fractions;]
=The ‘Institute’ at Yverdon and the Culmination of the Pestalozzian
Methods.=--As a result of political changes, Pestalozzi was obliged
in 1805 to transfer his school to Yverdon. The ‘institute’ here
sprang into fame almost immediately, and increased in numbers and
prosperity for several years. Children were sent from great distances,
and teachers and visitors thronged there to learn and apply the new
principles at home. The work of the institute formed a continuation and
culmination of the observational methods started at Stanz and Burgdorf.
The simplification introduced through the ‘syllabaries’ and ‘table of
units’ was further elaborated. A ‘table of fractions’ was also devised
for teaching that subject concretely. It consisted of a series of
squares, which could be divided indefinitely and in different ways.
Some of the squares were whole, while others were divided horizontally
into two, three, or even ten equal parts. There was further developed a
‘table of fractions of fractions,’ or compound fractions, in which the
squares were divided, not only horizontally, but vertically, so that
the method of reducing two fractions to the same denominator might be
self-evident.
[Sidenote: drawing,]
[Sidenote: writing,]
[Sidenote: and constructive geometry;]
Further, in order to draw and write, the pupil was first taught the
simple elements of form. Objects, such as sticks or pencils, were
placed in different directions, and lines representing them were drawn
on the board or slate until all elementary forms, straight or curved,
were mastered. The pupils combined these elements, instead of copying
models, and were encouraged to design symmetrical and graceful figures.
This also paved the way for writing. The children wrote on their
slates, beginning with the easiest letters and gradually forming words
from them, but soon learned to write on paper with a pen. Writing was,
however, taught in connection with reading, although begun somewhat
later than that study. Constructive geometry was also learned through
drawing. The pupils were taught to distinguish, first vertical,
horizontal, oblique, and parallel lines; then they learned right,
acute, and obtuse angles, different kinds of triangles, quadrilaterals,
and other figures; and finally discovered at how many points a certain
number of straight lines may be made to cut one another, and how many
angles, triangles, and quadrilaterals can be formed. To make the matter
concrete, the figures were often cut out of cardboard or made into
models.
[Sidenote: nature study and geography;]
[Sidenote: and music.]
In nature study, geography, and history the concrete observational work
was likewise continued. Trees, flowers, and birds were viewed, drawn,
and discussed. The pupils began in geography by acquiring the points of
the compass and relative positions, and from this knowledge observed
and described some familiar place. The valley of the Buron near at hand
was observed in detail and modeled upon long tables in clay brought
from its sides. Then the pupils were shown the map for the first time
and easily grasped the meaning of its symbols. His ideas on geography,
however, were more fully worked out by the scientist, Karl Ritter,
who had already been trained in principles similar to Pestalozzi’s
in Salzmann’s school at Schnepfenthal (see p. 228). Instead of the
“arbitrary and unmethodical collection of all facts ascertained to
exist throughout the earth,” which constituted the old ‘encyclopædic’
type of geography, Ritter presented a work based on principles
indicated by the title,--_The Science of the Earth in Relation to
Nature and the History of Man_. Similarly, Pestalozzi’s method was
applied to music by his friend, Nägeli, a noted Swiss composer, who
began with the simplest tone elements and then combined and developed
these progressively into more complex and connected wholes.
[Sidenote: Analogy with the development of the tree.]
[Sidenote: Universal education.]
=Pestalozzi’s Educational Aim and Organization.=--From the beginning
of his work, Pestalozzi held that “all the beneficent powers of man
are due to neither art nor chance, but to nature,” and that education
should follow “the course laid down by nature.” So in all his works
he constantly returns to the analogy of the child’s development
with that of the natural growth of the plant or tree. He even holds
that “the whole tree is an uninterrupted chain of organic parts,
the plan of which existed in its seed and root,” and that “man is
similar to the tree.” Consequently, he defines education as “the
natural, progressive, and harmonious development of all the powers
and capacities of the human being.” This belief in the observance of
development from within is in keeping with the naturalism of Rousseau,
but that reformer viewed it chiefly from the negative side, and failed
to make his educational doctrine concrete and explicit and to apply it
to the school. Pestalozzi further modified and extended the Rousselian
doctrine by recommending its application to all children, whatever
their circumstances and abilities. Where Rousseau evidently had only
the young aristocrat in mind in the education of Emile, Pestalozzi
held that poverty could be relieved and society reformed only through
ridding each and every one of his degradation by means of mental and
moral development. Accordingly, he was the stanch advocate of universal
education.
[Sidenote: Clear ideas only through sense perceptions,]
[Sidenote: reduced to simplest terms, and expressed in words.]
=His General Method.=--Pestalozzi’s general method of giving free play
to this natural development of the powers of all and so for reforming
social conditions was to train his pupils through ‘observation.’ He
felt that clear ideas could be formed only by means of careful sense
perceptions, and he was thoroughly opposed to the mechanical memorizing
with little understanding that was current in the schools of the day.
His method in general consisted in analyzing each subject into its
simplest elements, or ‘A B C,’ and developing it by graded exercises
based as far as possible upon the study of objects rather than words.
Yet Pestalozzi felt that “experiences must be clearly expressed in
words, or otherwise there arises the same danger that characterizes
the dominant word teaching,--that of attributing entirely erroneous
ideas to words.” Accordingly, as shown in the summary of _How Gertrude
Teaches Her Children_ (see p. 282), in all instruction he would connect
language with ‘observation.’ The special applications of this general
method that were worked out by him and his followers in the most
common subjects of the curriculum have been described in detail in the
account of his work at Stanz, Burgdorf, and Yverdon, and do not require
repetition here.
[Sidenote: Unoriginal, unpractical, inconsistent, wanting in science
and organization;]
=The Permanent Influence of Pestalozzi.=--It is easy to exaggerate
the achievements of this almost sainted reformer of Switzerland.
Pestalozzi’s methods were neither very original nor well carried out.
His chief merit lay in developing and making positive the suggestions
offered by Rousseau, and in utilizing them in the work of the schools.
Even in this he failed somewhat in practicality and consistency.
Moreover, Pestalozzi was groping and never possessed full vision. He
did not grasp definite educational principles in a scientific way, but,
like Rousseau, obtained his ideas of teaching from sympathetic insight
into the minds of children. His writings for the most part record
his empirical efforts at an effective training, and are revelations
of methods of teaching in the concrete rather than the abstract. His
works are also poorly arranged and inaccurate, and there was little
organization or order in his schools.
[Sidenote: but sought to elevate society by education,]
But all these deficiencies are of small import when compared with
Pestalozzi’s influence upon society and education. In the eighteenth
century caste ruled through wealth and education, while the masses,
who supported the owners of the land in idleness and luxury, were sunk
in ignorance, poverty, and vice. The schools for the common people
were exceedingly few, the content of education was largely limited
by ecclesiastical authority, and the methods were traditional and
verbal. The teachers generally had received little training, and were
selected at random. Ordinarily the pay was wretched, no lodgings were
provided for the teacher, and he had often to add domestic service
to his duties, in order to secure food and clothing. In the midst of
such conditions appeared this most famous of modern educators, who
never ceased to work for the reformation of society. As Voltaire,
Rousseau, and others had held that the panacea for the corrupt times
was rationalism, atheism, deism, socialism, anarchy, or individualism,
Pestalozzi found his remedy in education. Like Rousseau, he keenly felt
the injustice, unnaturalness, and degradation of the existing society,
but he was not content to stop with mere destruction and negations. He
saw what education might do to purify social conditions and to elevate
the people by intellectual, moral, and industrial training, and he
longed to apply it universally and to develop methods in keeping with
nature.
[Sidenote: and was the progenitor of all modern pedagogy.]
Pestalozzi’s achievements contained the germ of modern pedagogy, as
well as of educational reform. It was he that stimulated educational
theorists, instead of accepting formal principles and traditional
processes, to work out carefully and patiently the development of the
child mind and to embody the results in practice. From him have come
the prevailing reforms in the present teaching of language lessons,
arithmetic, drawing, writing, reading, geography, elementary science,
and music. In harmony with his improved methods, Pestalozzi also
started a different type of discipline. His work made clear the new
spirit in the school by which it has approached the atmosphere of the
home. He found the proper relation of pupil and teacher to exist in
sympathy and friendship, or, as he states it, in ‘love.’ This attitude,
which appears so fully in his kindly treatment of the poor children at
Neuhof and Stanz (Fig. 33), constituted the greatest contrast to that
of the brutal schools of the times, and introduced a new conception
into education.
[Sidenote: Switzerland,]
=The Spread of Pestalozzian Schools and Methods through Europe.=--The
‘observational’ methods of Pestalozzi and institutions similar to his
were soon spread by his assistants and others throughout Europe.
Strange to say, as a result of their familiarity with his weaknesses
and the conservatism resulting from isolation, the Swiss were, as a
whole, rather slow to incorporate the Pestalozzian improvements. In
Zurich, however, Zeller of Würtemberg, who had visited Burgdorf and
had helped conduct a Pestalozzian training school, was early invited
to give three courses of lectures in aid of the establishment of a
teachers’ seminary based upon the principles of Pestalozzi. Krüsi,
after leaving the institute at Yverdon, also founded a number of
schools and carried Pestalozzianism into various parts of Switzerland.
And other disciples eventually started or reorganized schools in
various parts of Switzerland.
[Sidenote: Prussia]
But the Pestalozzian reforms in method secured their best hold
upon Germany. The innovations were most remarkable in Prussia, and
the elementary education there has come to be referred to as the
‘Prussian-Pestalozzian school system.’ By the opening of the nineteenth
century Pestalozzianism began to find its way into that state. In
1801 the appeal of Pestalozzi for a public subscription in behalf
of his project at Burgdorf was warmly supported. In 1802 Herbart’s
account of _Pestalozzi’s Idea of an A B C of Observation_ (see p.
337) attracted much attention. A representative was sent from Prussia
to Burgdorf to report upon the new system in 1803. Meanwhile the
Pestalozzian missionaries were fast converting the land. Plamann,
who had visited Burgdorf, in 1805 established a Pestalozzian school
in Berlin, and published several books applying the new methods to
language, geography, and natural history. Zeller lectured to large
audiences at Königsberg, and organized a Pestalozzian orphanage
there. A similar institution for educating orphans was opened at
Potsdam by Türck. In 1808, two of Pestalozzi’s pupils, Nicolovius and
Süvern, were made directors of public instruction in Prussia, and sent
seventeen brilliant young men to Yverdon to study for three years.
Upon their return these vigorous youthful educators zealously advanced
the cause. The greatest impulse, however, was given the movement by
the philosopher, Fichte, who was ardently supported by King Frederick
William III, and even more by the noble queen, Louise. They held that
only through these advanced educational principles could a restoration
of the territory and prestige lost to Napoleon at Jena be effected.
[Sidenote: and the rest of Germany,]
A similar spirit animated the other states of Germany, and Bavaria,
Detmold, and other states early undertook to introduce the new
principles. Everywhere in Germany the greatest enthusiasm prevailed
among teachers, state officials, and princes. Thus in place of the
reading, singing, and memorizing of texts, songs, and catechism, under
the direction of incompetent choristers and sextons, with unsanitary
buildings and brutal punishment, all Germany has come to have in each
village an institution for training real men and women. Each school
is under the guidance of a devoted, humane, and trained teacher, and
the methods in religion, reading, arithmetic, history, geography, and
elementary science are vitalized and interesting.
[Sidenote: France,]
In France the spread of Pestalozzianism was at first prevented by
the military spirit of the time and by the apathy in education,
and later, when the reaction occurred, the schools came under
ecclesiastical control and had little influence upon the people.
Nevertheless, there were evidences of interest in the new doctrines.
General Jullien came to Yverdon to study the methods, and issued two
commendatory reports, which induced some thirty French pupils to go to
Pestalozzi’s institute. Chavannes also published a treatise upon the
Pestalozzian methods in 1805. These efforts, however, had little effect
upon education, and the Pestalozzian principles did not make much
headway in France up to the revolution of 1830. After that time they
rapidly became popular, especially through Victor Cousin. This famous
professor, who was later minister of public instruction, issued in 1835
a _Report on the State of Public Instruction in Prussia_, which showed
the great merit of Pestalozzianism in the elementary schools of that
country.
[Sidenote: and England.]
In England the influence of Pestalozzi was large, but the use made of
his methods was not altogether happy. The private school opened by
Mayo after his return from Yverdon employed object teaching in several
subjects, and a popular text-book, entitled _Lessons on Objects_,
was written by his sister. This book of Elizabeth Mayo consisted of
encyclopædic lessons on the arts and sciences arranged in a definite
series, and much beyond the comprehension of children from six to eight
years old, for whom it was intended. Together with several texts of a
similar sort, it had a wide influence in formalizing object teaching
and spreading it rapidly. The Mayos were also interested in infant
schools, and when they helped organize ‘The Home and Colonial School
Society’ in 1836, they combined the Pestalozzian methods with those of
the infant school (see p. 246). Through the model and training schools
of this society, formalized Pestalozzianism was extended through
England and America.
[Sidenote: McClure and Neef.]
=Pestalozzianism in the United States.=--Pestalozzianism began to
appear in the United States as early as the first decade of the
nineteenth century. It was introduced not only from the original
centers in Switzerland, but indirectly in the form it had assumed in
Germany, France, England, and other countries. The instances of its
appearance were sporadic and seem to have been but little connected at
any time. The earliest presentation was that made from the treatise
of Chavannes in 1805 by William McClure. By this and other articles,
McClure did much to make the new principles known in the United States,
and in 1806 he induced Joseph Neef, a former assistant of Pestalozzi,
to come to America and become his “master’s apostle in the New World.”
Neef maintained an institution at Philadelphia for three years and
afterward founded and taught schools in other parts of the country. But
his imperfect acquaintance with English and with American character
and his frequent migrations prevented his personal influence from
being greatly felt, and the two excellent works that he published upon
applications of the Pestalozzian methods were given scant attention.
[Sidenote: Griscom,]
[Sidenote: Brooks,]
[Sidenote: the Alcotts,]
[Sidenote: Colburn,]
[Sidenote: Guyot,]
[Sidenote: Parker,]
[Sidenote: and Lowell Mason.]
A large variety of literature, describing the new education, and
translating the accounts of Chavannes, Jullien, Cousin, and a number of
the German educationalists, was also published in educational journals,
which were just beginning to appear in the United States (see p. 304).
Returned travelers, like Professor John Griscom (see p. 305) published
accounts of their visits and experiences at Yverdon and Burgdorf,
such lecturers as the Reverend Charles Brooks began to suggest the
new principles as a remedy for our educational deficiencies, and
educational reformers, like the Alcotts, began to show the Pestalozzian
spirit in their schools. Pestalozzi’s objective methods and the oral
instruction resulting from them were used in various subjects by a
number of educators. For example, the methods advocated in arithmetic
were introduced into America by Warren Colburn. He spread ‘mental
arithmetic’ throughout the country, and in his famous _First Lessons in
Arithmetic on the Plan of Pestalozzi_, published first in 1821, he even
printed the ‘table of units’ (Fig. 34). The Pestalozzi-Ritter method
in geography was early presented in the United States through the
institute lectures and text-books of Arnold Guyot, who had been a pupil
of Ritter and came to America from Switzerland in 1848. The promotion
of geographic method along the same lines was later more successfully
performed by Francis Wayland Parker, who had studied with Guyot, in his
training of teachers and his work on _How to Teach Geography_. Colonel
Parker has also had several successful pupils, who are to-day largely
continuing the Pestalozzian tradition. The Pestalozzian method in music
was brought into the Boston schools and elsewhere about 1836 by Lowell
Mason, who was influenced by the works of Nägeli.
[Sidenote: Mann and his _Seventh Annual Report_;]
[Sidenote: Sheldon and the Oswego ‘object lessons.’]
The most influential propaganda of the Pestalozzian doctrines in
general, however, came through the account of the German school methods
in the _Seventh Annual Report_ (1843) of Horace Mann (see p. 308),
and through the inauguration of the ‘Oswego methods’ by Dr. Edward
A. Sheldon. Mann spoke most enthusiastically of the success of the
Prussian-Pestalozzian system of education and hinted at the need of
a radical reform along the same lines in America. The report caused a
great sensation, and was bitterly combated by conservative sentiment
throughout the country, but the suggested reforms were largely
effected. Dr. Sheldon, on the other hand, caught his Pestalozzian
inspiration from Toronto, Canada, where he became acquainted with the
formalized methods of the Mayos through publications of the Home and
Colonial School Society (see p. 291). He resolved to introduce the
principles of Pestalozzi into the Oswego schools, of which he was at
that time superintendent, and in 1861 secured from the society in
London an instructor to train his teachers in these methods. There was
some criticism of the Oswego methods on the ground of formalism, but as
a whole they were pronounced a success, and in 1865 the Oswego training
school was made a state institution. This was the first normal school
in the United States where ‘object lessons’ were the chief feature, but
a large number of other normal schools upon the same basis sprang up
rapidly in many states, and the Oswego methods crept into the training
schools and the public systems of numerous cities. As a consequence,
during the third quarter of the nineteenth century, Pestalozzianism,
though somewhat formalized, had a prevailing influence upon the
teachers and courses of the elementary schools in the United States.
[Sidenote: Estate at Hofwyl to train Pestalozzian teachers.]
=Pestalozzi’s Industrial Training Continued by Fellenberg.=--Such was
the wide influence of Pestalozzi upon education. But while throughout
his work he continued to make new applications of his observational
methods, his principle of combining industrial training with
intellectual education, which he had begun so successfully at Neuhof
and Stanz, could not be continued at Burgdorf. His pupils there came
chiefly from aristocratic families and were not obliged to support
themselves by manual labor. However, Pestalozzi still hoped to save
enough of the income from the school payments of the rich to found a
small agricultural school for the poor on this plan and connect it with
the ‘institute,’ and while this institution was never started, the
opportunity for carrying out his aim came through his friend, Emanuel
von Fellenberg (1771-1844). Fellenberg belonged to a noble family
of Berne, but, like Pestalozzi, he believed that an amelioration of
the wretched moral and economic conditions in Switzerland should be
accomplished by education. To secure the means for an experiment in
this direction, he persuaded his father to purchase for him an estate
of six hundred acres at Hofwyl, just nine miles from Burgdorf. Here
Pestalozzi urged him to undertake his favorite idea of industrial
education, and in 1806, with the aid of Zeller (see p. 289), who had
been sent him by Pestalozzi, he opened a school to train teachers in
the Pestalozzian method.
[Sidenote: Combination of observational work and industrial training in
the ‘agricultural institute;’]
=The Agricultural School and Other Institutions at Hofwyl.=--Fellenberg
especially desired, however, to combine Pestalozzi’s observational work
and his older principle of industrial training in an ‘agricultural
institute’ for poor boys. This plan was not fully realized until 1808,
when he secured the enthusiastic Jacob Wehrli as an assistant. The
work was so arranged that each old pupil, as fast as he was trained,
took charge of a newer one as an apprentice, and the school from the
first became a sort of family. The chief feature of the institute
was agricultural occupations, including drainage and irrigation,
but, from the requirements of farm life, it was natural to train also
cartmakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, locksmiths, shoemakers, tailors,
mechanics, and workers in wood, iron, and leather. Workshops for these
industries were established upon the estate, and the pupils in the
agricultural institute were enabled to select a training in a wide
range of employments, without neglecting book instruction (Fig. 35).
By this means, too, they could support themselves by their labor while
being educated. Through the institute also, a considerable number
of the pupils were trained to be directors of similar institutions,
or to become rural school-teachers. Fellenberg thought it important
that all who were to teach in the common schools should have a
thorough acquaintance with the practical labor of a farm, the means of
self-support, and the life and habits of the majority of their pupils.
[Sidenote: the ‘literary institute’ for the wealthy;]
[Sidenote: school for poor girls, and ‘real school’ for the middle
classes.]
But the work of Fellenberg did not stop there. From the beginning he
had felt that the wealthy should understand and be more in sympathy
with the laboring classes, and learn how to direct their work more
intelligently. Hence he began very early an agricultural course for
landowners, and many young men of the wealthy classes came to show a
striking interest in his deep-soil ploughing, draining, irrigation, and
other means of educating the poor. But these wealthier youths remained
at the institute so short a time that he could not extend his ideals
very widely. To retain them longer at Hofwyl, in 1809 he opened a
‘literary institute,’ which, besides the usual academic studies, used
Pestalozzi’s object lessons and strove to develop physical activities.
Moreover, the pupils in the literary institute had to cultivate
gardens, work on the farm, engage in carpentering, turning, and other
mechanical occupations, and in many ways come into touch and mutual
understanding with the poorer boys in the agricultural institute. The
wealthy learned to dignify labor, and the poor, instead of envying
those in the higher stations of life, became friendly and desirous of
coöperating with them. Eventually there arose an independent community
of youth, managing its own affairs outside of school, arranging its
own occupations, games, and tours, choosing its own officers, and
making its own laws. Within this little world was provided a training
for society at large, with its various classes, associations, and
corporations, which Fellenberg seems to have regarded as divinely
ordained. Likewise, in 1823, a school for poor girls was opened by
his wife, and four years later he started a ‘real,’ or practical,
school for the middle classes, which was intermediate between the two
‘institutes.’
[Sidenote: Switzerland,]
[Sidenote: Germany,]
[Sidenote: France, and England.]
=Industrial Training in the Schools of Europe.=--The educational
institutions of Fellenberg (Fig. 36) were well managed and proved
very successful, and the idea of education through industrial
training spread rapidly. While, after the death of Fellenberg in
1844, the schools at Hofwyl gradually declined, various types of
industrial education everywhere came to supplement academic courses,
and extend the work of the school to a larger number of pupils.
Thus the tendency of modern civilization to care for the education
of the poor, the defective, and the delinquent through industrial
training has sprung from the philanthropic spirit of Pestalozzi and
his practical collaborator, Fellenberg, and has become apparent in
all advanced countries. Industrial institutions rapidly increased
in Switzerland, beginning in 1816 with the school in the neighboring
district of Meykirch. In 1832 a cantonal teachers’ association was
formed at Berne, with Fellenberg as president and Wehrli as vice
president, and every canton soon had its ‘farm school.’ Industrial
training was also introduced into most of the Swiss normal schools.
In Germany the industrial work suggested by Pestalozzi and Fellenberg
came into successful operation in many of the orphanages and most
of the reform schools. Later, industrial education was taken up by
the _Fortbildungsschulen_ (‘continuation schools’) of the regular
system (see p. 420). At the reform and continuation schools of France
industrial training has long formed the distinctive element in the
course. Educators and statesmen of England likewise early commended the
work of Fellenberg, and industrial training shortly found a foot-hold
in various technical and reform schools of that country.
[Sidenote: ‘Manual labor’ institutions.]
=Industrial Institutions in the United States.=--The industrial work
of the Pestalozzi-Fellenberg system also began to appear in the United
States about the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century.
After that, for twenty years or so, there sprang up a large number
of institutions of secondary or higher grade with ‘manual labor’
features in addition to the literary work. The primary object of
the industrial work in these institutions was to enable students to
earn their way through school or college and at the same time secure
physical exercise. It was the first serious academic recognition of
the need of a ‘sound mind in a sound body,’ and did much to overcome
the prevailing tendency of students toward tuberculosis and to furnish
a sane substitute for the escapades and pranks in which college
life abounded. The first of these manual labor institutions were
established in the New England and Middle states between 1820 and
1830, but within a dozen years the manual labor system was adopted in
theological schools, colleges, and academies from Maine to Tennessee.
The success of this feature at Andover Theological Seminary, where it
was begun in 1826 for ‘invigorating and preserving health, without
any reference to pecuniary profit,’ was especially influential in
causing it to be extended. The ‘Society for Promoting Manual Labor
in Literary Institutions,’ founded in 1831, appointed a general
agent to visit the chief colleges in the Middle West and South, call
attention to the value of manual labor, and issue a report upon the
subject. Little attention, however, was given to the pedagogical
principles underlying this work. As material conditions improved and
formal social life developed, the impracticability of the scheme was
realized, and the industrial side of these institutions was given up.
The physical exercise phase was then replaced by college athletics. By
1840-1850 most of the schools and colleges that began as ‘manual labor
institutes’ had become purely literary.
FELLENBERG’S INSTITUTIONS AT HOFWYL
[Illustration: Fig. 35.--Court of the Agricultural Institute.]
[Illustration: Fig. 36.--General view of all the schools and workshops.
(Reproduced by permission from Monroe’s _Cyclopedia of Education_.)]
[Sidenote: Industrial education for racial problems, prison reform,]
[Sidenote: defectives and delinquents,]
[Sidenote: and efficiency of the public system.]
A further movement in industrial education has been found in the
establishment of such schools as Carlisle, Hampton, and Tuskegee, which
adopted this training as a solution for peculiar racial problems. But
the original idea of Pestalozzi, to secure redemption through manual
labor, has been embodied in American institutions since 1873, when Miss
Mary Carpenter, the English prison reformer, visited the United States.
Contract labor and factory work in the reformatories then began to be
replaced by farming, gardening, and kindred domestic industries. At the
present time, moreover, the schools for delinquents and defectives in
the New England, Middle Atlantic, Middle West, and most of the Southern
states, have the Fellenberg training, though without much grasp of the
educational principles involved. Finally, there has also been a growing
tendency in the twentieth century to employ industrial training or
trade education for the sake of holding pupils longer in school and
increasing the efficiency of the public system. In so far as it has
tended to replace the more general values of manual training, once so
popular, with skill in some particular industrial process, this modern
movement represents a return from the occupational work started by
Froebel to the philanthropic practice of Fellenberg and Pestalozzi.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
Graves, _In Modern Times_ (Macmillan, 1913), chap. V; and _Great
Educators_ (Macmillan, 1912), chap. IX; Monroe, _Textbook_ (Macmillan,
1905), pp. 597-622; Parker, _Modern Elementary Education_ (Ginn, 1912),
chaps. XIII-XVI. The _Leonard and Gertrude_ has been well arranged
for English readers in the edition of Eva Channing (Heath, 1896) and
_How Gertrude Teaches Her Children_ has been translated by Lucy E.
Holland and Frances C. Turner (Bardeen, 1898). The standard English
treatises on Pestalozzi are Guimps, R. de, _Pestalozzi, His Aim and
Work_ (Appleton, 1890); Holman, H., _Pestalozzi_ (Longmans, 1908);
Krüsi, H., _Pestalozzi, His Life, Work, and Influence_ (American Book
Co., 1875); Pinloche, A., _Pestalozzi and the Foundation of the Modern
Elementary School_ (Scribner, 1901), and, more recently, Green, J. A.,
_Life and Work of Pestalozzi_ (Clive, London, 1913) and _Pestalozzi’s
Educational Writings_ (Longmans, Green, 1912). Monroe, W. S., has
furnished an interesting _History of the Pestalozzian Movement in the
United States_ (Bardeen, 1907). _The Institutions of De Fellenberg_
were fully described by King, W. (London, 1842); and by Barnard, H.,
in his _American Journal of Education_, vol. III, pp. 591-596; XIII,
323-331; and XXVI, 359-368.
CHAPTER XXIII
DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES
OUTLINE
During the second quarter of the nineteenth century a third
period in the educational history of America, marked by further
democratization and a great expansion of public education, appeared.
It began with an awakening generally known as ‘the revival of
common schools,’ which was most noticeable in New England. Here,
owing to the attacks made upon him by reactionaries, Horace Mann
was the most conspicuous reformer; while Henry Barnard, through his
_American Journal of Education_, enabled educators to look beyond
the educational experience of America. But the influence of this
awakening was also felt in every other section of the United States.
It was followed by a steady growth in universal education, state
support and control, local supervision, and the organization of
normal schools in New England and the Middle states.
In the Northwest, common school advocates overcame the opposition
of settlers from states not committed to public education, and
in the further expansion of the United States progress in common
school sentiment has kept pace with the settlement of the country.
The South made considerable progress during the early years of
the awakening, and while the Civil War crushed its educational
facilities, the struggle for public education has since been won.
[Sidenote: Development of democratic ideals and extension of state
systems of schools.]
=The Third Period in American Education.=--Interest in the improved
methods of Pestalozzi and other reformers that was manifesting itself
everywhere in the United States during the second quarter of the
nineteenth century seems to have been but one phase of a much larger
movement. It was about this time that a third period in American
education, which was marked by the development of democratic ideals and
the extension of state systems of public schools, may be said to have
begun. During the period of ‘transition,’ we found (chap. XXI), half
a dozen of the states had started an organization of common schools,
and in a dozen others permanent school funds had been established, an
influential minority of leading citizens were constantly advocating
universal education, and public interest in the matter was evidently
increasing. But the consummation of a regular system was still much
hindered by sectarian jealousies, by the conception of public schools
as institutions for paupers and the consequent custom of allowing
private schools to share in public funds, by the unwillingness of the
wealthy to be taxed locally for the benefit of other people’s children,
and, in New England, by the division of the system into autonomous
districts and the interference of petty politics. Hence, while much
progress had been made since the early days of ‘transplantation’
of European ideals and institutions, there was still much need of
the expansion and further democratization that now began to appear.
Of the rapid development that took place during this final period
of Americanization, much was accomplished before the middle of the
nineteenth century, but educational progress continued through the
final decade.
[Sidenote: Storm center of ‘revival’ in Massachusetts and Connecticut.]
[Sidenote: Efforts to establish a training institution.]
=Early Leaders in the Common School Revival.=--The educational
awakening with which the beginning of this third period seems to be
marked, has been generally known as ‘the common school revival.’ It
first became evident during the latter part of the decade between 1830
and 1840, and had its storm center in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
While it greatly furthered the cause of public education everywhere,
because of the decadence into which New England had fallen, the demand
for an educational awakening was strongest there. In this revival
the most conspicuous figure was probably Horace Mann, but there were
several leaders in the field before him, many were contemporaneous, and
the work was expanded and deepened by others of distinction long after
he withdrew from the scene. For a score of years before Mann appeared,
definite preparation for the movement had been in progress, and the
labors of the individuals and associations engaged in these endeavors
should be briefly noted. Many of the reformers seem to have recommended
an improvement in methods through the creation of an institution for
training teachers, thus anticipating one of the greatest achievements
of Mann. Actual attempts at a private normal school were even made
by the Reverend Samuel R. Hall at Concord, Vermont (1823), Andover,
Massachusetts (1830), and Plymouth, New Hampshire (1837).
[Sidenote: Articles in educational journals.]
[Sidenote: Reports on European education.]
A number of educational journals, moreover, published articles
on schoolbooks, the methods of Lancaster, Pestalozzi, Neef, and
Fellenberg, the infant and Sunday schools, physical education,
European school systems, and a variety of other timely topics and
reforms. Among these progressive publications were the _American
Journal of Education_, edited by William Russell from 1826-1830,
and then continued from 1831 to 1839, as the _American Annals of
Education_ under the editorship of William C. Woodbridge, and the
_Quarterly Register_, published 1828-1843 by the ‘American Educational
Society.’ The latest European ideas were also reported from first-hand
observation by a number who had gone abroad to investigate. The most
influential of these reports was _A Year in Europe_, written in 1819 by
Professor John Griscom (see p. 292), who was a lecturer before several
New York associations, including the Public School Society. Almost as
widely read were the reports of William C. Woodbridge in 1824, and of
Professor Calvin E. Stowe of Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, in
1836.
[Sidenote: Advocated normal schools,]
[Sidenote: and secured town school committees,]
[Sidenote: support of high schools,]
[Sidenote: and the State Board of Education.]
=Work of James G. Carter.=--All these movements indicate the
educational ferment that was going on. But the predecessor of Mann,
who accomplished most for the common schools, and influenced that
reformer most directly, was James G. Carter (1795-1849). Carter (Fig.
37) was a practical teacher and wrote continually on the need of a
training institution to improve instruction in the public schools.
These appeals proved very successful, and earned him the title of
‘father of the normal schools.’ After being elected to the legislature,
he accomplished much by his zeal and skill in parliamentary tactics.
In 1826 he secured an act by which each town as a whole was required
to choose a regular committee, instead of the ministers and selectmen,
to supervise the schools, choose text-books, and examine, certify,
and employ the teachers. But the effect of this enactment was largely
lost the following year by allowing the districts, as a compromise,
to choose a committeeman, who should appoint the teachers. In 1826 he
placed secondary education, then largely conducted by academies, more
under public control through a law requiring each town of five hundred
families to support a free English high school (Fig. 41), and every one
of four thousand inhabitants to maintain a classical high school. Next,
in 1834, Carter succeeded in getting a state school fund established
from the proceeds of the sale of lands in the province of Maine and the
state’s claims against the federal government for military services.
But his most fruitful victory was won in 1837, when he procured the
passage of the bill for a State Board of Education, after it had been
once defeated, by inducing the house to discuss it in ‘committee of the
whole.’
[Sidenote: Peculiarly fitted by heredity and training.]
=Horace Mann as Secretary of the Massachusetts Board.=--By reason
of his merits as an educator, his persistent efforts in behalf of
educational reform, and his advocacy of the bill, it was assumed by
most people that Carter would be chosen secretary of the new board. To
their surprise, a lawyer named Horace Mann (1796-1859), at that time
president of the senate, was selected for the post, but the choice is
now known to have been most fortunate. By both heredity and training
Mann (Fig. 38) was suffused with an interest in humanity and all
phases of philanthropy and education. He possessed a happy combination
of lofty ideals, intelligence, courage, enthusiasm, and legislative
experience, which equipped him admirably for leadership in educational
reform. The law proposed for the new Board of Education numerous
duties in the way of collecting and spreading information concerning
the common schools and of making suggestions for the improvement and
extension of public education, but it provided no real powers, and the
permanence and influence of the board depended almost wholly upon the
intelligence and character of the new Secretary.
[Sidenote: Effected his reforms by educational campaigns,]
[Sidenote: _Annual Reports_,]
[Sidenote: _School Journal_,]
[Sidenote: school libraries,]
[Sidenote: and state normal schools.]
During his twelve years in the office, Mann subserved the interests of
the state most faithfully. To awaken the people, he made an educational
campaign through every portion of the state each year, but an even more
effective means of disseminating his reforms was found in his series
of _Annual Reports_. These documents were by law to give information
concerning existing conditions and the progress made in the efficiency
of public education each year, and they deal with practically every
educational topic of importance at the time. Sometimes they seem
commonplace, but it must be remembered that they were not so then, and
that the work of Mann did much to render them familiar. They vitally
affected school conditions everywhere in New England, and were read
with great interest in all parts of the United States, and even in
Europe. He also published semi-monthly the _Massachusetts Common School
Journal_, to spread information concerning school improvement, school
law, and the proceedings of the State Board. But it consisted of only
sixteen pages, and was not as valuable as some of the educational
journals that had preceded it (see pp. 304 f.). Another medium in the
improvement of educational facilities was Mann’s general establishment
of school libraries by state subsidy throughout Massachusetts. But
probably the most permanent means of propagating his reforms came
through securing the foundation of the first public normal schools in
this country. Massachusetts was in 1838 induced to establish three
schools, so located that all parts of the state might be equally
served. The course in each school consisted in a review of the common
branches from the teaching point of view, work in educational theory,
and training in a practice school under supervision, and, while not
largely attended, these institutions were a great success from the
start.
[Sidenote: Opposed by Boston schoolmasters,]
[Sidenote: the ultra-orthodox, and other reactionaries.]
The arduous and unremitting labors of Mann in instituting and promoting
the various means of school reform made the greatest inroad upon his
strength and financial resources. Moreover, he was for years violently
assailed by reactionaries of all types. His controversy with the Boston
schoolmasters was especially sharp. Mann’s _Seventh Annual Report_
(1843) gave an account of his visit to foreign schools, especially
those of Germany, and praised with great warmth the ‘Pestalozzian’ (see
p. 289) instruction without text-books, the enthusiastic teachers,
the absence of artificial rivalry, and the mild discipline in the
Prussian system. The report did not stigmatize the conservatism of the
Boston schools or bring them into comparison with those of Berlin,
but the cap fitted. The pedagogues were disquieted, and proceeded to
answer savagely. But when the smoke of battle had cleared away, it was
seen that the leaders of the old order had been completely routed.
A more insidious attack was that led by the ultra-orthodox. The old
schools of the Puritans, with their dogmatic religious teaching, had
been steadily fading for more than a century before the new board had
been inaugurated, but many narrow people were inclined to charge this
disappearance to the reformer, whose liberal attitude in religion was
well known. The assaults, however, were vigorously and successfully
repelled by the Secretary. And while these controversies wore Mann out
and probably led ultimately to his resignation, they had much to do
with making his reputation as a great educator. They have even caused
us at times to forget that he was but a striking figure in a general
movement. Men like Carter were in the field long before him, and his
co-worker, Barnard, served the cause of education for nearly half a
century after Mann withdrew.
[Sidenote: Universal and free education,]
[Sidenote: with character as chief aim;]
[Sidenote: material equipment,]
[Sidenote: scientific methods,]
[Sidenote: trained teachers,]
[Sidenote: and practical studies.]
=The Educational Suggestions and Achievements of Mann.=--In surveying
his educational positions, we find Mann’s foremost proposition was
that education should be universal and free. Girls should be trained
as well as boys, and the poor should have the same opportunities as
the rich. Public schools should furnish education of such a quality
that the wealthy would not regard private institutions as superior.
This universal education, however, should have as its chief aim moral
character and social efficiency, and not mere erudition, culture, and
accomplishments. And morality, he felt, would not be accomplished
by inculcating sectarian doctrines. Mann was, however, mainly a
practical, rather than a theoretical reformer, and to the material
side of education he gave serious attention. He declared that school
buildings should be well constructed and sanitary. This matter seemed
to him so important that he wrote a special report upon the subject
during his first year in office. He carefully discussed the proper
plans for rooms, ventilation, lighting, seating, and other schoolhouse
features, and insisted that the inadequate and squalid conditions
which existed should be improved. As to methods, he maintained that
instruction should be based upon scientific principles, and not upon
authority and tradition. He advocated the word method of reading, in
the place of the uneconomical, artificial, and ineffective method of
the alphabet, and the Pestalozzian object methods and oral instruction
were introduced by him. He held that the work should be guided by
able teachers, who had been trained in a normal school, and should be
imparted in a spirit of mildness and kindness through an understanding
of child nature. In the matter of the studies to be pursued, Mann was
inclined to be exceedingly practical. In discussing educational values,
he failed to see any reason “why algebra, a branch which not one man
in a thousand ever has occasion to use in the business of life, should
be studied by more than twenty-three hundred pupils, and bookkeeping,
which every man, even the day laborer, should understand, should be
attended to by only a little more than half that number.” Similarly,
he holds that of all subjects, save the rudiments, physiology should
receive the most attention.
[Sidenote: Doubled appropriations for public education; increased
salaries, length of the school year, and the number of high schools;]
[Sidenote: and effected other reforms.]
In order that these various reforms might be realized, Mann insisted
frequently that the state should spare no labor or expense. But in a
republic he felt that “education can never be attained without the
consent of the whole people.” It was a general elevation of ideals,
effort, and expenditure that he sought, and for which he began his
crusade. And the general progress that resulted in this period covers
a wide range. During his secretaryship the appropriations made for
public education in Massachusetts were more than doubled, and the
proportion of expenditure for private schools in the state was, in
consequence, reduced from seventy-five to thirty-six per cent of the
total cost of education. The salaries of masters in the public schools
were raised sixty-two per cent, and, although the number of women
teachers had grown fifty-four per cent, the average of their salaries
also increased fifty-one per cent. The school attendance enormously
expanded, and a full month was added to the average school year. When
Mann’s administration began, but fourteen out of forty-three towns had
complied with the high school law of 1826, but, by the middle of the
century, fifty new high schools had been established. The efficiency
of supervision was largely increased by making the compensation of the
town visiting committees, established through Carter, compulsory by
law. The first state normal schools at last appeared, and teachers’
institutes, county associations, and public school libraries were given
general popularity. Quite as marked was the improvement effected in the
range and serviceability of the school studies, in text-books, methods
of teaching, and discipline. Thus under the leadership of Horace Mann a
practically unorganized set of schools, with diverse aims and methods,
was welded into a well-ordered system with high ideals, and the people
of Massachusetts renewed their faith in the common schools.
[Sidenote: A systematic exposition of European education needed,]
[Sidenote: and Barnard specially qualified to make it.]
=Henry Barnard’s Part in the Educational Awakening.=--But there
was another important contribution to the awakening made by a New
Englander, which was of a rather different nature from that connected
with the influence of Horace Mann. Before that reconstruction of the
common schools, which was responsible for the best elements in our
national civilization, could be at all complete, it was necessary
that America should have a better comprehension of what was being
done in education elsewhere. The United States had for two centuries
been undergoing a gradual transition from the institutional types
transplanted from England and the Continent in colonial days, and was
coming more and more to blossom out into democracy and the people’s
schools, but for a long time there was little knowledge of what was
being done by the other countries that had by this time adopted
similar ideals. Conceptions of universal and democratic education
and of improved organization and methods had been slowly developing
in Prussia and other German states, and had extended to France and
elsewhere. A literature connected with the advanced theories of such
reformers as Rousseau, the philanthropists, Pestalozzi, and Fellenberg
had likewise grown up in Europe. It was very important that America,
now keenly alive to the need of educational reorganization, should
become acquainted with all this, that the New World might secure the
advantages of comparison, corroboration, and expansion of view from
the work of older civilized peoples. Some reports on foreign education
and translations of European treatises had already appeared (pp. 304
f.), but the time was now ripe for a more extensive and systematic
exposition of European education and its application to popular
education in America, and for a really capable scholar to bring these
world views within the grasp of all classes of teachers and educational
authorities. This literary representative of the awakening appeared at
length in Henry Barnard (1811-1900), who is fully worthy of a place in
the educational pantheon of America. Barnard (Fig. 39) made a brilliant
record at Yale for general scholarship, and a position as assistant
librarian during his last two years in college did much to afford him a
wide grasp of bibliography. After graduation, he obtained a valuable
experience in teaching, and, by travelling extensively in America and
Europe, formed a broad acquaintance with educational institutions,
libraries, galleries, and social conditions in all the leading states
and nations.
[Illustration: Fig. 37--James G. Carter (1795-1849).]
[Illustration: Fig. 38.--Horace Mann (1796-1859).]
[Illustration: Fig. 39.--Henry Barnard (1811-1900).]
[Illustration: Fig. 40.--Francis W Parker (1831-1902).]
GREAT AMERICAN EDUCATORS
[Sidenote: Untoward educational conditions in Connecticut,]
[Sidenote: and Barnard’s attempt to reform;]
[Sidenote: _School Journal_]
[Sidenote: and publication of educational material.]
=Barnard as Secretary of the Connecticut State Board.=--Two years after
Barnard’s return to Connecticut, he began his part in the educational
awakening as Secretary of the new State Board of Commissioners of
Common Schools, and undertook to do a work similar to that of Mann
in Massachusetts. Throughout the eighteenth century Connecticut
schools had been among the most efficient in the country, but since
the income from the Western Reserve lands had begun in 1798, and
especially since this had been increased by the United States deposit
fund in 1836, public education had steadily declined. A state tax was
still maintained, but all local effort was paralyzed through lack
of exercise. Another factor in producing this decline was connected
with the transferal of the management of the common schools from the
town to the ‘school society,’ which was a species of district, almost
identical with the parish of each Congregational church. The results
of this ruinous policy had been revealed in an investigation made by
the legislature, which showed that not one-half of the children of
school age were attending the common schools, and that the teachers
were poorly trained and supervision was neglected. Barnard at once
began to urge many reforms, and in his reports and the _Connecticut
Common School Journal_ made suggestions for a complete plan of public
education. He also began the publication of his rich collection of
material bearing upon popular training at home and abroad. But he was
more a scholar and literary man than an educational statesman like
Mann. He succeeded in getting the legislature to pass several reforms
and a general revision and codification of the school laws, and in
arousing several towns to amend their educational plans, although the
crucial difficulty of the ‘school societies’ could not be touched, and
within four years the conservatives succeeded in legislating him out of
office and in undoing all his reforms.
[Sidenote: Radical reforms accomplished.]
=Commissioner of Common Schools in Rhode Island.=--This gave Barnard
an opportunity to pursue his favorite investigations, and for about a
year and a half he was engaged in collecting material for a history of
education in the United States. Then he was persuaded by the governor
of Rhode Island to become the first Commissioner of Common Schools
for that state. While he found in Rhode Island a better educational
sentiment and less opposition than in Connecticut, the actual condition
of the decentralized and individualistic schools was far worse (see
p. 269). But, through his assemblies of teachers and parents and his
educational treatises, he soon began to convince the people of the
unwisdom of district organization, untrained teachers, short terms,
irregular attendance, poor buildings and ventilation, and meager
equipment. He also continued to publish his collection of educational
material through the foundation of the _Rhode Island School Journal_.
As a result of his efforts, when failing health compelled him to resign
in 1849, the state no longer regarded wilfulness and personal opinion
as praiseworthy independence, and he could honestly claim that Rhode
Island had at the time one of the best school systems in the United
States.
[Sidenote: When recalled, carried out and extended his reforms.]
=State Superintendent of Schools in Connecticut.=--But the _clientèle_
that Barnard had built up in Connecticut continued his reforms and
constructive work after his departure, and improved upon them. In
1851, they even succeeded in having him recalled virtually to his old
duties. He was designated as State Superintendent of Common Schools,
as well as Principal of the State Normal School, which had been
established through the efforts of his adherents. The state had now
learned its error in mingling politics with education, and Barnard was
able to carry out his reforms unmolested. Through the normal school
he sent out a great body of trained teachers. He revised the school
code, checked the power of the ‘school societies,’ consolidated and
simplified the organization and administration of public education,
made a more equitable distribution of the school fund, and encouraged
local taxation. But his most distinctive work, as might be expected,
was on the literary side. He prepared a valuable series of documents
upon foreign education, normal schools, methods of teaching, school
architecture, and other topics, and a long report upon _The History of
Legislation in Connecticut Respecting Common Schools up to 1838_.
[Sidenote: Published at his own expense,]
[Sidenote: in thirty-one large volumes and fifty-two special treatises,]
[Sidenote: accounts of educational history and systems, and other
themes.]
=_Barnard’s American Journal of Education._=--It was, too, during
the last days of his Connecticut superintendency that Henry Barnard
suggested the establishment of a national journal of education.
He first broached the matter to the ‘American Association for the
Advancement of Education’ at its meeting in Washington, December,
1854. But the association soon found itself unable to pursue this
enterprise for lack of financial support, and in May of the next year
Barnard began the publication of the _American Journal of Education_
at his own expense. It was at first planned to run the journal for
five years only, but, although the work was somewhat interrupted upon
occasions by other duties, it continued for more than a generation,
until at length thirty-one large octavo volumes, averaging about eight
hundred pages each, had been issued. In addition, fifty-two special
treatises reprinted from articles in the journal brought the material
together in a connected way. Besides giving nearly all his time to
editing this _magnum opus_, Barnard sank his entire fortune of $50,000
in its publication. This great treasury of material includes every
phase of the history of education from the earliest times down into
the latter half of the nineteenth century. It furnishes accounts of
all contemporaneous systems in Europe and America, descriptions of
institutions for the professional training of teachers, and essays upon
courses of study for colleges and technical schools, the education of
defectives and delinquents, physical education, school architecture,
great educators, and a large variety of other themes. While it is
always most reliable in its treatises upon foreign education, of even
greater value is its practical grasp of educational life in America
from the beginning. It contains the greatest collection of interesting
monographs upon the development of ideals and organization in the
various states, and gives the most complete description in literature
of the educational life of a nation.
[Sidenote: While in office, suspended his _Journal_ and embodied
investigations in his reports.]
=First United States Commissioner of Education.=--In 1867 Barnard was
appointed the first United States Commissioner of Education. This
office he had been constantly trying to have established ever since
he had found, as Secretary of the Connecticut Board, how absolutely
lacking the federal government was in school statistics and documents.
He hoped that, through the agency of the government, facilities might
be secured to collect and publish trustworthy educational statistics,
and to issue a library of independent treatises. The bureau was not
created for many years, and then through the immediate initiative
of another, but when Barnard was called to the commissionership, he
organized the office practically upon the lines he had previously
suggested. He suspended his _Journal_ and used the product of his
investigations in the annual reports of the office. He started that
searching inquiry into the administration, management, and instruction
of institutions of every grade, and into all educational societies,
school funds, legislation, architecture, documents, and benefactions
that has since been maintained by the Bureau of Education. However,
within three years a change in politics brought a new incumbent into
the commissionership, and Barnard gave his literary efforts once more
to his beloved _Journal_.
[Sidenote: This life work marked him as leading representative of the
awakening.]
=Value of Barnard’s Educational Collections.=--Hence, Barnard’s real
life work may be considered the collection of a great educational
compendium. By temperament, native ability, and habit, he proved
himself well fitted to be the leading representative of the literary
side of the awakening. Through his work American education was, in its
period of greatest development, granted the opportunity of looking
beyond the partial and local results of the first half century of
national life. It was enabled to modify and adapt to its own uses the
educational theories, practices, and organizations of the leading
civilized peoples, and to bring together for a comparative view
sections and states that were widely separated. _Barnard’s American
Journal of Education_ was not intended to be a universal encyclopædia
of education, but often includes a condensation of important works or
a presentation of highly scientific methods and profound philosophic
systems in popular form. It was not possible, either, to classify
and work out a connected and complete historical account, when there
were no reliable records or collections of materials in existence. It
was necessary that some one should first gather the information from
newspapers, pamphlets, memorials, monographs, and plans, and publish it
as it was found. In this way he accomplished a more valuable work than
if he had published a systematic history of education in the United
States.
[Sidenote: The ‘revival’ was general, but its results were most
striking in New England.]
=Educational Development in New England since the Revival.=--This great
storehouse of information published by Barnard and the virile efforts
of Mann and other practical leaders were but prominent evidences of
the progress that was at the time sweeping over the entire country.
The educational awakening of 1835-1860 was general and proved one of
the most fruitful in history. Its influence was felt in every state,
and it led to the third period of American education, which has been
characterized by the expansion of public schools and state educational
systems. During this period new ideals of democracy have come to be
felt in American education, and a rapid advance has taken place in
the evolution of that unique product, the American public school. In
describing this development, we may turn first to New England.
[Sidenote: Development since then in Massachusetts in universal
education and improved schooling.]
[Sidenote: Death of district system.]
In Massachusetts Horace Mann has been followed in the central
administration by a succession of seven scholarly and experienced
educators, who believed as firmly as he that all stages of education
below the college should be open at public expense without let or
hindrance to the richest and poorest child alike. Since the revival the
state has seen a steady growth of sentiment for universal education
and improved schooling, and never again has such an upheaval of the
educational strata been necessary. The income of the state school fund
and additional appropriations have been steadily increased, their
apportionment among the towns has been rendered more equitable from
time to time, and an effort has constantly been made to distribute them
in such a way as to encourage local effort and coöperation. The school
term has been lengthened to ten months and the average attendance
of pupils to seven years. The improvements in school buildings,
sanitation, and equipment have steadily advanced. The district system
died hard, and not until 1882 was it altogether forced out of existence.
[Sidenote: Growth of high schools, superintendents,]
[Sidenote: and teacher training.]
Most of the academies, too, which proved such a hindrance to the
development of public secondary education, gradually died or were
merged in the public system as high schools. By means of state aid, it
has been possible since 1903 for the smallest towns to afford a high
school training for their children at public expense. Supervision has
also become universal during the past quarter century. Springfield
first introduced a superintendent of schools in 1841, Gloucester in
1850, Boston in 1851, and the other cities much later, but since 1888,
through increasing state aid and the combination of smaller towns into
a district superintendency, expert supervision has become possible
everywhere, and during the last decade it has been compulsory. The
normal schools, which have now increased to ten, have brought about
a striking improvement in teaching. It is practically impossible at
present for an untrained teacher to secure a position in the elementary
schools of Massachusetts, and, through a system of examinations and
investigations, teachers of exceptional ability have, since 1896, been
granted an extra weekly allowance by the state. Since the middle of
the century, the state board has been permitted to appoint a number of
agents, to assist in inspecting and improving the schools, especially
in the smaller towns and rural districts.
[Sidenote: Similar development in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and other
New England states.]
The course of development since the awakening has been very similar
in the other New England states. The successors of Barnard in the
central administration both in Rhode Island and Connecticut have been
skilled and earnest educators, and, while their reports lacked his
literary touch, they were of rather more practical character. Until
1856, Connecticut made no attempt to return from the parish to the town
organization. Even then, as well as later, legislation on the subject
was ‘permissive,’ and not until the twentieth century was the ‘school
society,’ or district system, given up in half of the towns. In Rhode
Island, even after Barnard’s reforms, almost one-third of the districts
did not own their school buildings, owing to the survival of the method
in use when the schools were private, but this condition has gradually
been remedied. Likewise, the number of towns levying sufficient local
taxes to secure a share in the state apportionment rapidly grew,
and the state appropriation itself doubled and quadrupled within a
generation. In Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, owing to insufficient
wealth, infertility of soil, and sparseness of population, effective
public education has been reached only by slow and cautious steps.
But even these states have gradually centralized their educational
administration through the abolition of the district system and
the creation at various times of a state superintendent, a state
commissioner, or a state board and secretary. This reorganization has
been followed by increased state school funds and appropriations, more
systematic statistics and reports from the schools, and great advances
in universalizing and improving all stages of public education.
[Sidenote: Increased enthusiasm for public education in Middle states.]
=Influence of the Awakening upon the Middle States.=--Although this
awakened sentiment for education and progress in the common school
has been most patent and spectacular in New England, it has not
been peculiar to that part of the country. Nearly all of the other
states seem to have felt the influence of the awakening. In close
conjunction with the ‘revival’ in New England, the movement appeared
in New York, especially the western part, and was more or less
evident in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. But because of its
cosmopolitanism and the need of fusing so many different political,
religious, and industrial traditions, the older parts of New York,
where the school system had until the awakening been rather in advance
of other states, did not progress as rapidly in the development of
public education as Massachusetts and Connecticut. It had, however, by
the time of the Civil War, succeeded in working over its heterogeneous
people into a unified civilization and in causing their children to be
educated together for a common citizenship.
[Sidenote: New York’s advances in normal training, supervision, and
school funds.]
[Sidenote: Board of education in New York City.]
The most distinct advances during this period of final organization
have been in the establishment of state normal schools, instead of
subsidizing academies to train teachers, in the administration and
supervision of the system, and in the methods of state support of
education. The first state normal school was opened at Albany in 1844,
and this pioneer institution has eventually been followed by ten
others. In 1854 the state superintendency had once more been separated
from the secretaryship of state, with which it had been combined for
thirty-five years (p. 259). In 1856 local supervision was established
through the appointment of school commissioners for the cities and
villages. In the same year, a three-quarters of a mill tax was placed
upon the property valuation of the state, and during the next dozen
years many improvements were made in the disbursing and accounting of
public funds. At length, in 1867, the long fight that had been made
for entirely free education was successful. Until then nearly fifty
thousand children had been deprived of all education, because their
parents were too proud to secure payment of their tuition fees by
confessing themselves paupers. It was during this era of progress,
too, that New York City was, in 1842, allowed to place the direction
of its schools in the hands of a board of education, elected by the
people, instead of giving over the city’s share of the state funds to
a quasi-public society, controlled by a close corporation. For eleven
years, however, the Public School Society refused to give up its work,
but by 1853 it decided to disband and merge its buildings and funds
with those of the city school system (see p. 261).
[Sidenote: Pennsylvania abolished permissive feature of its school law,]
[Sidenote: made state educational system complete, and provided system
of normal schools.]
Pennsylvania was slower than New York in showing the effects of the
educational awakening, but the leaven was at work. While a number of
progressive governors and other statesmen continually recommended the
development of public education, and the ‘Pennsylvania Society for the
Promotion of Common Schools’ had been organized, the towering leader
in this movement was Thomas H. Burrowes. As secretary of state and _ex
officio_ superintendent of schools (1836-1838), as a public speaker
and educational journalist (1838-1860), and as state superintendent
(1860-1862), he constantly urged a complete system of public education,
the establishment of normal schools, a separate state department of
education, and the organization of state and county supervision. In
1849 the ‘permissive’ feature of the law of 1834 was abolished, and the
two hundred districts that had thus far refused to establish public
schools were forced to do so under the new provisions. In 1854 a
revised school law was passed, which, after twenty years, now made the
state system of education complete. It established in the secretary of
state’s office a deputy superintendent of schools, who had virtually
a separate department, and provided for county superintendents.
Three years later the state educational department became absolutely
independent under the care of a superintendent, and provision was
made for a system of normal schools. These institutions were to be
established at first by private enterprise and without state subsidy.
By 1877 there were ten in operation, largely maintained by the state.
Three others have since been added, and the state has begun to take
over into its own hands the entire support and control of them all.
[Sidenote: Advances in New Jersey rapid, when once started.]
[Sidenote: Delaware slower, but now making progress.]
Educational progress in New Jersey also took some time to get under
way, but when the reforms once started, they continued until an
excellent system of common schools had been inaugurated. In 1838 the
limitation of state funds to the education of the poor was removed,
and the apportionment of the income from them was thereafter applied
only to public schools. Since 1848, when a state superintendency was
established, the development has been more rapid. County supervision
has been introduced, state normal schools have been established at
Trenton and Upper Montclair, and appropriations have been greatly
increased. In 1911 a state commissioner of education with an efficient
corps of deputies was provided. Delaware, on the other hand, failed to
live up to the possibilities under her early ‘permissive’ laws. Even
the organization of ‘the friends of common school education’ showed
itself very conservative, and would not advocate the creation of a
state superintendency or the establishment of state normal schools. In
fact, Delaware did not organize a complete state system until after
the war. Even then, while a state board and state superintendency were
established in 1875, there were no county superintendents, and when
county supervision was introduced in 1888, the state superintendency
was abolished. It was not reëstablished until 1912, but since then the
state system has made evident progress.
[Sidenote: In Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, opponents of public
education overcome, and state system established.]
=Public Education in the West.=--The budding of a common school
system, which had just begun to appear in the new commonwealths of
the Northwest before 1840, rapidly unfolded into full blossom during
this educational springtime. Through this awakening the common school
advocates in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were greatly aided in their
struggle to overcome the opposition of settlers from the states not
committed to public education (see p. 272), and they were favored to
some extent by accessions of emigrants from the home of the public
school movement. During the decade just preceding the middle of the
century, there was a decided elevation of public sentiment going on.
Under the leadership of Samuel Lewis and Samuel Galloway in Ohio,
Caleb Mills in Indiana, and Ninian W. Edwards in Illinois, the friends
of public education had marshalled themselves for battle. Reports
and memorials were constantly presented to the legislatures of these
states, and public addresses in behalf of common schools were frequent
in most large communities. A group of devoted schoolmen appeared,
who were as successful in lobbying for good legislation as they were
with institutes and public lectures. While reactions occasionally
happened, like that in Ohio between 1840 and 1845, when the state
superintendency was temporarily abolished, public education gradually
came to be regarded as something more than merely free education for
the poor, and public school funds were no longer granted as a subsidy
to private institutions. After a quarter century of ‘permissive’ laws,
local taxation and free common schools were fully realized in all three
states early in the fifties. The contest, of course, was not ended, as
reactionary elements, with selfish, local, and sectarian interests,
still remained, but their contentions have never again been more than
partially successful. New features of the common schools, such as
efficient teachers for the rural districts, county supervision, state
normal training, and free higher education in state universities, have
gradually rendered the state systems more consistent and complete.
[Sidenote: Michigan early provided for schools, and soon developed high
and normal schools.]
In Michigan, on the other hand, where there was not such a mixture
of population, and a complete sympathy with the common school idea
appeared, there was almost unhampered progress from the beginning of
statehood. Under the first constitution (1837), there was provision
made for a permanent school fund and for a local tax in every district,
although the schools were partly maintained until 1869 by ‘rate
bills’ collected from the pupils. In accordance with the grant of two
townships of land by Congress in 1826 for a university, the first
legislature of the new state established the University of Michigan
(Fig. 42), and its doors were open to students in 1841. It soon became
the most prominent of the state universities. There was also provided
a system of ‘branches’ of the university, whereby a liberal grant was
made for an academy in any county that would furnish suitable buildings
and a sum equal to the appropriation from the state. As this proved
a dissipation of the university funds, it was gradually stopped, and
between 1852 and 1860 ‘union’ and high schools were rapidly developed
to supply the means of fitting for the university. In 1850 a state
normal school was founded, and four others have since been added.
[Sidenote: Rapidity of development and triumph of common school idea in
the West.]
In all the other territory acquired or purchased by the United States
in its westward expansion, the educational history has been very
similar to that in the first states of the Northwest. Progress in
common school sentiment has been made _pari passu_ with the settlement
of the country. Each state, upon admission, has received its sixteenth
section of school land and two townships for a university, and in
the states admitted since 1848 the endowment of schools has been
increased to two sections, while Texas, which had been an independent
republic (1836-1845), stipulated before becoming a state that it should
retain sole possession of its public lands, and has set aside for
education nearly two and one-half millions of acres. Hence in the first
constitution of each state, permanent school and university funds,
together with a regular organization of the schools of the state, have
generally been provided. In few cases have sectarian interests been
able to delay or injure the growth of common schools in any of the
later commonwealths, and the interpretation of public education as
schools for the children of paupers has never seriously influenced the
West.
[Sidenote: Awakening felt, but with approach of Civil War,]
[Sidenote: progress stopped, and facilities wrecked at close of the
war.]
=Organization of State Systems in the South.=--Thus through the
awakening of common schools that occurred throughout the union from
1835 to 1860 was the old-time country and city district school of
the North gradually lifted up to the present system of graded free
elementary, secondary, and normal schools, together with city and state
universities. But these results were not at first as fully realized in
the South, because of the approach and precipitation of the dreadful
internecine conflict that weighed down and finally prostrated the
resources of that section. However, except for this impending calamity,
the conditions in the South were not essentially different from those
in any other section. During the earlier years of the awakening, and in
some states up to the very verge of the Civil War, great progress in
public education was noticeable. The attendance in the common schools,
established in several states by ‘permissive’ legislation, had been
rapidly growing for a score of years, and there was an increasing body
of prominent men desirous of enlarging popular education. During the
early forties there were many efforts and suggestions for a system
of public schools, and several conventions were held in the interest
of such institutions. North Carolina actually established a state
system in 1839. Tennessee (1838-1843) and Kentucky (1838) made less
enduring efforts toward a similar organization, and as late as 1858
Georgia took a distinct step forward in this direction. Moreover, even
in their secession conventions some states, like Georgia, adopted
resolutions or constitutional amendments looking to the education of
the people, and North Carolina in 1863, with the union army actually
at its doors, undertook to grade the schools and provide for the
training of teachers. But, in general, as the impending conflict drew
near, attention to educational progress was forced to give way to the
preservation of state and home, and after the war, which crushed and
ravaged nearly every portion of the South, educational facilities had
for the most part been totally wrecked.
[Sidenote: Need of universal education realized and struggles to attain
it.]
Nevertheless, in the end the war served as a stimulus to common
schools. It brought about a complete overturn of the old social and
industrial order, and the South realized more fully than ever that
it could arise from its desperate material and educational plight
only through the institution of universal education. As early as
1865, school systems were organized in the border states,--Maryland,
Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia, and even during the harsh and
unhappy days of ‘reconstruction’ (1867-1876), efforts were made
in other states to build up systems of free public education. The
organization of education became more thorough and mandatory than
before the war. All children, white and colored, were to attend school
between six and twenty-one, and the term was to last from four to six
months each year. Property and poll taxation were established for
the support of the schools. A state superintendent and state board
of education, county commissioners and a county board, and trustees
in each district, were provided for. Text-book commissions were
often established, and free books were granted to poor children. The
foundation for a real system was thus laid.
[Sidenote: Obstacles that had to be overcome.]
[Sidenote: Peabody Educational Fund and other encouragement.]
This was a tremendous undertaking, and shows the greatest courage
and executive ability upon the part of the South. Property had been
diminished in valuation to the extent of nearly two billion dollars,
and there were two million children to be educated. Moreover, under the
reconstruction régime, the tax on property was often not collected, and
the appropriations for education remained on paper. Indifference and
inexperience were aggravated by the fear that ‘mixed’ schools would be
forced upon the white population by a reconstruction legislature or a
Congress with millennial zeal in behalf of universal brotherhood. These
obstacles, together with misdirected effort upon the part of Northern
missionaries, and other serious interferences, for fully a decade
constituted an enormous stumbling-block. Several factors, however,
aided and encouraged the South in its efforts. Of these the most
important was the foundation in 1867 of the Peabody Educational Fund
of $2,000,000, well characterized as “a gift to the suffering South
for the good of the Union.” This fund was placed in the management of
the wisest and most sympathetic agents, who appealed to the higher
sentiment of the communities and the states, and granted the assistance
necessary to stimulate local effort in education. When the fund proved
insufficient for the great task, the trustees pleaded with Congress for
an additional subsidy, and made the whole country aware of the crying
needs of education in the South. Through these appeals, more than ten
million dollars from various sources have since been granted to the
different grades of public education.
[Sidenote: Struggle won by 1890 and constant progress since.]
Despite the tremendous rally during the seventies, however, the
struggle for public education in the South was not won for twenty
years, but complete systems of common schools have now at length
been generally established. With the cessation of the reconstruction
influence and the subsidence of the dread of mixed schools, attendance
and appropriations have greatly increased, schools for the education
of colored children have been furnished, and provision has been made
for training and stimulating teachers of both races. Separate state
institutions for higher education, cultural and vocational, have been
established to furnish a broad education for both whites and negroes.
Since 1890 there has been an ever increasing interest in improving the
public school in all respects, and the expenditures and facilities for
education have been constantly increasing.
[Sidenote: Universal education, state support and control, high schools
replaced academies, colleges non-sectarian, and state universities
established.]
=Development of the American System of Education.=--With its final
development in the South during the last decade of the nineteenth
century, the distinctly American public school system may be said to
have been fully elaborated. The educational ideals and institutions
imported from Europe in the colonial period have gradually been
modified and adapted to the needs of America. Schools have become
public and free in the modern sense. The control of education has
passed from private parties and even quasi-public societies to the
state. The schools have likewise come to be supported by the state, and
are open to all children alike without the imposition of any financial
obligation. In secondary education, the academies, which supplanted the
‘grammar’ schools, first became ‘free academies’ and made no charge
for tuition from local patrons, though remaining close corporations,
and then were in time replaced by the true American secondary
institution,--the high school (Fig. 41). Colleges became largely
non-sectarian, even when not nominally so, and state universities were
organized in all except a few of the oldest commonwealths (Fig. 42).
Thus has the idea of common schools and the right to use the public
wealth to educate the entire body of children into sound American
citizenship been made complete. Although the system is still capable of
much improvement, it is expressive of American genius and development.
It is simply the American idea of government and society applied to
education. It is the educational will of the people expressed through
the majority, and the resultant of the highest thinking and aspirations
of a great nation made up of the most powerful and progressive elements
from all civilized peoples.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
Graves, _In Modern Times_ (Macmillan, 1913), chaps. VI and VIII, and
_Great Educators_ (Macmillan, 1912), chap. XIII; Parker, _Modern
Elementary Education_ (Ginn, 1912), chap. XII. For the details of the
life and work of Mann in brief form, read Hinsdale, B. A., _Horace
Mann and the Common School Revival_ (Scribner, 1899), or the readable
little work on _Horace Mann the Educator_ (New England Publishing
Co., 1896) by Winship, A. E. Monroe, W. S., has briefly recounted
_The Educational Labors of Henry Barnard_ (Bardeen, Syracuse, 1893),
and a longer account of _Henry Barnard_ is that of Mayo, A. D., in
_Report of U. S. Commissioner of Education_, 1896-1897, vol. I, chap.
XVI. For the development of public education in the various parts of
the country during this third period, see Martin, G. H., _Evolution
of the Massachusetts Public School System_ (Appleton, 1894), lects.
IV-VI; Steiner, B. C., _History of Education in Connecticut_ (_U. S.
Bureau of Education, Circular of Information_, No. 2, 1893), chaps.
III-V; Stockwell, T. B., _History of Public Education in Rhode Island_
(Providence Press Co., Providence, 1876), chaps. VI-X; Randall, S.
S., _History of the Common School System of the State of New York_
(Ivison, Blakeman, Taylor, New York, 1871), third and fourth periods;
Wickersham, J. P., _History of Education in Pennsylvania_ (Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, 1886), chaps. XVII-XVIII; Mayo, A. D., _The Development
of the Common Schools in the Western States_ (_Report of the U. S.
Commissioner of Education_, 1898-99, vol. I, pp. 357-450); Boone, R.
G., _History of Education in Indiana_ (Appleton, 1892), chaps. IV
and VIII-XXXIII; Smith, W. L., _Historical Sketch of Education in
Michigan_ (Lansing, 1881), pp. 17-38, 49-57, and 78-109; Knight, E. W.,
_The Influence of Reconstruction on Education in the South_ (Columbia
University, _Teachers College Contributions_, No. 60, 1913) and _The
Peabody Fund and Its Early Operation in North Carolina_ (_South
Atlantic Quarterly_, vol. xiv, no. 2). Mayo, A. D., _Education in the
Several States_, _Education of the Colored Race_, and _The Slater Fund_
(_Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education_ 1894-95, XXX, XXXI,
and XXXII).
[Illustration:
Fig. 41.--The first high school. (This institution was established at
Boston in 1821 as the ‘English Classical School,’ and three years later
the name was changed to ‘English High School.’)]
[Illustration:
Fig. 42.--The University of Michigan in 1855. (The oldest picture of
the first prominent state university; established by the legislature in
1837, and opened in 1841.)]
CHAPTER XXIV
DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE
OUTLINE
Of the two aspects to Pestalozzi’s educational positions, Froebel
stressed development from within, and Herbart development from
without.
Through an early tutorial experience Herbart developed his
pedagogy, but afterward invented an ingenious psychology upon
which to base it. He undertook to show how the mind of the pupil
is largely built up by the teacher, and he held to the moral
aim of education. To accomplish this, he advocated ‘many-sided
interest,’ and, while recognizing the value of both ‘historical’
and ‘scientific’ subjects, emphasized the former. But he also held
that all subjects should be unified through ‘correlation,’ and
formulated the ‘formal steps of instruction.’ The value of his work
has been obscured by the formal interpretations of disciples, but
he contributed greatly to the science of education. Herbartianism,
developed by Ziller and others, spread throughout Germany; through
the Herbart Society, it has greatly influenced educational content
and methods in the United States.
Through his university environment, Froebel developed a mystic
philosophy, but made it the basis of remarkable educational
practices. He held to organic ‘unity’ in the universe, and to
the general method of ‘self-activity.’ Besides this (1) ‘motor
expression,’ he also stressed (2) ‘social participation,’ and
attempted to realize both principles in (3) a school without books
and set tasks,--the ‘kindergarten.’ The training here has consisted
chiefly in ‘play-songs,’ ‘gifts,’ and ‘occupations.’ The chief
weakness of Froebelianism is its mystic and symbolic theory, but
it has comprehended the most essential laws of education at all
stages. The kindergarten was spread through Europe largely by
Baroness von Bülow, and through the United States by Elizabeth P.
Peabody and others.
Few tendencies in educational practices to-day cannot be traced
back for their rudimentary form to Herbart and Froebel, or their
master, Pestalozzi.
[Sidenote: Each saw in the master the principle that appealed to him.]
=Froebel and Herbart as Disciples of Pestalozzi.=--In the discussion
of observation and industrial training, we have noted the suggestions
for improvement in educational practice that arose through Pestalozzi.
While somewhat vague and based upon sympathetic insight rather than
scientific principles, the positions of Pestalozzi not only left
their direct influence upon the teaching of certain subjects in the
elementary curriculum, but became the basis of the elaborate systems of
Herbart and Froebel. These educators may be regarded as contemporary
disciples of the Swiss reformer, who was born a generation before, but
they continued his work along rather different lines. Each went to
visit Pestalozzi, and it would seem from their comments upon what they
saw that each found in the master the main principle which appealed
to him and which he afterward developed more or less consistently
throughout his work.
[Sidenote: Development from within and the child were emphasized by
Froebel;]
[Sidenote: development from without and methods, by Herbart.]
For there were two very definite aspects to Pestalozzi’s positions,
which may at first seem opposed to each other, but are not necessarily
contradictory. On the one hand, Pestalozzi seems to have held that
education should be a natural development from within; on the other,
that it must consist in the derivation of ideas from experience with
the outside world. The former point of view, which is apparent in
his educational aim and definition of education (see p. 285), would
logically argue that every characteristic is implicit in the child
at birth in the exact form to which it is afterward to be developed,
and that the teacher can at best only assist the child’s nature in the
efforts for its own unfolding. This attitude Pestalozzi apparently
borrowed from the psychology implied in Rousseau’s naturalism. The
other conception, that of education as sense perception, which is
evident in Pestalozzi’s observational methods (see p. 286), depends
upon the theory that immediate and direct impressions from the outside
are the absolute basis of all knowledge, and holds that the contents
of the mind must be entirely built up by the teacher. Some such naïve
interpretation has been common since speculation began, especially
among teachers, and had been formulated before Pestalozzi’s day by
Locke, Hume, and others. In the main, Froebel took the first of these
Pestalozzian viewpoints and rarely admitted the other, but the latter
phase was developed by Herbart to the almost total disregard of the
former. Hence we find that the one educator lays emphasis upon the
child’s development and activities, and the other concerns himself
with method and the work of the teacher. The original contributions of
both reformers to educational practice, however, were large, and are
deserving of extended description.
[Sidenote: Interest in philosophy, Greek, and mathematics.]
[Sidenote: Development of his pedagogy through tutorial experience.]
=The Early Career and Writings of Herbart.=--Johann Friedrich Herbart
(1776-1841) both by birth and by education possessed a remarkable mind,
and was well calculated to become a profound educational philosopher.
He came of intellectual and educated stock, and at the gymnasium
and university displayed a keen interest in philosophy, Greek, and
mathematics. Each of these subjects, too, was destined to play a part
in his educational theories. Just before graduation (1797), however,
Herbart left the university to become private tutor to the three sons
of the governor of Interlaken, Switzerland, and during the next three
years he obtained in this way a most valuable experience. The five
extant reports that he made on the methods he used and on his pupils’
progress reveal thus early the germs of his elaborate system. The
youthful pedagogue seems to have recognized the individual variations
in children, and to have shown a due regard for the respective
ages of his pupils. He also sought, by means of his favorite work,
the _Odyssey_, to develop in them the elements of morality and a
‘many-sided interest.’ This early experience, rather than his ingenious
system of psychology and metaphysics, which he afterward developed in
explanation, was the real foundation of his pedagogy, and furnished him
with the concrete examples of the characteristics and individualities
of children that appear in all his later works. He ever afterward
maintained that a careful study of the development of a few children
was the best preparation for a pedagogical career, and eventually made
an experience of this kind the main element in his training of teachers.
[Sidenote: Interpreted and supplemented Pestalozzi’s principles.]
[Sidenote: _The Science of Education._]
While still in Switzerland, Herbart met Pestalozzi and was greatly
attracted by the underlying principles of that reformer. He paid a
visit to the institute at Burgdorf in 1799, and during the next two
years, while at Bremen completing his interrupted university course,
he undertook to advocate and render more scientific the thought of the
Swiss educator. Here he wrote a sympathetic essay _On Pestalozzi’s
Latest Writing, ‘How Gertrude Teaches Her Children_,’ and made his
interpretation of _Pestalozzi’s Idea of an A B C of Observation_
(see p. 286). Next Herbart lectured on pedagogy at the University
of Göttingen. The treatises he wrote there seem to have become more
critical toward the Pestalozzian methods, and he no longer strives
to conceal their vagueness and want of system. Sense perception, he
holds with Pestalozzi, does supply the first elements of knowledge,
but the material of the school course should be definitely arranged
with reference to the general purpose of instruction, which is moral
self-realization. This position on the moral aim of education he
made especially explicit and complete in his work on _The Science of
Education_ (1806).
[Sidenote: Seminary and practice school.]
[Sidenote: _Outlines of Educational Doctrine._]
=His Work at Königsberg and Göttingen.=--In 1809 Herbart was called to
the chair of philosophy at Königsberg, and there established his now
historic pedagogical seminary and the small practice school connected
with it. The students, who taught in the practice school under the
supervision and criticism of the professor, were intending to become
school principals and inspectors, and, through the widespread work and
influence of these young Herbartians the educational system of Prussia
and of every other state in Germany was greatly advanced. In his
numerous publications at Königsberg, Herbart devoted himself chiefly
to works on a system of psychology as a basis for his pedagogy. After
serving nearly a quarter of a century here, he returned to Göttingen
as professor of philosophy, and the last eight years of his life were
spent in expanding his pedagogical positions. Here he issued the
first edition of his _Outlines of Educational Doctrine_ (1835), which
gives an exposition of his educational system when fully matured.
It contains brief references to his mechanical metaphysics and
psychology, but is a most practical and well-organized discussion of
the educational process.
[Sidenote: An after-thought.]
[Sidenote: Mind built up by outside world.]
[Sidenote: Genesis and combination of ideas.]
[Sidenote: ‘Apperception.’]
=Herbart’s Psychology.=--Herbart’s metaphysical psychology seems to
have been an after-thought developed to afford a basis for the method
of pedagogical procedure that he had worked out of his tutorial
experience and his acquaintance with the Pestalozzian practice. But
some explanation of this elaborate psychology may serve to make clearer
his educational principles. For the most part he holds that the mind
is built up by the outside world, and he is generally supposed to have
left no place for instincts or innate characteristics and tendencies.
With him the simplest elements of consciousness are ‘ideas,’ which
are atoms of mind stuff thrown off from the soul in endeavoring to
maintain itself against external stimuli. Once produced by this
contact of the soul with its environment, the ideas become existences
with their own dynamic force, and constantly strive to preserve
themselves. They struggle to attain as nearly as possible to the summit
of consciousness, and each idea tends to draw into consciousness or
heighten those allied to it, and to depress or force out those which
are unlike. Each new idea or group of ideas is heightened, modified,
or rejected, according to its degree of harmony or conflict with
the previously existing ideas. In other words, all new ideas are
interpreted through those already in consciousness. In accordance
with this principle, which Herbart called ‘apperception,’ the teacher
can secure interest and the attention of the pupil to any new idea or
set of ideas and have him retain it, only through making use of his
previous body of related knowledge. Hence the educational problem
becomes how to present new material in such a way that it can be
‘apperceived’ or incorporated with the old, and the mind of the pupil
is largely in the hands of the teacher, since he can make or modify his
‘apperception masses,’ or systems of ideas.
[Sidenote: Attainment of character as aim.]
[Sidenote: ‘Many-sided interest.’]
=The Aim, Content, and Method of Education.=--Accordingly, Herbart
holds that the purpose of education should be to establish moral and
religious character. He believes that this final aim can be attained
through instruction, and that, to determine how this shall furnish
a ‘moral revelation of the world,’ a careful study must be made of
each pupil’s thought masses, temperament, and mental capacity. There
is not much likelihood of the pupil’s receiving ideas of virtue that
will develop into glowing ideals of conduct when his studies do not
appeal to his thought systems and are consequently regarded with
indifference and aversion. They must coalesce with the ideas he already
has, and thus touch his life. But Herbart does not limit ‘interest’ to
a temporary stimulus for the performance of certain school tasks; he
advocates the building up by education of certain broad interests that
may become permanent sources of appeal in life. Instruction must be
so selected and arranged as not only to relate itself to the previous
experience of the pupil, but as also to reveal and establish all the
relations of life and conduct in their fullness.
[Sidenote: ‘Knowledge’ and ‘participation’ interests.]
[Sidenote: ‘Historical’ and ‘scientific’ subjects.]
In analyzing this ‘many-sided interest,’ Herbart holds that ideas and
interests spring from two main sources,--‘experience,’ which furnishes
us with a knowledge of nature, and ‘social intercourse,’ from which
come the sentiments toward our fellowmen. Interests may, therefore, be
classed as belonging to (1) ‘knowledge’ or to (2) ‘participation.’
These two sets of interests, in turn, Herbart divides into three
groups each. He classed the ‘knowledge’ interests as (a) ‘empirical,’
appealing directly to the senses; (b) ‘speculative,’ seeking to
perceive the relations of cause and effect; and (c) ‘æsthetic,’ resting
upon the enjoyment of contemplation. The ‘participation’ interests
are divided into (a) ‘sympathetic,’ dealing with relations to other
individuals; (b) ‘social,’ including the community as a whole; and (c)
‘religious,’ treating one’s relations to the Divine. Instruction must,
therefore, develop all these interests, and, to correspond with the two
main groups, Herbart divides all studies into two branches,--the (1)
‘historical,’ including history, literature, and languages; and the (2)
‘scientific,’ embracing mathematics, as well as the natural sciences.
Although recognizing the value of both groups, Herbart especially
stressed the ‘historical,’ on the ground that history and literature
are of greater importance as the sources of moral ideas and sentiments.
[Sidenote: ‘Correlation’ and ‘concentration.’]
[Sidenote: ‘Culture epochs.’]
But, while all the subjects, ‘historical’ and ‘scientific,’ are
needed for a ‘many-sided interest,’ and the various studies have for
convenience been separated and classified by themselves, Herbart holds
that they must be so arranged in the curriculum as to become unified
and an organic whole, if the unity of the pupil’s consciousness is to
be maintained. This position forecasts the emphasis upon ‘correlation,’
or the unification of studies, so common among his followers. The
principle was further developed by later Herbartians under the name
of ‘concentration,’ or the unifying of all subjects around one or
two common central studies, such as literature or history. But the
selection and articulation of the subject-matter in such a way as to
arouse many-sidedness and harmony is not more than hinted at by Herbart
himself. He specifically holds, however, that the _Odyssey_ should be
the first work read, since this represents the interests and activities
of the race while in its youth, and would appeal to the individual
during the same stage. He would follow this with other Greek classics
in the order of the growing complexity of racial interests depicted in
them. This tentative endeavor of Herbart, in the selection of material
for the course of study, to parallel the development of the individual
with that of the race, was continued and enlarged by his disciples. It
became especially definite and fixed in the ‘culture epochs’ theory
formulated by Ziller and others.
[Sidenote: Four steps in Herbart’s method of instruction.]
[Sidenote: ‘Five formal steps.’]
But to secure this broad range of material and to unify and systematize
it, Herbart realized that it was necessary to formulate a definite
method of instructing the child. This plan of instruction he wished to
conform to the development and working of the human mind, and on the
basis of what he conceived this activity to be, he mapped out a method
with four logical steps: (1) ‘clearness,’ the presentation of facts
or elements to be learned; (2) ‘association,’ the uniting of these
with related facts previously acquired; (3) ‘system,’ the coherent and
logical arrangement of what has been associated; and (4) ‘method,’
the practical application of the system by the pupil to new data. The
formulation of this method was made only in principle by Herbart, but
it has since been largely modified and developed by his followers.
It was soon felt that, on the principle of ‘apperception,’ the pupil
must first be made conscious of the existing stock of ideas so far as
they are similar to the material to be presented, and that this can
be accomplished by a review of preceding lessons or by an outline of
what is to be undertaken, or by both procedures. Hence Herbart’s noted
disciple, Ziller, divided the step of ‘clearness’ into ‘preparation’
and ‘presentation,’ and the more recent Herbartian, Rein, added ‘aim’
as a substep to ‘preparation.’ The names of the other three processes
have been changed for the sake of greater lucidity and significance by
still later Herbartians, and the ‘five formal steps of instruction’ are
now given as (1) ‘preparation,’ (2) ‘presentation,’ (3) ‘comparison and
abstraction,’ (4) ‘generalization,’ and (5) ‘application.’
[Sidenote: Clarified Pestalozzi’s vague principle of ‘observation’
through an ingenious psychology,]
[Sidenote: and made Pestalozzi’s emphasis on the physical world a
stepping-stone to history and literature.]
=The Value and Influence of Herbart’s Principles.=--On all sides,
then, as compared with Pestalozzi, Herbart was most logical and
comprehensive. Where Pestalozzi obtained his methods solely from a
sympathetic insight into the child mind, Herbart sought to found
his also upon scientific principles. The former was primarily
a philanthropist and reformer; the latter, a psychologist and
educationalist. Pestalozzi succeeded in arousing Europe to the need of
universal education and of vitalizing the prevailing formalism in the
schools, but he was unable with his vague and unsystematic utterances
to give guidance and efficiency to the reform forces he had initiated.
While he felt the need of beginning with sense perception for the sake
of clear ideas, he had neither the time nor the training to construct
a psychology beyond the traditional one of the times, nor to analyze
the way in which the material gained by observation is assimilated.
Herbart, on the other hand, did create a system of psychology that,
while fanciful and mechanical, worked well as a basis for educational
theory and practice. In keeping with this psychology, he undertook
to show how the ideas, which were the product of the Pestalozzian
‘observation,’ were assimilated through ‘apperception,’ and maintained
the possibility of making all material tend toward moral development.
This, he held, could be accomplished by use of proper courses and
methods. In determining the subjects to be selected and articulated,
he considered Pestalozzi’s emphasis upon the study of the physical
world to be merely a stepping-stone to his own ‘moral revelation of
the world.’ While the former educator made arithmetic, geography,
natural science, reading, form study, drawing, writing, and music the
object of his consideration, and is indirectly responsible for the
modern reforms in teaching these subjects, Herbart preferred to stress
history, languages, and literature, and, through his followers, brought
about improved methods in their presentation. He also first undertook a
careful analysis of the successive steps in all instruction, and by his
methodical principles did much to introduce order and system into the
work of the classroom, although it is now known that his conception of
the way in which the human mind works is hardly tenable.
[Sidenote: Formalization of followers,]
[Sidenote: but Herbart more sane and flexible.]
A great drawback to the Herbartian doctrines is found in their
formalization and exaggeration. For these tendencies his enthusiastic
and literal-minded followers, rather than Herbart himself, have
probably been to blame. He was himself too keen an observer to allow
his doctrines to go upon all fours. He is ordinarily credited by
Herbartians with a psychology that takes no account of the innate
characteristics of each mind, and holds that the mind is entirely
built up by impressions from the outside, but, while this is his main
position, he occasionally recognizes that there must be certain native
predispositions in the body which influence the soul in one direction
or another. This limitation of complete plasticity by the pupil’s
individuality, and of the consequent influence of the teacher, causes
him to perceive that “in order to gain an adequate knowledge of each
pupil’s capacity for education, observation is necessary--observation
both of his thought masses and of his physical nature.” Again, while
Herbart holds that every subject should, if possible, be presented
in an attractive, interesting, and ‘almost playlike’ way, he does
not justify that ‘sugar-coated interest’ which has so often put
Herbartianism in bad odor. “A view that regards the end as a necessary
evil to be rendered endurable by means of sweetmeats,” says he,
“implies an utter confusion of ideas; and if pupils are not given
serious tasks to perform, they will not find out what they are able
to do.” Often, he realizes, “even the best method cannot secure an
adequate degree of apperceiving attention from every pupil, and
recourse must accordingly be had to the voluntary attention, i. e.,
to the pupil’s resolution.” Moreover, ‘correlation’ between different
subjects, as well as between principles within the same subject,
was advocated by Herbart, but he felt that the attempt to make such
ramifications should not be unlimited. Further, while Herbart made
some effort in shaping the course of study to parallel the development
of the individual with that of the race, it was Ziller that erected
this procedure into a hard and fast theory of ‘culture epochs.’ But
most common of all has been the tendency of his disciples to pervert
his attempt to bring about due sequence and arrangement into an
inflexible _schema_ in the recitation, and to make the formal steps
an end rather than a means. Whereas, there is reason to believe that
Herbart never intended that all these steps should be carried out in
every recitation, but felt that they applied to the organization of
any subject as a whole, and that years might even elapse between the
various steps.
[Sidenote: Ziller greatly developed and popularized.]
=The Extension of His Doctrines in Germany.=--At first the doctrines of
Herbart were little known, but a quarter of a century after his death
there sprang up two flourishing contemporary schools of Herbartianism.
In its application of Herbart’s theory, the school of Stoy for the
most part held closely to the original form; but that headed by Ziller
departed further and gave it a more extreme interpretation. Tuiskon
Ziller (1817-1882), both as teacher in a gymnasium and as professor at
Leipzig, did much to popularize and develop Herbart’s system. Through
him was formed the Herbartian society known as the ‘Association for
the Scientific Study of Education,’ which has since spread throughout
Germany. He it was that elaborated the doctrines of ‘correlation’ and
‘concentration,’ and first definitely formulated the ‘culture epochs’
theory. “Every pupil should,” he writes, “pass successively through
each of the chief epochs of the general mental development of mankind
suitable to his stage of development. The material of instruction,
therefore, should be drawn from the thought material of that stage of
historical development in culture, which runs parallel with the present
mental stage of the pupil.” All these principles Ziller worked out in
a curriculum for the eight years of the elementary school, which he
centered around fairy tales, _Robinson Crusoe_, and selections from
the _Old_ and _New Testaments_. He, moreover, developed Herbart’s
‘formal stages of instruction’ by dividing the first step and changing
the name of the last.
[Sidenote: Stoy’s practice school at Jena,]
[Sidenote: continued by Rein.]
[Sidenote: Lange and Frick.]
Karl Volkmar Stoy (1815-1885), the founder of the other school, gave
himself simply to a forceful restatement of the master’s positions,
but also established a most influential pedagogical seminary and
practice school upon the original Herbartian basis at Jena. And eleven
years later, Wilhelm Rein (1847- ), who had been a pupil of both Stoy
and Ziller, succeeded the former in the direction of the practice
school, and introduced there the elaborate development that had taken
place since Herbart’s time. He adopted Ziller’s ‘concentration,’
‘culture epochs,’ and other features, but made them a little more
elastic by coördinating other material with the ‘historical’ center
in the curriculum. Through him Jena became known as the great seat of
Herbartianism. Other Germans to develop the principles of Herbart have
been Lange and Frick. The _Apperception_ of Karl Lange is an excellent
combination of scientific insight and popular presentation. Otto Frick,
director of the ‘Francke Institutions’ at Halle (see p. 176), inclining
more to the close interpretation of Stoy, devoted himself to applying
Herbartianism to the secondary schools, and outlined a course for the
gymnasium.
[Sidenote: In Germany content and methods of education were greatly
modified.]
[Sidenote: Prominence given to history and literature.]
A throng of other German schoolmasters and professors have further
adapted the doctrines of Herbart to school practice, and while their
theories differ very largely from one another, from their common basis
they are all properly designated ‘Herbartian.’ As a result of this
continuous propaganda, the content and methods of the school curricula
in Germany have been largely modified. Herbart’s emphasis upon the
importance to the secondary schools of literary and historical studies
as a moral training has been adapted to the elementary schools by the
later Herbartians in the form of story and biographical material.
History has consequently attained a more prominent place in the
curriculum, and is no longer auxiliary to reading and geography. It is
regarded as a means of moral development, and the cultural features in
the history of the German people are stressed more than the political.
Ziller’s plan for concentrating all studies about a core of history
and literature, on the ground of thus producing ‘a moral revelation
of the world’ for the pupil, is in evidence everywhere. A twofold
course,--Jewish history through Bible stories, and German history in
the form of legends and tales, appears in every grade of the elementary
school after the first two, and even in these lower classes there is
some attempt to utilize literature as a moral training through the
medium of fairy stories, fables, moral tales, _Robinson Crusoe_, and
the various stories of the philanthropinists (see p. 225).
[Sidenote: American teachers who studied at Jena introduced
Herbartianism into the United States.]
[Sidenote: Northern Illinois the center.]
[Sidenote: The Herbart Society and its _Year Book_.]
=Herbartianism in the United States.=--Next to the land of its birth,
the United States has been more influenced by Herbartianism than any
other country. Before 1880 there were but few notices of Herbartianism
in American educational literature, and not many appeared during
the following decade. The movement was fostered largely by American
teachers that were studying with Rein at Jena during the last two
decades of the century. Before 1890 nine Americans had taken their
degree there, and by the twentieth century more than fifty. These
young men came back filled with the enthusiastic belief that Herbartian
principles could supply a solution in systematic form for the many
complicated problems with which American education was then grappling,
and began at once to propagate their faith. The movement centered
chiefly in northern Illinois and was especially strong in the normal
schools. The staff of the State Normal University at this time included
Charles DeGarmo, afterward professor of Education at Cornell, Frank
M. McMurry, now of the Teachers College, Columbia University, and his
brother, Charles A. McMurry, now of the faculty of the George Peabody
College for Teachers; and the practice school at the Normal University
was the first to be established upon Herbartian principles. The
Schoolmasters’ Club of Illinois gave much of its time to a discussion
of Herbartian principles, and the first Herbartian literature in
the United States was rapidly produced. During the last decade of
the century there appeared large numbers of articles, textbooks,
treatises, and translations, including _The Method of the Recitation_
and a variety of other works upon general and special methods by the
McMurrys. In 1892 The Herbart Club was founded to promote a study of
Herbartian principles and adapt them to American conditions, and during
the first three years it spent its efforts in translating the words of
Herbart and in discussing Herbartian topics only. In 1895 the name of
the club was changed to the Herbart Society for the Scientific Study
of Education, many non-Herbartians were admitted, the scope of the
discussions was enlarged, and the publication of a _Year Book_ was
begun.
[Sidenote: Opposition,]
[Sidenote: but growth of the movement.]
[Sidenote: Herbartian features adopted by others.]
Then began the period of criticism and the formulation of American
Herbartianism. The movement was vigorously opposed by many on the
ground that it was a foreign importation, was based upon absurd
metaphysical presuppositions, or contained nothing new, but the
disciples of Herbart stood valiantly by their guns. Although not
always certain in their own minds, they endeavored to clear up
all misunderstanding and confusion in the doctrines and to keep
them practical through developing them in connection with actual
experiments in teaching. They showed that the fanciful psychology of
Herbart did not hold a determining place in his educational thought,
and that it might be rejected, without affecting the merit of his
pedagogy. One by one the doctrines were introduced in the order of
their concreteness,--five formal steps, apperception, concentration,
interest--and little attempt was made to weave them into a single
system. The critical season did not long endure, and the movement soon
spread widely. By the close of the first year the Herbart Society
had a membership of seven hundred, and the Herbartian principles
were everywhere studied by local clubs and taught in schools and
universities. In the report of the United States Commissioner of
Education for 1894-1895, Dr. Harris stated: “There are at present
more adherents of Herbart in the United States than in Germany.”
This, he believed, was due to the greater freedom of discussion that
was allowed. The movement not only became an educational awakening,
but it attained almost to the proportions of a cult. Moreover, many
who hardly considered themselves Herbartians undertook to modify
and adapt the Herbartian principles, especially ‘correlation’ and
‘concentration.’ Francis W. Parker of Chicago, for example, among the
phases of his educational practice (cf. pp. 293 and 364), approached
concentration so closely as to center the entire course of study around
a hierarchy of natural and social sciences. And the Committees of Ten
and Fifteen, appointed by the National Education Association to report
upon secondary and elementary education respectively, showed a strong
Herbartian influence in their recommendations of correlation.
[Sidenote: Amount of history increased in American schools,]
[Sidenote: and wide survey of literature encouraged.]