increased amount and larger utilization of historical material became
general also in American elementary schools. A wide appreciation of the
growth of morality, culture, and social life, rather than merely the
development of patriotism, became the object in studying this subject.
English and German history, as well as American, which alone was
formerly taught, and sometimes Greek, Roman, and Norse, appear in the
curricula of many elementary schools, and, instead of being confined
to the two upper classes, historical material is often presented from
the third grade up. Biographical and historical stories are largely
employed in the lower classes, while in the upper some attempt is
made to use European history as a setting for American. A similar
development in the amount and use of literature also has appeared
in the course of the elementary schools, partly as a result of the
Herbartian influence. Instead of brief selections from the English and
American writers, or the poorer material that formerly appeared in the
school readers, complete works of literature have begun to be studied
in the elementary curriculum, and a wide and rapid survey of the great
English classics has been encouraged in the place of merely reading
for the sake of oral expression. Even in the lowest grades some attempt
to introduce the classics of childhood has been made.
While in these ways all elementary, and to some extent secondary,
schools have been affected, Herbartianism pure and simple has largely
been abandoned for less dogmatic methods. Even the Herbart Society
has ceased to foster a propaganda, and has since 1901 dropped the
first part of its name and been known as ‘The National Society for the
Scientific Study of Education.’ The later works of DeGarmo and Frank M.
McMurry claim to be quite emancipated from Herbartianism. But, although
professed Herbartians are now almost unknown in the United States, no
other system of pedagogy, except that of Pestalozzi, has ever had so
wide an influence upon American education and upon the thought and
practice of teachers generally.
[Sidenote: Search for ‘unity’ developed through idealism, romanticism,
and ‘nature philosophy’ at Jena.]
=Froebel’s Early Life.=--Let us now turn to Froebel, the other great
successor of Pestalozzi, and to his development and extension of the
master’s principle of ‘natural development.’ Friedrich Wilhelm August
Froebel (1782-1852) was born in a village of the Thüringian forest.
He tells us that this environment started within him a search for the
mystic unity that he believed to exist amid the various phenomena of
nature, but it is more likely that this attitude was developed through
a brief residence (1799-1800) at the University of Jena. The atmosphere
about this institution was charged with the idealistic philosophy, the
romantic movement, and the evolutionary attitude in science. Froebel
could not have escaped the constant discussions upon the philosophy of
Fichte and Schelling. He must likewise have fallen under the spell
of the Jena romanticists,--the Schlegels, Tieck, and Novalis. The
advanced attitude in science at Jena may also have impressed the youth.
While much of the science instruction failed to make clear that inner
relation and mystic unity for which he sought, he must occasionally
have caught glimpses of it in the lectures of professors belonging to
the school of _Natur-philosophie_.
[Sidenote: Adoption of teaching.]
[Sidenote: Study with Pestalozzi.]
[Sidenote: Crystallization of law of ‘unity.’]
=His Experiences at Frankfort, Yverdon, and Berlin.=--After leaving the
university, Froebel was for four years groping for a niche in life. But
he eventually (1805) met Anton Grüner, head of a Pestalozzian model
school at Frankfort, who persuaded him of his fitness for teaching and
gave him a position in the institution. Here he undertook a systematic
study of Pestalozzianism, and, through the use of modeling in paper,
pasteboard, and wood with his pupils, he came to see the value of
motor expression as a means of education. He then withdrew to Yverdon
and worked with Pestalozzi himself for two years (1808-1810). There
he greatly increased his knowledge of the play and development of
children, music, and nature study, which were to play so important a
part in his methods. Next, he went to the University of Berlin to study
mineralogy with Professor Weiss, and through the work there he finally
crystallized his mystic law of ‘unity.’ He became fully “convinced of
the demonstrable connection in all cosmic development,” and declared
that “thereafter my rocks and crystals served me as a mirror wherein I
might discern mankind, and man’s development and history.”
[Sidenote: Self-expression through play and practical work.]
[Sidenote: _Education of Man._]
=The School at Keilhau.=--While at Berlin, he met his lifelong
assistants, Langethal and Middendorf, and took them with him when he
undertook the education of his five young nephews at Keilhau. Here
he founded (1816) ‘The Universal German Institute of Education,’ in
which self-expression, free development, and social participation were
ruling principles. Much of the training was obtained through play,
and, except that the pupils were older, the germ of the kindergarten
was already present. There was much practical work in the open air,
in the garden about the schoolhouse, and in the building itself. The
children built dams and mills, fortresses and castles, and searched
the woods for animals, birds, insects, and flowers. To popularize the
institute, Froebel published a complete account of the theory practiced
at Keilhau in his famous _Education of Man_ (1826). While this work is
compressed, repetitious, and vague, and its doctrines had afterward to
be corrected by experience, it contains the most systematic statement
of his educational philosophy that Froebel ever made.
[Sidenote: In Switzerland he began to devise playthings, games, and
songs.]
[Sidenote: First kindergarten at Blankenburg.]
[Sidenote: Later works.]
=Development of the Kindergarten.=--But the school at Keilhau was
too radical for the times, and soon found itself in serious straits.
Froebel then went to Switzerland, and for five years (1832-1837)
continued his educational experiments in various locations there.
While conducting a model school at Burgdorf, it became obvious to
him that “all school education was yet without a proper initial
foundation, and that, until the education of the nursery was reformed,
nothing solid and worthy could be attained.” The _School of Infancy_
of Comenius (see p. 171) had been called to his attention, and the
educational importance of play had come to appeal to him more strongly
than ever. He began to study and devise playthings, games, songs, and
bodily movements that would be of value in the development of small
children, although at first he did not organize his materials into a
system. Then, two years later, he returned to Germany, and established
a school for children between the ages of three and seven. This
institution was located at Blankenburg, two miles from Keilhau, one
of the most romantic spots in the Thüringian Forest, and was, before
long, appropriately christened ‘Kindergarten’ (i. e., garden in which
children are the unfolding plants). Here he put into use the material
he had invented in Switzerland, added new devices, and developed his
system. The main features of this were the ‘play songs’ for mother
and child and the series of ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ (see pp. 358
f.). During his seven years in Blankenburg, he constantly expanded
his material, and the accounts of these additions have been collected
in the works known generally as _Pedagogics of the Kindergarten_,
_Education by Development_, and _Mother Play and Nursery Songs_.
[Sidenote: Final work at Liebenstein, and the Baroness von Bülow.]
While the kindergarten attracted considerable attention, Froebel’s want
of financial ability eventually compelled him to close the institution.
After lecturing with much success for five years upon his system, he
settled for the rest of his life near the famous mineral springs at
Liebenstein in Saxe-Meiningen. During this period he obtained the
friendship and support of the Baroness von Marenholtz-Bülow, who
brought a large number of people of distinction in the political
and educational world to see his work in operation, and wrote most
interesting _Reminiscences_ of Froebel’s activities during the last
thirteen years of his life. But owing to a confusion of his principles
with the socialistic doctrines of his nephew, Karl, a decree was
promulgated in Prussia by the minister of education, closing all
kindergartens there. Froebel never recovered from this unjust
humiliation, and died within a year.
[Sidenote: Developed from Pestalozzi and even Rousseau,]
[Sidenote: but largely a resultant of his university environment.]
[Sidenote: Reiterations and subsidiary concepts.]
=Froebel’s Fundamental Concept of ‘Unity.’=--While Froebel’s underlying
principles go back to the developmental aspect of Pestalozzi’s
doctrines and even to Rousseau’s naturalism, his conception of them,
his imagery, and statement, seem to be a product of the idealistic
philosophy, romantic movement, and scientific attitude of the day.
These tendencies seem to have been assimilated by Froebel largely
through his residence in Jena and Berlin. His conclusions as to
educational theory and practice would have been possible as inferences
from a very different point of view, but as he developed them logically
and consistently with his metaphysical position, it may be of value
to consider briefly the groundwork of the Froebelian philosophy. He
regarded the ‘Absolute,’ or God, as the self-conscious spirit from
which originated both man and nature, and he consequently held to
the unity of nature with the soul of man. His fundamental view of
this organic unity appears in his general conception of the universe:
“In all things,” says he, “there lives and reigns an eternal law.
This all-controlling law is necessarily based on an all-pervading,
energetic, living, self-conscious, and hence eternal Unity. This Unity
is God. All things have come from the Divine Unity, from God, and
have their origin in the Divine Unity, in God alone. All things live
and have their being in and through the Divine Unity, in and through
God. The divine effluence that lives in each thing is the essence of
each thing.” This fundamental mystic principle Froebel constantly
reiterates in various forms, and from it derives a number of subsidiary
conceptions. These, however, play but a small part in his actual
practice, and scarcely require consideration here.
[Sidenote: Education should be ‘following.’]
[Sidenote: ‘Self-activity.’]
[Sidenote: ‘Creativeness.’]
=Motor Expression as His Method.=--But Froebel also holds that, “while
in every human being there lives humanity as a whole, in each one it
is realized and expressed in a wholly particular, peculiar, personal,
and unique manner.” Thus he maintains that there is in every person at
birth a coördinated, unified plan of his mature character, and that,
if it is not marred or interfered with, it will develop naturally of
itself. While he is not entirely consistent, and at times implies
that this natural development must be guided and even shaped, in
the main he reiterates Rousseau’s doctrine that ‘nature is right,’
and clearly stands for a full and free expression of the instincts
and impulses. Hence he insists that “education in instruction and
training should necessarily be _passive, following; not prescriptive,
categorical, interfering_.” But in his conclusion as to the proper
method for accomplishing this ‘development,’ Froebel naturally holds
that it “should be brought about not in the way of dead imitation or
mere copying, but in the way of living, spontaneous self-activity.” By
this principle of ‘self-activity’ as the method of education Froebel
seeks not simply activity in response to suggestion or instruction
from parents or teachers, but activity of the child in carrying out
his own impulses and decisions. Individuality must be developed by
such activity, and self-hood given its rightful place as the guide to
the child’s powers when exercised in learning. Hence with this idea
of development through ‘self-activity’ is connected his principle
of ‘creativeness,’ by which new forms and combinations are made
and expression is given to new images and ideas. “Plastic material
representation in life and through doing, united with thought and
speech,” he declares, “is by far more developing and cultivating than
the merely verbal representation of ideas.”
[Sidenote: Self-realization through social participation.]
[Sidenote: Coöperative in text]
activities in play.]
=The Social Aspect of Education.=--His emphasis upon this psychological
principle of motor expression under the head of ‘self-activity’ and
‘creativeness’ is the chief characteristic of Froebel’s method.
Rousseau had also recommended motor activity as a means of learning,
but he had insisted upon an isolated and unsocial education for
Emile, whereas Froebel stresses the social aspects of education quite
as clearly as he does the principle of self-expression. In fact, he
holds that increasing self-realization, or individualization through
‘self-activity,’ must come through a process of socialization. The
social instinct is primal, and the individual can be truly educated
only in the company of other human beings. The life of the individual
is necessarily bound up with participation in institutional life. Each
one of the various institutions of society in which the mentality of
the race has manifested itself--the home, the school, the church,
the vocation, the state--becomes a medium for the activity of the
individual, and at the same time a means of social control. As far
as the child enters into the surrounding life, he is to receive the
development needed for the present, and thereby also to be prepared for
the future. Through imitation of coöperative activities in play, he
obtains not only physical, but intellectual and moral training. Such
a moral and intellectual atmosphere Froebel sought to cultivate at
Keilhau by coöperation in domestic labor,--‘lifting, pulling, carrying,
digging, splitting,’ and through coöperative construction out of blocks
of a chapel, castle, and other features of a village. Similarly,
the kindergarten was intended to “represent a _miniature state_ for
children, in which the young citizen can learn to move freely, but with
consideration for his little fellows.”
[Sidenote: A school without books or set tasks as his third
contribution.]
=The Kindergarten.=--Beside his basal principles of motor expression
and social participation, Froebel made a third contribution to
educational practice in advocating as a means of realizing these
principles a school without books or set intellectual tasks,
and permeated with play, freedom, and joy. In the kindergarten,
‘self-activity’ and ‘creativeness,’ together with social coöperation,
found complete application and concrete expression. The training there
has always consisted of three coördinate forms of expression: (1) song,
(2) movement and gesture, and (3) construction; and mingled with these
and growing out of each is the use of language by the child. But these
means, while separate, often coöperate with and interpret one another,
and the process is connected as an organic whole. For example, when the
story is told or read, it is expressed in song, dramatized in movement
and gesture, and illustrated by a construction from blocks, paper,
clay, or other material.
[Sidenote: _Mother Play._]
The _Mother Play and Nursery Songs_ were intended to exercise the
infant’s senses, limbs, and muscles, and, through the loving union
between mother and child, draw both into intelligent and agreeable
relations with the common objects of life about them. The fifty
‘play songs’ are each connected with some simple nursery game, like
‘pat-a-cake,’ ‘hide-and-seek,’ or the imitation of some trade (Fig.
43), and are intended to correspond to a special physical, mental, or
moral need of the child. The selection and order of the songs were
determined with reference to the child’s development, which ranges from
almost reflex and instinctive movements up to an ability to represent
his perceptions with drawings, accompanied by considerable growth of
the moral sense. Each song contains three parts: (1) a motto for the
guidance of the mother; (2) a verse with the accompanying music, to
sing to the child; and (3) a picture illustrating the verse.
[Sidenote: ‘Gifts,’--]
[Sidenote: first,]
[Sidenote: second,]
[Sidenote: third,]
[Sidenote: and the other three,]
[Sidenote: and ‘occupations.’]
The ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ were both intended to stimulate
motor expression, but the ‘gifts’ combine and rearrange certain
definite material without changing the form, while the ‘occupations’
reshape, modify, and transform their material. The emphasis in
kindergarten practice has come to be transferred from the ‘gifts’ to
the ‘occupations,’ which have been largely increased in range and
number. Of the ‘gifts,’ the first consists of a box of six woolen
balls of different colors. They are to be rolled about in play, and
thus develop ideas of color, material, form, motion, direction, and
muscular sensibility. A sphere, cube, and cylinder of hard wood compose
the second ‘gift.’ Here, therefore, are found a known factor in the
sphere and an unknown one in the cube. A comparison is made of the
stability of the cube with the movability of the sphere, and the two
are harmonized in the cylinder, which possesses the characteristics
of each. The third ‘gift’ is a large wooden cube divided into eight
equal cubes, thus teaching the relations of the parts to the whole and
to one another, and making possible original constructions, such as
armchairs, benches, thrones, doorways, monuments, or steps. The three
following ‘gifts’ divide the cube in various ways so as to produce
solid bodies of different types and sizes, and excite an interest in
number, relation, and form. From them the children are encouraged
to construct geometrical figures and ‘forms of beauty’ or artistic
designs. Beside the six regular ‘gifts,’ he also added ‘tablets,’
‘sticks,’ and ‘rings,’ sometimes known as ‘gifts seven to nine.’ This
material introduces surfaces, lines, and points in contrast with the
preceding solids, and brings out the relations of area, outline,
and circumference to volume. The ‘occupations’ comprise a long list
of constructions with paper, sand, clay, wood, and other materials.
Corresponding with the ‘gifts’ that deal with solids, may be grouped
‘occupations’ in clay modeling, cardboard cutting, paper folding, and
wood carving; and with those of surfaces may be associated mat and
paper weaving, stick shaping, sewing, bead threading, paper pricking,
and drawing.
[Sidenote: Superficial faults,]
[Sidenote: bondage to local ideals,]
[Sidenote: and formal discipline.]
=The Value and Influence of Froebel’s Principles.=--For one pursuing
destructive criticism only, it would not be difficult to find flaws
in both the theory and practice of Froebel. In the _Mother Play_ the
pictures are rough and poorly drawn, the music is crude, and the verses
are lacking in rhythm, poetic spirit, and diction (Fig. 43). But the
illustrations and songs served well the interests and needs of those
for whom they were produced, and Froebel himself was not insistent
that they should be used after more satisfactory compositions were
found. Other criticism of his material has been made on the ground
that it was especially adapted to German ideals, German children,
and the relatively simple village life of Froebel’s experience, and
that it needs considerable modification to suit other countries and
the industrial organization of society to-day. Also the argument of
‘formal discipline’ for care and accuracy in the use of the gifts,
and the insistence upon the employment of every part of each gift
upon all occasions in the exact order mentioned by Froebel, have been
shown to violate the principles of modern psychology. His more liberal
disciples, however, realize that it is the spirit of his underlying
principles, and not the letter of his practice, that should be
followed, and have constantly struggled to keep the kindergarten matter
and methods in harmony with the times and the environment.
Der Zimmermann.
Seht mir nur den Zimmermann,
Welch’ seltne Kunst er üben kann:
Was steht, bringt er zum Sturz;
Was lang ist, macht er kurz;
Das Runde macht er grad;
Das Rauhe macht er glatt;
Was krumm ist, macht er gleich;
So ist an Kunst er reich.
Das Einzle nicht ihm g’nügt,
Zum Ganzen schnell er ’s fügt;
Doch, was kommt da heraus?--
Aus Balken wird ein Haus!
Ein Haus für ‘s gute Kind,
Daß es d’rin Eltern find’,
Die sorgsam es bewahren
Vor Seel’- und Leib’sgefahren.
Den Zimmermann das Kind d’rum liebt,
Der ihm den Schutz des Hauses giebt.
[Illustration: Fig. 43.--_Der Zimmermann_ (The Carpenter).
(Reproduced by permission of D. Appleton and Company from the Eliot and
Blow edition of Froebel’s _Mother Play_.)]
[Sidenote: Greatest weakness in symbolism and mysticism.]
[Sidenote: Fantastic and vague doctrines.]
[Sidenote: Notion that nature may illumine mental and social laws.]
A more serious hindrance to the acceptance of Froebelianism has arisen
from his peculiar mysticism and symbolism. Since all things live and
have their being in and through God and the divine principle in each
is the essence of its life, everything is liable to be considered
by Froebel as symbolic in its very nature, and he often resorts to
fantastic and strained interpretations. Thus with Froebel the cube
becomes the symbol of diversity in unity, the faces and edges of
crystals all have mystic meanings, and the numbers three and five
reveal an inner significance. At times this symbolism descends into
a literal and verbal pun, where it seems to a modern that Froebel
can hardly be in earnest. Further, he holds that general conceptions
are implicit in the child, and each of these can be awakened by
‘adumbration,’ that is, by presenting something that will symbolically
represent that particular ‘innate idea.’ Thus, in treating the gifts
and games, he maintains that from a ball the pupils gather an abstract
notion of ‘unity.’ Moreover, because God is the self-conscious spirit
that originated both man and nature, and everything is interconnected,
he believes that each part of the universe may throw light on every
other part, and constantly holds that a knowledge of external
nature,--such as the formation of crystals, will enable one to
comprehend the laws of the mind and of society.
[Sidenote: Most essential to conservatives.]
[Sidenote: Effect upon pupils.]
Unfortunately, this mystic symbolism, vague and extreme as it is,
is regarded by the strict constructionists among the kindergartners
as the most essential feature in Froebelianism, and they expect the
innocents in their charge to reveal the symbolic effect of the material
upon their minds. There is no real evidence for supposing that such
associations between common objects and abstract conceptions exist for
children. But such an imaginary symbolic meaning may be forced upon an
object by the teacher, and pupils in conservative kindergartens soon
learn to adopt certain phrases and attitudes that imply such mystic
meaning. This often tends to foster insincerity and sentimentalism
rather than to inculcate abstract truth through symbols. Had Froebel
possessed the enlarged knowledge of biology, physiology, and psychology
that is available for one living in the twentieth century, it is
unlikely that he would have insisted upon the symbolic foundations for
his pedagogy. His excellent practice is heavily handicapped by these
interpretations, and might as easily have been inferred from very
different positions in modern psychology.
[Sidenote: Borrowed from others,]
[Sidenote: but unique in motor expression, social participation and
informal school.]
But Froebel has had a most happy effect upon education as a whole.
In some respects he utilized features from other reformers. We can
see that he adopted many of Pestalozzi’s objective methods in
geography, natural history, arithmetic, language, drawing, writing
and reading, and constructive geometry; reiterated Rousseau’s views
upon the infallibility of nature; and advocated the physical training
and excursions as a means of study that are stressed by both these
reformers. In his use of stories, legends, fables, and fairy-tales,
he paralleled his contemporary, Herbart, in his influence upon the
curriculum. But in his emphasis upon motor expression and social
participation, together with his advocacy of a school without books or
set tasks, Froebel was unique, and made a most distinctive contribution
to educational practice. And whenever the real significance of his
principles has been comprehended, they have been recognized as the most
essential laws in the educational process, and are valued as the means
of all effective teaching.
[Sidenote: Contribution to all stages of education.]
[Sidenote: Manual training through Cygnæus]
[Sidenote: and Salomon.]
[Sidenote: Parker and Dewey.]
Froebel himself never fully worked out his theories in connection
with schooling beyond the kindergarten, but all stages of education
have now come to realize the value of discovering and developing
individuality by means of initiative, execution, and coöperation; and
spontaneous activities, like play, construction, and occupational
work, have become more and more the means to this end. For example,
the ‘busy work,’ ‘whittling,’ ‘clay-modeling,’ ‘sloyd,’ and other
types of ‘manual training’ have to a large degree sprung from the
influence of Froebel. Uno Cygnæus (1810-1888), who started the manual
training movement, owed his inspiration to Froebel and his own desire
to extend the kindergarten occupations through the grades. As a result
of his efforts, Finland in 1866 became the first country in the world
to adopt manual training as an integral part of the course in the
elementary and teacher training schools. In 1874, through the visit
of Otto Salomon (1849-1907) to Cygnæus, Sweden transformed its sloyd
from a system of teaching the elements of trades to the more educative
method of manual training. This use of constructive and occupational
work for educational purposes rather than for industrial efficiency
soon spread throughout Europe, and was first suggested to the United
States by the Centennial Exposition of 1876 at Philadelphia. Various
types of modern educational theory and practice, especially those
associated with experiments made in the United States, also reveal
large elements of Froebelian influence. Among these might be included
the work of Colonel Parker (Fig. 40) and of Professor John Dewey.
The Froebelian emphasis upon motor expression, the social aspect of
education, and informal schooling are evident throughout Parker’s
work in his elementary school, and are even extended so as to include
speech and the language-arts. Similarly, Dewey’s occupational work and
industrial activities, which were used through the entire course of his
‘experimental school’ in Chicago, although not copied directly from
Froebel, closely approached the modified practice of the kindergarten
(see pp. 430 f.).
[Sidenote: Baroness von Bülow visited all countries.]
[Sidenote: Foundation of Froebel Union.]
[Sidenote: Results in Western Europe.]
=The Spread of Froebelianism through Europe.=--Directly after the
death of Froebel, the kindergarten began to be spread through his
devoted followers, especially Baroness von Bülow. By means of her
social position and knowledge of modern languages, she was enabled to
become his great apostle throughout Europe. Having failed to obtain
a revocation of the edict against the kindergarten (see p. 355) in
Prussia, the baroness turned to foreign lands. She visited France,
Belgium, Holland, Italy, Russia, and nearly every other section of
Europe, and in 1867 was invited to speak before the ‘Congress of
Philosophers’ at Frankfort. This distinguished gathering had been
called to inquire into contemporary educational movements, and after
her elucidation of Froebelianism, a standing committee of the Congress,
known as the ‘Froebel Union,’ was formed to study the system. The
propaganda was soon everywhere eagerly embraced. Kindergartens,
training schools, and journals devoted to the movement rapidly
sprang up. While the kindergarten was not generally adopted by the
governments, it was widely established by voluntary means throughout
Western Europe, and has since met with a noteworthy growth. Instruction
in Froebelian principles is now generally required in most normal
and teacher training institutions there. Sometimes, as in France and
England, it has been combined with the infant school movement, and
has lost some of its most vital characteristics, but even in these
cases the cross-fertilization has afforded abundant educational
fruitage. Only in Germany, the native land of the kindergarten, has
serious hostility to the idea remained. Kindergartens have, with few
exceptions, never been recognized there as genuine schools or part
of the regular state system. Even to-day the German kindergarten is
regarded as little more than a day nursery or convenient place to
deposit small children and have them amused.
[Sidenote: Voluntary basis through Elizabeth P. Peabody,]
[Sidenote: Maria Bölte,]
[Sidenote: Susan E. Blow,]
[Sidenote: Emma Marwedel, and others.]
=The Kindergarten in the United States.=--The development and influence
of the kindergarten have been more marked in the United States than
in any other country. First attempts at a kindergarten in America
were made shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century by
educated Germans, who had emigrated to America because of the unsettled
conditions at home. A more fruitful attempt was that of Elizabeth P.
Peabody at Boston in the early sixties. Notwithstanding the immediate
success of this institution and the evident enjoyment of the children,
Miss Peabody felt that she had not succeeded in getting the real spirit
of Froebel, and in 1867 she went to study with his widow, who had been
settled in Hamburg for several years. Upon her return the following
year Miss Peabody corrected the errors in her work and established a
periodical to explain and spread Froebelianism. The remainder of her
life was spent in interesting parents, philanthropists, and school
boards in the movement, and a service was done for the kindergarten
in America almost equal to that of Baroness von Bülow in Europe. In
1868 through Miss Peabody the first training school for kindergartners
in the United States was established at Boston. A similar institution
was opened in New York by 1872 in charge of Maria Bölte, who had
also studied with Frau Froebel. The same year saw the beginning of
Susan E. Blow’s work in St. Louis, where her free training school
for kindergartners was opened. Another missionary effort began in
1876 through Emma Marwedel, who was employed to organize voluntary
kindergartens and training classes throughout the chief centers of
California. The kindergarten movement grew rapidly. Between 1870
and 1890 in all the leading cities of the country subscriptions for
kindergartens were raised by various philanthropic agencies, and by
the close of the century there were about five hundred such voluntary
associations.
[Sidenote: Part of the public school system in all progressive cities.]
But private foundations are restrictive, and it was not until the
kindergarten began to be adopted by school systems that the movement
became truly national in the United States. Boston in the early
seventies added a few kindergartens to her public schools, but after
several years of trial gave them up on account of the expense. The
first permanent establishment under a city board was made in 1873 at
St. Louis through the efforts of Miss Blow. Twelve kindergartens were
organized at first, but others were opened as rapidly as competent
directors could be prepared at Miss Blow’s training school. Within a
decade there were more than fifty public kindergartens and nearly eight
thousand pupils in St. Louis. San Francisco authorized the addition
of kindergartens to the public schools in 1880; and between that date
and the end of the century New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Buffalo,
Pittsburgh, Rochester, Providence, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and nearly
two hundred other progressive cities made the work an integral part of
their system. About twenty of the cities employed a special supervisor
to inspect the work. Excellent training schools for kindergartners
are now maintained by half a hundred public and quasi-public normal
institutions.
[Sidenote: Studies improved by Pestalozzi]
[Sidenote: and Herbart,]
[Sidenote: and training contributed by Froebel.]
[Sidenote: Period of reforms of Pestalozzi,]
[Sidenote: Froebel,]
[Sidenote: and Herbart.]
=The Relative Influence of Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Froebel.=--It is
now obvious how large a part in the development of modern educational
practice has been played by Herbart and Froebel. There are few
tendencies in the curricula and methods of the schools to-day that
cannot in their beginnings be traced back to them, or to Pestalozzi,
their master. But the reforms of all three find their roots in
Rousseau (Fig. 44). His ‘naturalism’ was continued by Pestalozzi (Fig.
45) in his ‘development’ and ‘observation,’ which were, in turn,
further elaborated by Froebel and Herbart respectively (Figs. 47 and
46). Through his ‘observation’ methods, Pestalozzi greatly improved
the teaching of arithmetic, language work, geography, elementary
science, drawing, writing, reading, and music, and, by means of
Fellenberg’s work, developed industrial and philanthropic training.
As a result of Herbart’s moral and religious aim, marked advances in
the teaching of history and literature have taken place, and, largely
through his carefully wrought educational doctrines, order and system
have everywhere been introduced into instruction. From Froebel’s
mystic interpretation of ‘natural development’ we have obtained the
kindergarten training for a period of life hitherto largely neglected,
the informal occupations, manual training, and other studies of motor
expression, together with psychological and social principles that
underlie every stage of education. Pestalozzi’s reforms were felt
in Europe throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, but
did not have any wide effect upon the United States until after the
‘Oswego movement’ in the sixties. The influence of Froebel appeared in
Europe shortly after the middle of the century, and began to rise to
its height in America about 1880. The Herbartian theory and practice
became popular in Germany between 1865 and 1885, while the growth of
Herbartianism in the United States began about five years after the
latter date. Hence the development of modern educational practice, due
to these three great reformers, falls distinctly within the period
of the nineteenth century.
[Illustration: Fig. 44.--Jean Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778).]
[Illustration: Fig. 45.--Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi
(1746-1827).]
[Illustration: Fig. 46.--Johann Friedrich Herbart
(1776-1841).]
[Illustration: Fig. 47.--Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel
(1782-1852).]
GREAT EDUCATIONAL REFORMERS
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
Graves, _In Modern Times_ (Macmillan, 1913), chap. VII; _Great
Educators_ (Macmillan, 1912), chaps. X and XI; Monroe, _Textbook_
(Macmillan, 1905), pp. 622-673; Parker, _Modern Elementary Education_
(Ginn, 1912), chaps. XVII and XVIII. Herbart’s _Science of Education_
(translated by Felkin), and _Outlines of Educational Doctrine_
(translated by Lange and De Garmo, Macmillan, 1909); and Froebel’s
_Education of Man_ (translated by Hailmann; Appleton, 1894),
_Pedagogics of the Kindergarten_ and _Education by Development_
(translated by Jarvis; Appleton, 1897 and 1899), and _Mother Play_
(translated by Eliot and Blow, Appleton, 1896), should be read at least
cursorily. The best brief treatise on _Herbart and Herbartianism_
(Scribner, 1896) is that by De Garmo, C., a graphic description of _The
Herbartian Psychology_ (Heath, 1898) is given by Adams, J., in chap.
III, and a history of _The Doctrines of Herbart in the United States_
as a doctoral dissertation (University of Pennsylvania) by Randels,
G. B. A good account of _Froebel and Education by Self-Activity_
(Scribner, 1897) has been furnished by Bowen, H. C.; a conservative
treatment of _Kindergarten Education_ (_Education in the United
States_, edited by N. M. Butler, Monograph No. 1), by Blow, Susan
E.; an interesting treatise on _Kindergarten in American Education_
(Macmillan, 1908), by Vandewalker, Nina C.; and a critical account of
_The Psychology of the Kindergarten_ (_Teachers College Record_, vol.
IV, pp. 377-408), by Thorndike, E. L.
CHAPTER XXV
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN SYSTEMS OF EDUCATION
OUTLINE
The leading states of Western Europe and of Canada have, during the
past century and a half, organized systems of education, which may
prove suggestive.
In Prussia, owing to a strong line of monarchs, state control has
taken the place of ecclesiastical through a series of decrees
and enactments. The people’s schools are quite separate from
the secondary schools. Three types of secondary institutions
have developed,--the ‘gymnasium,’ with the classics as staples;
the ‘real-school,’ with modern languages and sciences; and the
‘real-gymnasium,’ with its compromise between the other two. The
universities have likewise been emancipated from ecclesiastical
control.
In France, a highly centralized system has been developed. Napoleon
united secondary and higher education in a single corporation;
under Louis Philippe, an organization of elementary schools was
made; and, during the third republic, elementary education has
been made free, compulsory, and secular. The present secondary
system--_lycées_ and communal colleges--began with Napoleon, and
has now been differentiated into several courses. One-half of the
universities established by Napoleon were suppressed during the
Restoration, but since 1896 there has been a university in each of
the sixteen ‘academies,’ save one.
In England national education has grown out of the conflict of a
number of social elements. The sentiment for universal training
appeared toward the close of the eighteenth century, but not until
1870 were ‘board schools’ established. In 1899 a central Board
of Education was created; and the Act of 1902, while permitting
voluntary schools to share in the local rates, unified the system
and established secondary education at public expense. During the
nineteenth century also the classical and ecclesiastical monopoly
in secondary and higher education was largely broken.
In Canada there have developed two types of educational
control,--(1) the closely centralized system of public schools in
Ontario, and (2) the public supervision of ecclesiastical schools
in Quebec.
[Sidenote: Elementary education free, but few cases of gratuitous
secondary schools, and France alone secularized.]
[Sidenote: Suggestive, when understood historically.]
=National Systems of Education in Europe and Canada.=--In previous
chapters (XVII, XXI, XXIII) we have witnessed the gradual evolution in
America of state systems of universal education out of the unorganized
and rather aristocratic arrangement of schools that had first been
transplanted from Europe in the seventeenth century. But development
of a centralized organization of public schools has not been confined
to the United States. During the past century and a half, the leading
powers of Western Europe and Canada have likewise organized state
systems of education, similar in some respects to those of the American
union. All of these states have now established universal elementary
education free to all, although as yet in few instances are secondary
schools also gratuitous, and only Canada has welded her elementary and
secondary systems. France alone has completely secularized its system,
but the public schools of the other nations, while still including
religious instruction, have been emancipated from ecclesiastical
control, and are responsible to the civil authorities. In all of them
school attendance is compulsory. Yet the educational system in none of
these countries is identical with that in the United States, but has
been adapted in each case to the genius and social organization of the
people concerned. Its characteristics must, therefore, be considerably
modified, in order to be utilized or to prove suggestive to the United
States or other nations, and can be understood only in the light of
the educational history of the particular country to which it belongs.
For an intelligent appreciation of these modern school systems, we
must, therefore, trace the gradual development to their present form in
response to the changing ideals of successive periods.
[Sidenote: Rise of Prussian education due to enlightened despots:]
[Sidenote: (1) Decree for compulsory attendance by Frederick William I
in 1717;]
=The Beginning of State Control in Prussia.=--We may look first at
Germany. Up to the later years of the eighteenth century all stages
of education in the various German states remained almost entirely
under ecclesiastical control, but during this period the schools and
universities were taken over by the state from the church, although the
clergy still exercised a few prerogatives, and centralized national
systems were gradually organized. Among these states of Germany
the first and most influential in the organization of universal
education was Prussia. While each of the others is characterized by an
educational history and peculiarities of its own, this state may be
taken as an illustration of the evolution of German school systems.
The rise of Prussia, educationally as well as politically, seems to
have been due to the strong Hohenzollern monarchs,--despotic, but
thoroughly awake to the interests of their people. Although for nearly
two centuries state control of education was carried on more or less
through the medium of the church, its development was well under
way by the seventeenth century. While the ‘consistory,’ or board of
supervision, was still composed largely of the clergy, the schools
were soon (1687) declared not to be simply church organizations, but
to belong to the state, and some attempt was made to extend schools to
the villages as well as cities. But the first noteworthy attempt to
establish compulsory attendance occurred during the reign of Frederick
William I. In 1717 that monarch decreed that, wherever schools existed,
children should be required to attend during the winter, and in the
summer whenever they could be spared by their parents, which must be
at least once a week. He also founded the first teachers’ seminary at
Stettin from his own private means (1735), and the next year had a
definite law passed, making education compulsory for children from six
to twelve years of age.
[Sidenote: (2) _General School Regulations_ decreed by Frederick in
1763,]
[Sidenote: supplemented by _Regulations for Catholic Schools_;]
=Educational Achievements of Frederick the Great.=--His most
important contribution, however, consisted in preparing the way for
an educational movement that was to be greatly developed through his
more able son, Frederick the Great. Frederick began by improving the
administration of secondary education, and requiring that all vacancies
on crown lands be filled by graduates from Hecker’s normal school
at Berlin. But the great step toward a national system was taken in
1763, when Frederick issued his _General School Regulations for the
Country_. This decree required children to attend school from five
until thirteen or fourteen, and until they “know not only what is
necessary of Christianity, fluent reading, and writing, but can give
answer in everything which they learn from the school books prescribed
and approved by our consistory.” If any pupils should arrive at this
state of proficiency before thirteen or fourteen, they could even then
leave school only through the official certification of the teacher,
minister, and inspector. Provision was also made for the attendance
of children who had to herd cattle or were too poor to pay the school
fees. Sunday continuation schools were to be established for young
people beyond the school age. Teachers must have attended Hecker’s
seminary and had to be examined and licensed by the inspector. This
decree was two years later supplemented with similar _Regulations for
the Catholic Schools in Silesia_, drawn up by Abbot Felbiger. The
carrying out of the decree was, however, stubbornly opposed by many
teachers, who could not meet the new requirements; by farmers, who
objected to the loss of their children’s time; and by the nobles, who
feared the discontent and uprising of the peasants, in case they were
educated. The execution of the regulation was still in the power of
the clergy, and for some time it proved but little more than a pious
wish. But Frederick strove hard to have it enforced, and it became the
foundation for the more effective laws that have since become embodied
in the Prussian school system.
[Sidenote: (3) Establishment of Central Board of Administration under
Frederick William II in 1787;]
=Educational Influence of Zedlitz.=--After 1771 the educational
work of Frederick was substantially aided by the appointment of
Baron von Zedlitz as head of the Department of the Lutheran Church
and School Affairs. This great minister had been much impressed by
Basedow’s principles and experiments and by Rochow’s application of
the ‘naturalistic’ training, and through him village schools were
greatly strengthened and enriched, a regular normal school was opened
at Halberstadt, and the humanistic ideal of secondary education
revived. A year after Frederick’s death Zedlitz succeeded, even under
the reactionary monarch, Frederick William II, in further developing
the nationalization of education. In 1787 an _Oberschulcollegium_,
or central board of school administration, was appointed instead of
the former church consistories. However, while the organization was
supposed to be made up of educational experts, and Zedlitz was actually
made chairman, the membership was mostly filled from the clergy, and
the king refused to extend its jurisdiction to the higher schools.
[Sidenote: (4) Publication of _General Code_ in 1794;]
Despite the reactionary policy of the sovereign, the culmination of
the attempts to establish a national nonsectarian system of education
occurred during this reign. In 1794 there was published the _General
Code_, in which the chapter upon education declared unequivocally
that “all schools and universities are under the supervision of the
state, and are at all times subject to its examination and inspection.”
Teachers were, therefore, not to be chosen without the consent of
the state, and where their appointment was not vested in particular
persons, it was to belong to the state. Teachers of all secondary
schools were to be regarded as state officials. No child was to be
excluded from the schools because of his religion, nor compelled to
stay for religious instruction when it differed from the belief in
which he had been brought up.
[Sidenote: (5) Creation of a Bureau of Education in 1807, which later
became a separate Ministry and then was further organized.]
=Foundation of the Ministry of Education and Further Progress.=--While
this comprehensive code met with much opposition from the clergy and
the ignorant masses, and the next king, Frederick William III, weakly
yielded at first, the humiliation of Prussia by Napoleon (1803) brought
the country to a realization of the need of a centralized organization
of the school system. The _Oberschulcollegium_ was abolished, to get
rid of the clerical domination that had crept in, and a Bureau of
Education was created as a section of the Department of the Interior
in 1807. The Bureau was within a decade erected into a separate
Department or Ministry of Education. Eight years later (1825) the
state was divided into educational provinces; and a _Schulcollegium_,
or administrative board, with considerable independence, but subject
to the minister, was established over each province. Since then there
have been many further developments, and provinces themselves are now
divided into ‘governments,’ each of which has a ‘school commission’
over it, and every government is divided into ‘districts,’ whose chief
officer is a ‘school inspector.’ Under the district inspector are local
inspectors, and each separate school also has a local board, to take
charge of repairs, supplies, and other external matters.
Thus the supreme management of the schools has been gradually coming
into the hands of the state for nearly two centuries. The decrees of
1717 and 1763, the establishment of the _Oberschulcollegium_ in 1787,
the General Code promulgated in 1794, the foundation of a distinct
civic administration of education in 1807, are the mile-stones that
mark the way to state control. But, while the influence of the
church has been constantly diminishing, many of the board members
are ministers or priests and the inspectors come mostly from the
clergy. Moreover, religious instruction forms part of the course in
every school, although it is given at such an hour that any pupil may
withdraw if the teaching is contrary to the faith in which he has been
reared. The secondary schools are largely interdenominational, but in
elementary education there are separate schools for Catholics and
Protestants, alike supported by the state.
[Sidenote: _Volksschulen_,]
[Sidenote: ‘Continuation schools,’]
[Sidenote: and _Mittelschulen_.]
=The Elementary System.=--Prussia, like most of the principal states of
Europe, as a result of their educational history, has its elementary
and secondary systems quite separate and distinct from each other
(Fig. 48). The universities continue the work of the gymnasiums and
real-schools, but these two latter institutions parallel the work of
the _Volksschulen_ (people’s schools), rather than supplement it. The
course of the secondary school ordinarily occupies the pupil from
nine to eighteen years of age, while that of the elementary school
carries him from six to fourteen, and after the first three years
it is practically impossible to transfer from the elementary to the
secondary system. A pupil cannot enter a gymnasium or real-school
after completing the people’s school, and the only further training
he can obtain is that of the _Fortbildungschulen_, or ‘continuation
schools,’ which supplement the system (see p. 420). The people’s
schools are gratuitous and are attended mostly by the children of
the lower classes, while the gymnasiums charge a tuition fee and are
patronized by the professional classes and aristocracy. Hence the line
between elementary and secondary education in Prussia is longitudinal
and not latitudinal, as it is in the United States; the distinction is
one of wealth and social status rather than of educational grade and
advancement. There are also some _Mittelschulen_ (middle schools) for
the middle classes of people, who cannot send their children to the
secondary schools, and yet can afford some exclusiveness. They have
one more class than the people’s schools, include a foreign language
during the last three years, and require teachers with a better
training.
[Sidenote: _Gymnasien_ and _Realschulen_;]
[Sidenote: _Realgymnasien_ and _Oberrealschulen_;]
[Sidenote: six-year courses;]
=The Secondary System.=--The main types of secondary schools in Prussia
are the _Gymnasien_ (see p. 114), with the classic languages as the
main feature of their course, and the _Realschulen_, or real-schools
(see p. 176), characterized by larger amounts of the modern languages,
mathematics, and the natural sciences. For more than a century after
the first real-school was opened in Berlin by Hecker (1747), this type
of institution had only six years in its course, and was considered
inferior to the gymnasium. By the ministerial decree of 1859, however,
two classes of real-schools were recognized, and those of the first
class had a course of nine years, and included Latin, but not Greek.
They were given full standing as secondary schools, and graduates
were granted admission to the universities, except for the study of
theology, medicine, or law. The course of the second class of these
institutions contained no Latin, and was but six years in length. In
1882 the compromise character of the course of the first class of
institutions led to their being designated as _Realgymnasien_, while
the second class in some instances had their work extended to nine
years and became known as _Oberrealschulen_. The graduates were then
allowed the privilege of studying at the universities in mathematics
and the natural sciences. Since 1901 the university courses have
been thrown open to graduates of any of the three types of secondary
schools, except that, to be eligible for theology, one must have
completed the course of a gymnasium, and for medicine, the course
of a real-gymnasium at least. Besides these schools that have been
mentioned, in rural districts where a complete course cannot be
maintained, there are often secondary institutions that do not carry
the student more than six years. These are known, according to the
curriculum, as _Progymnasien_, _Realprogymnasien_, and _Realschulen_.
The first two classes are far less common than institutions with the
longer course of the same character, but the _Realschulen_ are nearly
twice as numerous as the _Oberrealschulen_.
[Sidenote: _Reformschulen_;]
[Sidenote: the _Vorschule_.]
Since these three types of secondary institutions are so distinct
from each other (Fig. 48), it is evident that a parent is forced to
decide the future career of his boy at nine years, long before his
special ability can be known. If he once enters a real-school, he can
never transfer to a gymnasium, because the Latin begins in the lowest
class of the latter course, nor can he enter the gymnasium from the
real-gymnasium, after twelve, since he has had no Greek. To overcome
this objection, during the past quarter of a century efforts have been
made to delay the irrevocable decision by grouping all three courses
as one institution and making them identical as long as possible. In
secondary schools of this new sort, French is usually the only foreign
language taught for the first three years. Then the course divides, and
one section takes up Latin and the other English. After two years more
a further bifurcation takes place in the Latin section, and one group
begins with Greek, while the other studies English. These institutions
are known as _Reformschulen_ (Fig. 48), and the plan was first
introduced at Frankfort in 1892. The ‘reform schools’ are now growing
rapidly, and there is evident an increasing tendency to postpone the
choice of courses as long as possible. The three years of training
preliminary to admission to a secondary school of any type may be
obtained through the people’s or the middle schools. But there has also
grown up, as an attachment of the secondary schools, a _Vorschule_
(preparatory school), to perform this function for pupils of the more
exclusive classes.
[Sidenote: Universities, state institutions, but controlled by charters
and decrees.]
=Higher Education.=--Like the other stages of education, the
universities are now emancipated from ecclesiastical control, and may
be regarded as part of the national system of education. The university
is now coördinate and under the same authority with the church, for
both are legally state institutions. Universities can, therefore, be
established only by the state or with the approval of the state. In
general, however, they are not controlled by legislation, but through
charters and special decrees of the minister of education. As their
income from endowments and fees is very small, they are for the most
part supported by the state. They are managed internally by the rector
and senate. The rector is annually chosen from their number by the
full professors, with the approval of the minister, and the senate is
a committee from the various faculties. The professors are regarded as
civil servants with definite privileges, and they are appointed by the
minister, although the suggestions of the faculty concerned are usually
respected.
[Sidenote: _Technische Hochschulen._]
During the nineteenth century new institutions for the cultivation of
science in application to practical and technological purposes have
developed from technical schools of a more elementary character. While
known as ‘technical high schools’ (_Technische Hochschulen_), they
are institutions of higher learning, and exist side by side with the
universities. They include schools of engineering, mining, forestry,
agriculture, veterinary medicine, and commerce.
[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF GERMAN EDUCATION
Fig. 48.]
[Sidenote: First agitation for elementary education during the
Revolution.]
=Educational Development in France.=--The development of a centralized
system of education in France began almost a century later than in
Germany. During the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century the
different monarchic powers were not at all favorable to training
the masses, and popular education was badly neglected. It required
several revolutions in government and the establishment of a permanent
republic, to break the old traditions completely, and to make it
evident that universal suffrage should be accompanied by universal
education. Just after the middle of the eighteenth century the
revolutionary spirit began to manifest itself with the appearance of
Rousseau’s _Emile_ (see p. 222), and, except for the training started
by the Christian Brothers (see p. 140), the first serious attention
was given to elementary education. Rolland, to whom a general plan for
reorganization had been committed, recommended universal education
and an adequate number of training schools for teachers. While his
proposals were not adopted, they were the basis of much of the
short-lived legislation that arose during the Revolution, and of the
great principles of educational administration that have since been
established.
[Sidenote: Napoleon and the University of France.]
Napoleon, from the beginning, endeavored to reorganize education upon a
better basis, and when he had become emperor, ordered all the lycées,
secondary colleges, and faculties of higher education to be united
in a single corporation, dependent upon the state and known as the
‘University of France’ (1808). This decree of centralization divided
the country into twenty-seven administrative ‘academies,’ each of
which was to establish university faculties of letters and science near
the principal lycées.
[Sidenote: Through Guizot primary schools began.]
This organization, however, did not include elementary education, and
little attempt was made to provide for schools of this grade before
the reign of Louis Philippe. Upon the advice of his great minister of
education, Guizot, that monarch organized primary education, requiring
a school for each commune, or at least for a group of two or three
communes, and starting higher primary schools in the department
capitals and in communes of over six thousand inhabitants (1833).
He also instituted inspectors of primary schools, and established
department normal schools under the more effective control of the
state authorities. The plan for higher primary schools was never fully
realized, and the institutions of this sort that had been established
disappeared during the second empire. The reactionary law of Falloux
(1850) did not even mention these schools, but encouraged the
development of denominational schools.
[Sidenote: Under third republic primary system was completed.]
[Sidenote: Normal schools.]
[Sidenote: Higher primary and continuation schools.]
[Sidenote: Maternal schools.]
=The Primary School System.=--Guizot, however, had given a permanent
impulse to popular education, and during the third republic foundations
for a national system of education have rapidly been laid. Schools
have been brought into the smallest villages, and elementary education
has been made free to all (1881) and compulsory between the ages of
six and thirteen (1882). To provide trained teachers, every department
has been required to provide a normal school for teachers of each sex;
and two higher normal schools, one for men and one for women, to train
teachers for the departmental normal schools, have been opened by the
state (1882). The higher primary schools have been reëstablished
and extended (1898), and ‘supplementary courses’ offered for pupils
remaining at the lower primary schools after graduation. The studies
in the supplementary courses are technical, as well as general, and
some of the higher primary schools have been established for vocational
training rather than literary. In addition, there are continuation
‘schools of manual apprenticeship’ in the various communes, subsidized
by the state for industrial and agricultural education, and five large
schools for training in special crafts have been organized in Paris.
Institutions for children between two and six years of age became part
of the primary system in the days of Guizot (1833), and half a century
later the present name, _écoles maternelles_ (see p. 244), was adopted
(1881), although there have since been marked reforms made in the
curriculum.
[Sidenote: Secularization.]
Secularization of the school system has also gradually taken place.
First, the courses of study were secularized by the substitution
of civic and moral instruction for religious (1881); next, the
instructional force was secularized by providing that members of the
clergy should no longer be employed in the public schools (1886),
and by recognizing public school teachers as state officers (1889);
and finally, the schools themselves were completely secularized by
compelling the teaching orders to report to the state authorities
(1902), and afterwards by closing the free schools directed by them
(1904). Thus within a generation universal elementary education has
been established in France and brought completely under state control.
[Sidenote: Development of lycées and communal collèges.]
=The Secondary System.=--As in Prussia, the secondary school system
of France does not connect with the primary, but is quite separate
and distinct (Fig. 49). The training has, since the time of Napoleon,
been furnished chiefly by the lycées and communal collèges. During the
Restoration (1814-1830) and the reign of Louis Philippe (1830-1848) the
lycées came to be called ‘royal colleges,’ but, with the advent of the
second republic (1848-1851), the Napoleonic name was restored and the
curricula were completely reorganized. By this revision some elasticity
was introduced into the last three years of the lycée by a bifurcation
into a literary and a scientific course, and during the third republic
further elections were introduced, until finally (1902) four distinct
courses were established. In the leading lycées and collèges special
preparation is also afforded for schools like the military institution
of St. Cyr or the Polytechnic of Paris; and in some there is a short
course of three or four years in modern languages and sciences that in
function closely approaches that of the German real-school.
[Sidenote: Organization of lycées]
[Sidenote: and collèges.]
[Sidenote: Secondary institutions for girls.]
The boys ordinarily begin the first ‘cycle’ of the lycée or collège
at ten years of age, and while they may transfer from the primary
system at this stage, in most lycées and collèges there are preparatory
classes to train the pupil from six to ten. The second ‘cycle,’
during which the differentiation in courses largely occurs, takes the
pupil from fourteen to seventeen, and leads upon completion to the
bachelor’s degree. Education in a lycée or collège is not gratuitous,
but the income from tuition fees is so small as to cover but a small
fraction of the cost, and the rest is contributed by the state. The
communal collèges differ from the lycées in being local, and they are
maintained by the communes, as well as by the state. They have not
the same standing, and the same attainments are not required of their
professors. Until 1880 there were no lycées and communal collèges for
girls, and convents and private schools furnished the only means of
female education. Even now the usual course in the public secondary
institutions for girls is two years shorter than in those for boys.
[Sidenote: Suppression and restoration of the universities.]
[Sidenote: Degrees.]
[Sidenote: Other higher institutions.]
=The Institutions of Higher Education.=--More than one-half of the
universities established in the various ‘academies’ by Napoleon were
suppressed as soon as the monarchy was restored. But about half a
dozen were reopened in the reign of Louis Philippe, and were gradually
improved by the addition of new chairs. Beginning in 1885, a number
of decrees established a general council of faculties in each academy
to coördinate the different courses and studies, and in 1896 a law
was passed, which established a university in each of the sixteen
‘academies,’ except one. These universities differ greatly in size, but
all grant the _license_, or master’s degree, and the doctorate. The
university degrees are ordinarily conferred in the name of the state
and carry certain definite rights with them, but of late years a new
type of degree, ‘doctorate of the university,’ is granted upon easier
terms to foreigners more desirous of the degree than of its state
privileges. In Paris, besides the university, there is the College of
France, which still endeavors to foster freedom of thought (see p.
110), and a dozen other institutions of university grade, connected
with some special line, have been established.
[Sidenote: Duties of minister,]
[Sidenote: rectors,]
[Sidenote: prefects,]
[Sidenote: and inspectors.]
=Centralized Administration of the French Education.=--The
centralization of education is even more complete in France than in
Germany. The supreme head of the system is the minister of education.
He is immediately assisted by three directors, one each for primary,
secondary, and higher education. A rector is in charge of each of the
‘academies,’ except Paris, where the minister nominally holds the
office and a vice rector performs the duties. The rector has authority
over all three fields of education in his academy, but does not appoint
the teachers. That office is performed by the prefect, or head of each
civil department, upon the recommendation of the academy inspector.
There is also a departmental council, presided over by the prefect,
that appoints delegates in each canton, to take charge of the school
premises and equipment. Further organization is effected through the
maintenance of a complete corps of general, academy, and primary
inspectors.
[Sidenote: Slow evolution.]
[Sidenote: Church monopoly.]
[Sidenote: Philanthropic institutions.]
=Early Development of English Education.=--In England the
nationalization of education was delayed even longer than in France.
This country was never controlled by enlightened despots, who could,
as in Germany, force the growth of public educational sentiment, nor
was it overwhelmed by the sweep of a great revolution, destroying, as
in France, all opposition to popular progress. National education in
England has gradually grown out of the conflict of a number of elements
represented in its society. It has been the product of a series of
compromises among many different factors,--the church, state, economic
conditions, private enterprise, and philanthropy. For several centuries
education was regarded as a function of the church and family, and the
sentiment for universal training was retarded by the attitude of the
upper classes, who strove to keep the poor in ignorance and to maintain
the educational control of the church. This domination was first
seriously challenged in the eighteenth century, and while the training
then furnished through the Society for the Promotion of Christian
Knowledge, the Sunday schools, and other philanthropic institutions
(see pp. 232 ff.), was rather meager, these organizations, together
with the ‘monitorial’ instruction of the British and Foreign, and the
National Societies (see pp. 240 f.), greatly advanced the cause of
universal education. And toward the close of the century there began
to appear a new point of view, especially with men like Bentham,
Blackstone, Robert Owen, and Adam Smith, who advocated universal
education, compulsory attendance, and a national system of schools.
[Sidenote: First signs of progress.]
[Sidenote: First parliamentary grant in 1833.]
[Sidenote: Committee of Privy Council in 1839.]
[Sidenote: ‘Payment by results’ in 1861.]
=Educational Movements in the Nineteenth Century.=--The theory of these
great thinkers was somewhat in advance of the times, but, early in the
nineteenth century, social changes began to favor better educational
opportunities. The Factory Act (1802) provided for the obligatory
training of apprentices; Mr. Whitbread introduced (1807) a bill to
permit the civic officials of any township or parish to establish
schools for the poor wherever none existed; and Brougham, while
losing his bill for popular education (1820), previously secured two
commissions of inquiry on school facilities. In 1832, the passage of a
reform bill, which largely increased the suffrage, aroused Parliament
to the need of educating the masses, and the next year the first grant,
£20,000, was made for elementary education. This sum was to be used
solely to aid in building schoolhouses for which subscriptions had
been privately obtained, and so could be passed as a vote of ‘supply,’
without referring it to the House of Lords. For lack of a government
organization of education, it was apportioned through the National and
the British and Foreign Societies (see p. 240). Governmental activities
constantly increased. In 1839 the annual grant was increased to £30,000
and allowed to be used for elementary education without restriction. In
the same year, a separate committee of the Privy Council was designated
to administer the educational grants; and in 1856 a Vice President was
appointed to act as chairman of this educational committee. Then, in
1861, through another commission on popular education, it was arranged
to base the grant to any school upon the results shown by the pupils in
the governmental examinations. This ‘payment by results’ was intended
to increase efficiency, but, used as a sole means of testing, it soon
proved narrowing and unfair, and had to be supplemented by the general
opinion formed of each school by the inspectors. Yet it somewhat
increased the efficiency of the work.
[Sidenote: In 1870 establishment of ‘board schools’, supported by local
‘rates,’ as well as grants.]
Agitation in behalf of universal education continued, and organizations
like the ‘Lancashire Public School Association’ of Manchester (1847)
and ‘The League’ of Birmingham (1869) spread rapidly through the
manufacturing centers. And when the franchise was further extended in
1868, the necessity for preparing millions of the common people for
new responsibilities in public affairs led in 1870 to the passage of
the epoch-making bill of William E. Forster. Under this act ‘board
schools,’ or institutions in charge of a board chosen by the people
of the community, were to be established wherever a deficiency in the
existing accommodations required it. The ‘voluntary,’ or denominational
schools, most of which belonged to the Church of England, were to
continue to share in the government grants upon equal terms with the
new institutions, but the latter had also the benefit of local ‘rates.’
Elementary instruction in all schools had to be open to government
inspection, and the amount of the grant was partly determined by the
report of the inspectors. The board schools were forbidden to allow
“any religious catechism or religious formulary, which is distinctive
of any particular denomination;” and religious instruction in either
type of school had to be placed at the beginning or end of the school
session, so that, under the ‘conscience clause’ of the act, any scholar
might conveniently withdraw at that time.
[Sidenote: Compulsory attendance,]
[Sidenote: minimum age,]
[Sidenote: free tuition,]
[Sidenote: and Board of Education.]
This act of 1870 was, of course, the _magna charta_ of national
education, and has become the basis of much school legislation. The
compromise in the bill that allowed the voluntary schools, with their
sectarian instruction, to continue receiving government support,
however, prevented a logical and consistent system from being
established. The dual system of elementary schools continued to be
developed in a variety of enactments. Compulsory attendance laws were
passed (1876, 1880), the minimum age of exemption was set first at
eleven years of age, and then raised to twelve (1893, 1899), and an
extra grant, to take the place of tuition fees (1891), made it possible
for most schools to become absolutely free. Finally (1899), there was
created a central Board of Education, which assumed the functions of
the Committee of Privy Council on Education and similar agencies for
managing educational interests.
[Sidenote: In 1902 ‘voluntary’ schools also allowed local rates,]
[Sidenote: but dual system swept away,]
[Sidenote: and secondary instruction supported at public expense.]
=Subsequent Educational Movements.=--Within a generation of existence
the board schools met with a phenomenal growth, and came to include
about seventy per cent of the pupils. They were spending about half
as much again upon each pupil as were the voluntary schools, and were
able to engage a much better staff of teachers. This extension of civil
influence in education was bitterly opposed by the Established Church,
and when the conservatives came into power through the assistance of
the clergy, they passed the act of 1902, whereby the denominational
schools were permitted to share also in the local rates. While under
this act the administration of both board and voluntary schools was now
centralized in the county and city councils, the immediate supervision
of instruction in the individual schools was placed in the hands of
a board of managers; and, despite their receipt of local taxes, the
voluntary schools were required to have but two of their managers
appointed by the council, and the other four were still selected by
the denomination. Serious opposition to the enforcement of the new law
arose among nonconformists and others, and coercive measures were taken
by the government. The new act, however, while unfair to those outside
the Church of England, tended to sweep away the dual system of public
and church schools, since both were coming to rest upon a basis of
public control and support. Since 1902 all elementary schools have been
considered as part of one comprehensive system, and the board schools
have been distinguished as ‘provided schools’ and the voluntary as
‘nonprovided.’ Moreover, under the legislation of 1902 steps were also
taken to coördinate secondary with elementary education, and bring it
somewhat within the public system. The board schools had early in their
existence begun to develop upward into secondary education and before
long had come to compete with the older grammar and public schools,
but in 1900 the ‘Cockerton judgment’ forbade the use of local rates
for other instruction than elementary, and it remained for the new act
to impose upon councils the duty to support instruction in subjects
beyond the elementary work. The Board of Education was also empowered
to inspect the work of the great public schools and other endowed
secondary institutions, and to allow grants to all schools meeting the
conditions of the Board.
[Sidenote: Bill of 1906 defeated,]
[Sidenote: but new plan, placing all schools under public control.]
After the liberals returned to power, they continued the conservatives’
policy of granting local rates to all elementary schools, and of
bringing secondary education under public support and control. While
the education bill of 1906, which was kept from passage by the House
of Lords, did not recognize church schools as such, and insisted upon
bringing them under the complete control of the public authorities,
it made no attempt to return to the former dual system of schools
and the isolation of secondary from elementary education. It still
held also to religious, and, under safeguards, even to sectarian
instruction in the elementary schools, and may yet be passed in a
revised form. A voluntary committee for a ‘resettlement in English
elementary education,’ through the mediation of the President of the
Board of Education and the Archbishop of Canterbury, has formulated
a plan, which concedes the principle of public control and support
for all elementary schools and religious freedom for teachers and
pupils, but provides local option for the continuance of denominational
schools. Thus, while England is not prepared to adopt a secular
system, like that of France and the United States, and has not yet
fully articulated its secondary education with elementary, (Fig.
50), it is upon the high road to a complete centralization of school
administration in the national government.
[Sidenote: Classical and ecclesiastical monopoly broken in secondary
and higher education.]
During the nineteenth century also the classical and ecclesiastical
monopoly in secondary and higher education was largely broken. All the
older public and grammar schools (see pp. 412 f.) developed ‘modern
sides,’ and during the Victorian era a number of new schools were
founded, which gave considerable attention to the modern languages and
the sciences from the start. A recognition of the scientific ideals
began also to appear in the curriculum of Cambridge (1851) and Oxford
(1853), and the theological requirements for a degree were dropped
(1856). By the last quarter of the century actual laboratories had
been introduced, and students were freed from all doctrinal tests at
both universities. Moreover, new universities, better adjusted to
modern demands and more closely related to the school systems and the
civil government, began to arise in manufacturing centers. Since 1889
such municipal or ‘provincial’ institutions as the Universities of
Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, and Bristol have sprung up,
and the University of London, started as an examining body in 1836, has
become a teaching institution.
[Sidenote: Two types,]
[Sidenote: (1) Ontario and (2) Quebec.]
=Development of Education in the Dominion of Canada.=--Canada developed
schools in very early days. In the beginning education was cared for
in the four provinces separately, and when the Dominion of Canada was
finally formed (1867), the federal government left to each province
the administration of public education within its borders. The same
autonomy was extended to the provinces that have since been
admitted to the federation. Two types of educational control,--state
and ecclesiastical, have been developing from the first. The former
method is best illustrated by the system of Ontario; and the latter by
that of Quebec. Ontario was settled mostly by emigrants from England,
Scotland, and the United States, and practically all brought with
them the concept of public control of education. The French Catholics
of Quebec, on the other hand, naturally followed their traditions of
parish schools.
[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF FRENCH EDUCATION.
Fig. 49.]
[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION.
Fig. 50.]
[Sidenote: Universal education, and since 1870 great centralization
through minister]
[Sidenote: and subordinate authorities.]
=The Public School System of Ontario.=--The system of schools in
Ontario began with the passage of its Common Schools Act in 1846. This
was formulated after a careful study of the systems of Massachusetts,
New York, and the European states, and included excellent elements
from various systems and many original features of value. By 1871
this fundamental law had come to include free tuition, compulsory
attendance, county inspection, and uniform examinations. In 1876 an
even greater centralization of the provincial system was effected
through substituting for the chief superintendent a ‘minister of
education’ with much larger powers, and bringing all stages of public
education,--elementary, secondary, and higher schools, into much closer
relationship. The minister now has many assistants, including an
Advisory Council of Education; and he initiates and directs all school
legislation, decides complaints and disputes, sets examinations for the
high, elementary, model, and normal schools, prescribes the courses
of study, chooses the text-books, and appoints the inspectors. The
system is further administered by subordinate authorities elected in
the localities, whose duties are clearly defined by law. The province
is for educational purposes divided into counties, which are in turn
divided into townships, and subdivided into sections and incorporated
cities, towns, and villages. The central and local administrations are
wisely balanced, and while the one determines scholastic standards
through its professional requirements, the other establishes schools
and appoints teachers.
[Sidenote: Unification of the several stages of education.]
[Sidenote: Inspectors.]
[Sidenote: ‘Separate schools.’]
The system of elementary schools, high schools, and universities, is
fully unified, and the work of each stage fits into the others even
more exactly than in the ‘ladder’ system of the United States. The
training of teachers is cared for through the departments of Education
in the universities, the eight provincial normal schools, and a
model school in each county. The teachers for secondary institutions
are prepared at the universities, the normal schools grant a life
certificate to teach in the elementary schools, while the model schools
afford fourteen weeks of training for country teachers. The buildings,
equipment, courses, and instruction of the high, elementary, and model
schools are each reported upon by inspectors of assured scholarship
and experience. Since 1863 permission has been granted to establish
‘separate schools’ for any peculiar creed or race, wherever there are
five families requesting it. This opportunity to have schools of their
own faith has not been embraced by any save the Roman Catholics. Any
one paying toward the support of a ‘separate school’ is exempt from
taxation for the regular public schools. Special provincial inspectors
report upon these schools, but in the same way as for the public
schools.
[Sidenote: Other provinces similar to Ontario.]
[Sidenote: In Quebec parish as unit,]
[Sidenote: but since 1859 Council of Public Instruction]
[Sidenote: and superintendent of schools.]
[Sidenote: School support.]
=The System of Ecclesiastical Schools in Quebec.=--The Ontario system
may be considered typical of the educational administration in the
various provinces of Canada, except Quebec. Every other province has
sought uniformity of school provision and educational standards through
government control, although none of them grant their central official
quite as much power as Ontario. Alberta and Saskatchewan likewise
permit ‘separate schools,’ and they existed in Manitoba until 1890.
But the type of control in Quebec is very different from that of the
other provinces. There in 1845 the parish was by law made the unit of
school administration. But seven years later government inspectors
were established, and in 1859 a central organization was completed
with a Council of Public Instruction. This authority is composed of
two divisions, a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, which sit separately
and administer the schools of their respective creeds. The provincial
superintendent of schools, appointed by the lieutenant governor, is
_ex officio_ chairman of both divisions, but he can vote only with
the division to which he belongs by religion. Each division makes
regulations for the instruction and tests of its own schools, and
appoints inspectors of its own faith. The proceeds from the general
public school fund or from any educational legacies are divided in
proportion to the Catholic and Protestant inhabitants, but the regular
school rate may be assigned to whichever of the two school systems the
taxpayer wishes.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
Graves, _In Modern Times_ (Macmillan, 1913), chap. IX; Parker, _Modern
Elementary Education_ (Ginn, 1912), chaps. X and XI. The following
works throw light upon various phases of the respective countries:
Nohle, E., _History of the German School System_ (_Report of the
U. S. Commissioner of Education_, 1897-1898; vol. I, pp. 26-44);
Paulsen, F., _German Education_ (Scribner, 1908); Russell, J. E.,
_German Higher Schools_ (Longmans, Green, 1896); Paulsen, F., _The
German Universities_ (Macmillan, 1895; Scribner, 1906); Kandel, I.
L., _The Training of Elementary School Teachers in Germany_ (Columbia
University, _Teachers College Contributions_, No. 31, 1910); Brown,
J. F., _The Training of Teachers for Secondary Schools in Germany_
(Macmillan, 1911); Beard, Mary S., _Écoles maternelles of Paris_
(_Great Britain_, _Board of Education_, _Special Reports on Educational
Subjects_, vol. VIII, no. 8); Farrington, F. E., _French Secondary
Schools_ (Longmans, Green, 1910) and _The Public Primary System of
France_ (Columbia University, _Teachers College Contributions to
Education_, no. 7, 1906); Smith, Anna T., _Education in France_
(_Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education_, 1890 to
1914, see tables of contents); Greenough, J. C., _The Evolution of the
Elementary Schools of Great Britain_ (Appleton, 1903); Montmorency, J.
E. G. de, _State Intervention in English Education_ (Macmillan, 1903);
Sharpless, I., _English Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools_
(Appleton, 1892); Smith, Anna T., _Education in England_ (_Monroe
Cyclopædia of Education_, vol. II); Sandiford, P., _The Training of
Teachers in England and Wales_ (Columbia University, _Teachers College
Contributions_, no. 32, 1910); Coleman, H. T. J., _Public Education in
Upper Canada_ (Columbia University, _Teachers College Contributions_,
no. 15, 1909); Ross, G. W., _The School System of Ontario_ (Appleton,
1896); Smith, Anna T., _Education in Canada_ (_Monroe Cyclopædia of
Education_, vol. I).
CHAPTER XXVI
THE SCIENTIFIC MOVEMENT AND THE CURRICULUM
OUTLINE
During the past two centuries a great growth has taken place in
the natural sciences. For a long time this development affected
practical life very little, but during the nineteenth century the
application of science to industrial problems has resulted in a
host of inventions.
Because of the importance of the sciences to life, Spencer and
others have urged the inclusion of them in the curricula of schools
and colleges. While the content of the sciences has furnished the
chief argument for this, many scientists have urged their value as
formal discipline.
Instruction in the sciences has gradually been included in the
higher, secondary, and elementary institutions of Germany, France,
England, and the United States.
This marked scientific movement is allied with the psychological
tendency in its improvement of method, and with the sociological in
its emphasis upon human welfare.
[Sidenote: Remarkable achievements during past two centuries.]
[Sidenote: Hutton, Agassiz, Darwin, and others.]
=The Development of the Natural Sciences in Modern Times.=--We have
already (chapter XV) witnessed the growth of the natural sciences
and the beginning of their introduction into the curriculum toward
the close of the seventeenth century. This tendency was also greatly
stimulated by Rousseau, who, we have seen (pp. 218-222), may be held to
advocate the scientific, as well as the sociological and psychological
movements. And during the past two centuries this development
has become most rapid and extensive. The desire for scientific
investigation steadily grew throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries until its ideals, methods, and results became patent in
every department of human knowledge. The strongholds of ignorance,
superstition, and prejudice were rapidly stormed and taken through
new discoveries or new marshallings of facts already discovered. But
evident as this movement has been, it is scarcely possible here even
to mention the more important scientific achievements, or to outline
the broad sweep of progress in astronomy, geology, biology, physiology,
chemistry, physics, and other sciences within a century. The Newtonian
theory has been confirmed by the investigations of Lagrange and Laplace
and by the discovery of Neptune by mathematical reasoning from the
effects of its gravitation. Hutton’s ‘Plutonic’ theory of continents
and Agassiz’s hypothesis of a universal ice-age have been formulated;
the doctrine of evolution of Darwin (Fig. 51) and Mendel’s law of
inheritance have been established; Liebig and others have thrown light
upon the process of digestion and the functioning of the lungs and
liver; atoms, molecules, and ions have been defined; Joule and Mayer
have demonstrated the conservation of energy; and the periodic law of
chemical elements has been discovered by Newlands.
[Sidenote: During nineteenth century science applied]
[Sidenote: to problems of labor, transportation, communication,
comfort, and hygiene.]
=The Growth of Inventions and Discoveries in the Nineteenth
Century.=--It should be noted, however, that the majority of
these investigations were for a long time carried on outside the
universities, and, owing to the almost proverbial conservatism of
educational institutions, the natural sciences scarcely entered the
course of study anywhere. In fact, these great discoveries at first
seem not to have affected practical life in any direction. Huxley tells
us that in the eighteenth century “weaving and spinning were carried
on with the old appliances; nobody could travel faster by sea or by
land than at any previous time in the world’s history, and King George
could send a message from London to York no faster than King John might
have done.” But a little later, as he adds, “that growth of knowledge
beyond imaginable utilitarian ends, which is the condition precedent
of its practical utility, began to produce some effect upon practical
life.” The nineteenth century will, on this account, always be known
for its development of inventions and the arts, as well as of pure
science. During this period science rapidly grew and took the form of
applications to the problems of labor, production, transportation,
communication, hygiene, and sanitation. The reaper, the sewing machine,
the printing press, and the typewriter greatly reduced the cost of
labor; the steamboat, locomotive, electric railway, telegraph, and
telephone linked all parts of the world together; anthracite, friction
matches, petroleum, and electric lighting and heating greatly enlarged
the comforts of life; and stethoscopes, anæsthetics, antiseptics, and
antitoxines added wonderfully to the span of human life.
[Sidenote: Contest between advocates of classics and sciences.]
=Herbert Spencer and _What Knowledge is of Most Worth_.=--Because
of these practical results, the vital importance of a knowledge of
natural phenomena to human welfare and social progress was more and
more felt throughout the century. It gradually became evident that the
natural sciences were demanded by modern life and constituted elements
of the greatest value in modern culture and education. Many English
and American writers began to maintain that an exclusive study of the
classics did not provide a suitable preparation for life, and that the
sciences should be included in the curriculum. This step was bitterly
opposed by conservative institutions and educators. During a greater
part of the century a contest was waged between the advocates of the
classical monopoly and the progressives, who urged that the sciences
should be introduced.
[Sidenote: Preparation for complete living as the purpose of education.]
[Sidenote: Leading kinds of activity;]
A representative argument for sciences in the course of study is that
made by Herbert Spencer (Fig. 52) in his essay on _What Knowledge Is
of Most Worth_. He ventured to raise the whole question of the purpose
of education. He held that “to prepare us for complete living is the
function which education has to discharge; and the only rational mode
of judging of any educational course is, to judge in what degree it
discharges such function. Our first step must obviously be to classify,
in the order of their importance, the leading kinds of activity which
constitute human life. They may be arranged into: 1. Those activities
which directly minister to self-preservation; 2. Those activities
which, by securing the necessaries of life, indirectly minister to
self-preservation; 3. Those activities which have for their end the
rearing and discipline of offspring; 4. Those activities which are
involved in the maintenance of proper social and political relations;
5. Those miscellaneous activities which make up the leisure part of
life, devoted to the gratification of the tastes and feelings. The
ideal of education is complete preparation in all these divisions. But
failing this ideal, the aim should be to maintain a due proportion
between the degrees of preparation in each, greatest where the value
is greatest, less where the value is less, least where the value is
least.”
[Sidenote: for all of these, sciences are most useful;]
[Sidenote: and a change of educational content is advocated.]
Applying this test, Spencer finds that a knowledge of the sciences is
always most useful in life, and therefore of most worth. He considers
each one of the five groups of activities and demonstrates the need
of the knowledge of some science or sciences to guide it rightly.
An acquaintance with physiology is necessary to the maintenance of
health, and so for self-preservation. Any form of industry or other
means of indirect self-preservation will require some understanding
of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. To care
for the physical, intellectual, and moral training of their children,
parents should know the general principles of physiology, psychology,
and ethics. A man is best fitted for citizenship through a knowledge of
the science of history in its political, economic, and social aspects.
And even the æsthetic or leisure side of life depends upon physiology,
mechanics, and psychology as a basis for art, music, and poetry. Hence
Spencer advocates a complete change from the type of training that had
dominated education since the Renaissance and calls for a release from
the traditional bondage to the classics. Instead of Greek and Latin
for ‘culture’ and ‘discipline,’ and an order of society where the few
are educated for a life of elegant leisure, he recommends the sciences
and a new scheme of life where every one shall enjoy all advantages in
the order of their relative value. But Spencer uses the term ‘science’
rather loosely, and seeks to denote the social, political, and moral
sciences, as well as the physical and biological, as being ‘of most
worth.’ Hence he does not deserve to be severely arraigned for his
‘utilitarianism,’ as he has been so frequently. His ‘preparation for
complete living’ includes more than ‘how to live in the material sense
only,’ and with him education should contain such material as will
elevate conduct and make life pleasanter, nobler, and more effective.
[Sidenote: Huxley’s ridicule of the education in vogue.]
=Advocacy of the Sciences by Huxley and Others.=--Another great
popularizer of the scientific elements in education, who also stressed
the value of the sciences for ‘complete living’ and social progress,
was Thomas H. Huxley (Fig. 53). His use of English was vigorous and
epigrammatic, and he showed great skill in bringing his conclusions
into such simple language that the most unscientific persons could
understand them. Especially in an address on _A Liberal Education_
before a ‘workingmen’s college,’ he has most forcefully depicted
the value of the sciences and other modern subjects in training for
concrete living, and ridiculed the ineffectiveness of the current
classical education. He maintains that “the life, the fortune, and the
happiness of every one of us depend upon our knowing something of the
phenomena of the universe and the laws of Nature. And yet this is what
people tell to their sons: ‘At the cost of from one to two thousand
pounds of our hard-earned money, we devote twelve of the most precious
years of your life to school. There you shall not learn one single
thing of all those you will most want to know directly you leave school
and enter upon the practical business of life.’” Instead of this, “the
middle class school substitutes what is usually comprised under the
compendious title of the ‘classics’--that is to say, the languages,
the literature, and the history of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and
the geography of so much of the world as was known to these two great
nations of antiquity.” Thus “the British father denies his children all
the knowledge they might turn to account in life, not merely for the
achievement of vulgar success, but for guidance in the great crises of
human existence.”
[Sidenote: Combe.]
[Sidenote: Youmans.]
[Sidenote: Eliot.]
Many other vigorous lecturers and writers entered into this reform
of the curriculum. Opposition to the over-emphasis of languages,
especially the classics, in the content of education was undertaken
even earlier in the century by the distinguished phrenologist, George
Combe. In his ‘secular’ schools and in his work on _Education_, he
emphasized instruction in the sciences relating to moral, religious,
social, and political life, as well as those bearing upon man’s
physical and mental constitution. After the middle of the century a
number of men undertook to popularize the sciences in America by tongue
and pen. One of the most effective of these was Edward L. Youmans, who
collected and edited a set of lectures urging the claims of the various
sciences under the title of _Culture Demanded by Modern Life_ (1867).
He also founded the _International Science Series_ (1871) and the
_Popular Science Monthly_ (1872). A service for the sciences, bearing
more directly upon the educational world, was that performed by Charles
W. Eliot (Fig. 54), President of Harvard. This he accomplished largely
by an extension of the elective system and an emphasis upon science in
the curriculum of school and college. In his description of ‘a liberal
education,’ he argues that “the arts built upon chemistry, physics,
botany, zoölogy, and geology are chief factors in the civilization
of our time, and are growing in material and moral influence at a
marvelous rate. They are not simply mechanical or material forces; they
are also moral forces of great intensity.”
[Sidenote: Huxley parodies the argument of formal discipline.]
=The Disciplinary Argument for the Sciences.=--Thus, in general, the
writers and lecturers interested in the scientific movement held
that a knowledge of nature was indispensable for human welfare and
that the content of studies rather than the method was of importance
in education. Many of them also expressed their dissent from the
disciplinary conception of education urged by the classicists. Huxley,
for example, parodies the usual linguistic drill by stating: “I could
get up an osteological primer so arid, so pedantic in its terminology,
so altogether distasteful to the youthful mind, as to beat the recent
famous production of the head-master out of the field in all these
excellences. Next, I could exercise my boys upon easy fossils, and
bring out all their powers of memory and all their ingenuity in the
application of my osteogrammatical rules to the interpretation, or
construing, of those fragments.”
[Sidenote: But Spencer and others borrow the disciplinary argument of
the classicists.]
Yet the tradition of ‘formal discipline’ and the belief in faculties
or general powers of the mind that might be trained by certain favored
studies and afterward applied in any direction (see pp. 182f.) were
too firmly rooted to be entirely upset. Even the greatest of the
scientists seem to have been influenced by this notion and to have
attempted occasionally a defense of their subjects on the basis of
superiority in this direction. After Spencer has made his effective
argument for the sciences on the ground that their ‘content’ is so much
more valuable for the activities of life, he shifts his whole point
of view, and attempts to anticipate the classicists by occupying
their own ground. He admits that “besides its use for guidance in
conduct, the acquisition of each order of facts has also its use as
mental exercise.” As evidence of this, he undertakes to show that
science, like language, trains the memory, and, in addition, exercises
the understanding; that it is superior to language in cultivating
judgment; that, by fostering independence, perseverance, and sincerity,
it furnishes a moral discipline. A similar argument is made by Combe,
when he maintains that “it is not so much the mere knowledge of the
details of Chemistry, of Natural Philosophy, or of any other science
that I value, as the strengthening of the intellect, which follows from
these studies.” So Youmans declares that “by far the most priceless
of all things is mental power. Science made the basis of culture will
accomplish this result.” In fact, nearly every apologist for the
natural sciences at some time or other has advocated these subjects
from the standpoint of formal discipline, although the implied attitude
toward the transfer of a generalized ideal is often in harmony with
modern psychology (see p. 184).
[Illustration: Fig. 51.--Charles Darwin
(1809-1882).]
[Illustration: Fig. 52.--Herbert Spencer
(1820-1903).]
[Illustration: Fig. 53.--Thomas H. Huxley
(1825-1895).]
[Illustration: Fig. 54.--Charles W. Eliot
(1835- ).]
A GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC MOVEMENT
[Sidenote: German universities]
[Sidenote: and _Hochschulen_.]
=Introduction of the Sciences into Educational Institutions;
Germany.=--Contemporaneously with the growth of inventions and the
cogent arguments and vigorous campaigns of advanced thinkers during
the nineteenth century, training in the sciences was gradually
creeping into educational practice. While the sciences began to work
their way into institutions of all grades early in the eighteenth
century, it was not until about the middle of the nineteenth that the
movement was seriously felt in education. Even in Germany the first
attempts at studying nature were made outside the universities in
the ‘academies of science.’ We have seen (pp. 177 f.) that during the
eighteenth century most of the Protestant universities had started
professorships in the sciences. But it was not until the beginning
of the second quarter of the nineteenth century that, in Liebig’s
laboratory at the University of Giessen, students first began to be
taught through experiments, and it was after the middle of the century
before this investigation work had generally replaced the formal
science instruction in German universities. Since then the development
of science in the higher education of Germany has been phenomenal.
The _Technische Hochschulen_ (see p. 380) have also come to furnish
instruction in all fields of applied science.
[Sidenote: Real schools, gymnasiums,]
[Sidenote: and technical schools.]
In German secondary instruction the realistic instruction of the
pietists was brought by Hecker (see p. 176) to Berlin, where he started
his famous _Realschule_ in 1747, and before the beginning of the
nineteenth century similar institutions had spread throughout Prussia.
Early in the nineteenth century the course of study in the gymnasiums
of Prussia was considerably modified, and, as part of the compromise,
some science was introduced. The movement later spread into the
secondary education of states in South Germany, and, while the total
amount of science was not large, it managed to hold its place in the
gymnasial curriculum even during the reaction to absolutism between
1815 and 1848. But, as we have seen (p. 378), two types of real-schools
were eventually recognized,--_Realgymnasium_ and _Oberrealschule_, and
they at present devote approximately twice as much time to the physical
and biological sciences as do the gymnasia. Technical and trade
schools, with scientific and mathematical subjects as a foundation
for the vocational work, have also appeared as a species of secondary
education in Germany (see p. 420). The first of these were opened in
Nuremberg in 1823, but their rapid increase in numbers, variety, and
importance has taken place since the middle of the century, and their
development in organization and method has occurred within the past
twenty-five years.
[Sidenote: _Volksschulen._]
The scientific movement was also felt in the elementary schools of
Germany during the early part of the nineteenth century. Science was
considerably popularized by the schools of the philanthropinists
(pp. 227 f.), and was widely introduced into elementary education by
the spread of Pestalozzianism in Prussia and the other German states
(see p. 289 f.). Before the close of the first quarter of the century
the study of elementary science,--natural history, physiology, and
physics, appeared in various grades; geography and drawing were taught
throughout the course; and geometry was included in the upper classes
of the _Volksschulen_.
[Sidenote: French collèges and universities.]
[Sidenote: Lycées.]
=France.=--Before the Revolution in France the higher and secondary
institutions found little place for instruction in science. There
was a chair of experimental physics at the College of Navarre of the
University of Paris and at the Universities of Toulouse and Montpelier,
and natural history was also taught at the more independent College of
France, but, as a whole, education was dominated largely by humanism.
However, with the establishment of the republic a new régime began in
education, as in other matters, and science entered more largely into
higher and secondary instruction. Most of the revolutionary proposals
subordinated letters to science, and in 1794 the republic founded a
great central normal school, where the famous Laplace and Lagrange
for a short time gave instruction in science. In 1802 Napoleon had
included in the scientific course for the lycées natural history,
physics, astronomy, chemistry, and mineralogy, and a definite advance
in quantity and method of the scientific instruction in the secondary
schools was made in 1814. On the ground that they were injuring
classical studies, Cousin in 1840 had the sciences curtailed, but he
was shortly forced to restore them upon an optional basis. A contest
between the two types of studies was carried on in the lycées until
1852, when a bifurcation in the course put the two theoretically
upon the same basis. The scientific course, however, has never been
considered equal in prestige to the classical, although it has
constantly increased in length and difficulty.
[Sidenote: Lower and higher primary,]
[Sidenote: and normal schools.]
Some instruction in science has come to be given during the past
forty years even in the elementary schools of France. In the lower
primary schools the work is informal, and consists mostly of object
lessons and first scientific notions. These are developed in
connection with drawing, manual training, agriculture, and geography
of the neighborhood and of France in general. Instruction becomes
more formal in the ‘higher primary’ schools, and includes regular
courses in the natural and physical sciences and hygiene, as well
as geography, drawing, and manual training. In the normal schools
for primary teachers instruction in all the physical and biological
sciences is even more thorough, and includes not only the facts and
theories of general scientific importance, but it also emphasizes their
applications to everyday life. For example, the flora and fauna of the
neighborhood are studied in their special relation to agriculture.
[Sidenote: Cambridge and Oxford,]
[Sidenote: municipal universities,]
[Sidenote: and Imperial College of Science.]
[Sidenote: Science and Art Department.]
=England.=--In England, several chairs in the natural sciences were
established at Cambridge during the eighteenth century. But it was
almost the middle of the nineteenth century before the biological
sciences and the laboratory method of instruction were introduced,
and not until toward the close of the century did science become
prominent at Cambridge and Oxford. And the most marked promotion of
the scientific movement in England has occurred within the past fifty
years through the foundation of efficient municipal universities in
such centers as Birmingham, Manchester, London, and Liverpool (see
p. 392). For many years the laboratory instruction was given only in
institutions outside the universities. Higher courses in science by the
new methods were afforded through the foundation of the Royal School
of Mines (1851), the Royal School of Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering (1864), and the Normal School of Science (1868), which
were all combined in 1890 into a single institution known as the Royal
College of Science, and in 1907, when the Technical College (founded
1881) of the City and Guilds of London Institute was also merged, the
entire corporation became known as the Imperial College of Science and
Technology. An agency that was instrumental in encouraging the advanced
study of science, although it accomplished even more for elementary and
secondary schools, was the national Science and Art Department. This
organization was founded in 1858 to bring under a single management
the science, trade, and navigation schools already existing, and to
facilitate higher instruction in science, and a few years later began
to offer examinations and to grant certificates to teach science in
the elementary schools. It was taken over by the national Board of
Education, when that body was organized in 1899 (see p. 389).
[Sidenote: Academies,]
[Sidenote: ‘secular’ schools,]
[Sidenote: ‘modern side’ in public schools,]
[Sidenote: and Department of Science and Art.]
In English secondary instruction the ‘academies,’ in which science
first appeared (pp. 157 f.), had before the close of the eighteenth
century greatly declined, and the humanistic ‘public’ schools and
secondary institutions of a private character had as yet paid almost
no attention to the sciences. In the first half of the nineteenth
century an anti-classical campaign began, and, continuing with ever
increasing force until the middle of the century, it brought about
the foundation of numerous schools to embody the new ideals. Toward
the close of 1848 the first ‘secular’ school was opened by Combe
(see p. 403) at Edinburgh, and included in its curriculum a study of
geography, drawing, mathematics, natural history, chemistry, natural
philosophy, physiology, phrenology, and materials used in the arts and
manufactures. Similar institutions were organized at Glasgow, Leith,
London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Belfast, and many other
cities of the United Kingdom. While short-lived, these schools did
much to promote the introduction of sciences into secondary education
that soon followed. Shortly after the middle of the century Rugby,
and then Winchester, introduced science into the regular curriculum,
and by 1868, as a result of the governmental investigation of the
endowed schools, which showed an almost complete absence of science in
the curricula, all the leading secondary schools began to establish
a ‘modern side.’ This course generally included physics and natural
history, as well as modern languages and history, but it was most
reluctantly organized by the institutions, and, while it has attained
to great efficiency, it has never, except in a few schools, been
accorded the same standing as the classical course. The Department
of Science and Art also afforded much encouragement to secondary
instruction in the sciences by subsidizing schools and classes in
physics, chemistry, zoölogy, botany, geology, mineralogy, and subjects
involving the applications of science. Before its absorption into
the Board of Education some ten thousand classes and seventy-five
independent schools of secondary grade received assistance from this
source.
[Sidenote: Grants for science work in elementary schools.]
The Department also gave aid to the study of science in elementary
education. As early as the fifties, grants were made to establish work
in elementary science, art, and design, but the educational value was
for more than forty years subordinated to practical applications. And
while, after the report by a Committee of the British Association in
1889, much aid was furnished for the equipment of laboratories, lecture
rooms, and workshops, and an increase in the staff of instructors,
for a decade no subjects except the rudiments were required in the
elementary course, and such ‘supplementary’ subjects as elementary
science and geography, if taught, were given a special subsidy. But
since 1900 this scientific work has been made compulsory in the
elementary curriculum.
[Sidenote: Beginning in the colleges during the eighteenth century.]
=The United States.=--In the colleges of the United States the courses
show considerable evidence of science teaching by the eighteenth
century. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, King’s (afterward Columbia),
Dartmouth, Union, and Pennsylvania had all come to offer work in
‘natural philosophy’ or ‘natural history,’ which terms might then be
used to cover physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, botany, and
zoölogy. However, before the Revolution physics seems to have been a
subordinate branch of mathematical instruction, even less importance
was attached to biology, and chemistry was only occasionally taught
as an obscure and unimportant phase of physics. Laboratories and
instruments of precision did not yet exist.
[Sidenote: Development of sciences,--]
[Sidenote: chemistry,]
[Sidenote: physics,]
[Sidenote: geology,]
[Sidenote: astronomy,]
[Sidenote: and biology.]
Since then whole fields of science have been discovered and defined,
and others, like geology and astronomy, have been reclaimed from
dogmatism, and science studies have slowly come into favor. Instruction
in chemistry has grown up through a study of materia medica at the
medical schools of Pennsylvania (1768), Harvard (1782), and Dartmouth
(1798). A separate chair of chemistry was soon established at Princeton
(1795), Columbia (1800), Yale (1802), Bowdoin (1805), South Carolina
(1811), Dickinson (1811), and Williams (1812), and the movement
continued until practically all the colleges had recognized it as an
important branch of study. But while experiments were from the first
performed as demonstrations by the instructors, it was generally not
until almost the middle of the century that students were admitted at
all to the laboratories. About the same time laboratories in physics
began to be equipped with apparatus. Geology was included in the early
professorship of chemistry at Yale, and was given a distinct chair upon
the advent of James D. Dana about the middle of the century, while Amos
Eaton taught it as a separate subject at Williams as early as 1825.
Some attention was given to astronomy early in the century, although
the instruments remained very ordinary and the methods authoritative
and prescriptive until the opening of the observatories at Cincinnati
(1844), Cambridge (1846), and Ann Arbor (1854). The biological
sciences were even longer studied through mere observation rather than
investigation and experiment. Until Louis Agassiz opened his laboratory
at Harvard to students just after the middle of the century, the
courses were meager, mostly theoretical and classificatory, and were
given entirely by lecture, without field or laboratory work. Since then
the development has been rapid.
[Sidenote: Impulse through evolutionary doctrine.]
[Sidenote: Rise of new institutions.]
But the greatest impulse was given to instruction in science through
the publication of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ (1859), and the
dissemination of evolutionary doctrine through Asa Gray, professor of
natural history at Harvard, and William B. Rogers, president of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The intellectual development
ensuing also brought about the foundation of such new institutions as
Cornell and Johns Hopkins, which emphasized the teaching of science
as an unconscious protest against the exclusively classical training.
Special scientific and technological schools likewise began to
arise. The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1825) and the Lawrence
Scientific School at Harvard (1847) had already been opened, but now
similar schools of science, like Sheffield at Yale (1860), and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1862), sprang up in all parts
of the country. In 1862 the Morrill Act of Congress appropriated lands
in every state to promote education in agriculture, mechanic arts, and
the natural sciences. These grants, which amounted at first to thirteen
million acres, were subsequently extended to new states as they were
admitted, and the endowment was increased by the annual grants of
money that were made under later acts. From these funds and private
benefactions, further schools of science were started or old schools
were strengthened in every state.
[Sidenote: Academies]
[Sidenote: and high schools.]
Through the academy movement (pp. 158 ff.) sciences were introduced
into American secondary education. Sometimes these subjects were
extended downward from the colleges, but often they had as yet been
barely touched by the colleges. As the early high schools grew up,
they continued the attention paid to the sciences by the academies.
The first high school to appear, that at Boston in 1821 (pp. 268 f.),
scheduled geography in the first year; navigation and surveying in the
second; and natural philosophy and astronomy in the third. A similar
emphasis upon science appeared during the first half of the century
in all the secondary institutions, whether known as academies, high
schools, union schools, or city colleges. In all cases, however,
instruction was given mainly through text-books, and, while experiments
were frequently used for demonstration by the teacher, there was no
laboratory work for the students. Moreover, a tendency to overload
the curriculum with sciences was much increased during the seventies
by the demand of the legislatures in several states that candidates
for teachers’ certificates pass an examination in several sciences.
The high schools and academies endeavored to furnish the necessary
training to prepare for these examinations, and until toward the end
of the century the courses in the sciences were numerous and of rather
superficial character. Within the last twenty years, however, the
schools have come to limit each student to a relatively few courses
taught by thorough laboratory methods.
[Sidenote: Influence of Mann]
[Sidenote: and Pestalozzi.]
Except for geography, which appeared in the curriculum early in the
century, the rudiments practically constituted the entire course of the
elementary school until the time of Horace Mann. Largely through his
efforts, physiology was widely introduced by the middle of the century.
About a dozen years later the Pestalozzian object teaching began to
come in through the Oswego methods, although it tended to become
formalized. Thus materials in several of the sciences came to be used,
and the pupils were required to describe them in scientific terms.
Toward the close of the century the sciences came to be presented
more informally by the method generally known as ‘nature study.’ This
movement quickly spread through the country, and has most recently
appeared in the guise of agricultural instruction (see p. 424).
Many states now require agriculture as a requisite for a teacher’s
certificate, and most normal schools have come to furnish a training in
the subject.
[Sidenote: Attitude upon formal discipline and method.]
=Interrelation of the Scientific with the Psychological and
Sociological Movements.=--It is evident that there has been a marked
scientific movement in the educational systems of all countries during
the past two hundred years. The sciences began to appear in the
curricula of educational institutions in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, but their rapid increase, and the use of laboratories and
the scientific method in instruction, dated from the middle of the
nineteenth. In some respects this scientific movement has been closely
related to the other modern tendencies in education,--the psychological
and the sociological. The coincidence of the scientific movement with
the psychological on the question of formal discipline has been evident
(pp. 183 f.). The influence of the development of the sciences upon
educational method also constitutes part of the psychological movement.
The sciences demanded entirely different methods of teaching from
the traditional procedure. These innovations were worked out slowly
by experimentation, and when they proved to be more in keeping with
psychology, they reacted upon the teaching of the older subjects and
came to be utilized in history, politics, philology, and other studies.
A corresponding improvement in the presentation of the form, content,
and arrangement of various subjects has taken place in text-books,
and a radically different set of books and authors has been rendered
necessary.
[Sidenote: Means of human welfare.]
The scientific movement has even more points in common with the
sociological. In its opposition to the disciplinarians and its stress
upon content rather than form, the scientific tendency coincides with
the sociological, although the former looks rather to the natural
sciences as a means of individual welfare, and the latter to the
social and political sciences to equip the individual for life in
social institutions and to secure the progress of society. But while
the scientist usually states his argument in individual terms, because
of his connection in time and sympathy with the individualism of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the same writer usually, as in the
case of Rousseau, Combe, Spencer, and Huxley, advocates the social,
moral, and political sciences as a means of complete living. Similarly,
the sociological movement has especial kinship with the economic and
utilitarian aspects of the study of the sciences, for professional,
technical, and commercial institutions have been evolved because of
sociological as well as scientific demands. Again, the use of the
sciences in education as a means of preparing for life and the needs
of society overlaps the modern sociological principle of furthering
democracy. Both tendencies lead to the best development of all classes
and to the abandonment of artificial strata in society.