I agree most heartily with the main features of the foregoing report
of the sub-committee on correlation of studies. It is so admirable in
its analysis of subjects and in its statement of comparative education
values, and so suggestive in its practical applications to teaching,
that I regret to find myself appearing in any way to dissent from its
conclusions. Indeed, my principal objection is not against anything
contained in the report (unless it be against a possible inference
which might be drawn at one point), but it refers rather to what seems
to me to be an omission.
In addition to all the forms of correlation recommended in the
report, it seems to me possible to make a correlation of subjects in
a programme in such way that the selection of subject-matter may be
to some extent from all fields of knowledge. These selections should
be such as are related to one another so as to be mutually helpful
in acquisition. They should be the main features of knowledge in the
different departments.
These different departments from which the chosen subjects should be
taken must be fundamental ones and must be sufficiently numerous to
represent universal culture. The report itself indicates conclusively
what these are.
Reference is made in the report to various attempts that have been made
to correlate subjects of study.
A very just criticism is made upon that attempt at correlation by the
use of the story of Robinson Crusoe as a centre of correlation. It is
distinctly pointed out in the report that the experiences of Robinson
Crusoe are lacking in many of the elements of universal culture, and
in many elements of education needed to adjust the individual properly
to the civilization of our time and country. It is equally evident
that the attempt to make this story the centre of correlation leads
directly to trivial exercises in other subjects in order to make them
“correlate” with Robinson Crusoe. It is also shown in the report that
it naturally leads to fragmentary knowledge of many subjects very much
inferior to that clear, logically connected knowledge of a subject
which may be had by pursuing it without reference to correlating it
with all others.
It is at this point that in my judgment a wrong inference is permitted
by the report.
It does not, as it seems to me, follow that because correlation based
on Robinson Crusoe is a failure, all correlations having the same
general purpose will necessarily prove failures. For my own part,
I do not believe that correlation needs any “centre,” outside the
child and its natural activities. If, however, it seems wiser to give
special prominence to any given field of acquisition, it should,
in my judgment, be accorded to language and its closely related
subjects--reading, spelling, writing, composing, study of literature,
etc., etc. Indeed, language as a mode of expression is organically
related to thinking, in all fields of knowledge, as form is related to
content. A “system” or “programme” of correlation on this basis would
seek for fundamental ideas in all the leading branches and make them
themes of thought and occasions of language exercises. The selections
would omit all trivialities in all subjects, and would not attempt to
correlate for the mere sake of correlation; but would seek to correlate
wherever by such correlation kindred themes may be made to illuminate
one another. To illustrate, concrete problems in arithmetic would be
sought that would clearly develop and illustrate mathematical ideas
and their application; but in a secondary way these problems would be
sought for in the various departments of concrete knowledge--geography,
history, physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, political,
industrial, or domestic economy. But none of these themes would be so
relied upon for problems as to compel one to choose unreasonable or
trivial relations on which to base them. The problems themselves should
represent true and important facts and relations of the other subjects
as surely and rigidly as they should involve correct mathematical
principles; and all such exercises should be rightly related to the
child’s education in language.
In like manner, when a child is engaged in nature study of any kind,
some valuable problems in mathematics may be found rightly related
both to the subject directly in hand and the child’s natural progress
in arithmetic. Also many of the lessons in nature study are directly
related to some of the finest literature ever produced, in which
analogies of nature are made the means of expression for the finest and
most delicate of the human experiences. When the child has mastered
the physical facts on which the literary inspiration is based is the
true time to give him the advantage of the study of such literature.
These ideas are not only rightly related to one another, but to the
mind itself. It is, so to speak, the nascent moment when the mind can
easily and fully master what might else remain an impenetrable mystery;
and all because subjects and occasion have come into happy conjunction.
This is not the place in which to attempt any elaboration of such a
system of correlation. But I feel that its absence from the report may
make many persons feel that the latter is so far incomplete.