I concur in the recommendations of the sub-committee on the
Organization of City School Systems as summarized in the concluding
portion of the report, omitting in item THIRD the words, “And that
it be constituted of two branches acting against each other.” Omit
FIFTH, “But we think it preferable that he be chosen in the same way
that members of the board are chosen and be given veto power upon the
acts of the board.” I recommend that the veto power be given to the
president of the board.
Discussion on Report of Dr. Harris.
FRANK M. MCMURRY, _Franklin School, Buffalo_: My remarks have no
reference to the dissenting opinions, but will be confined to the
correlation in the main body of the report. So far, we have listened
to the definition of correlation; my remarks refer to that, and to its
influence on the course of study.
The address by Miss Arnold last night referred to correlation. That
lecture is not in accord with the report of five in regard to this
subject. We have been using two synonyms for correlation--coördination
and concentration. Many persons have gotten their definition through
their ideas of concentration. People have in mind, as I understand it,
mainly the relation of studies to one another. Let me give one or two
samples in addition to last night’s suggestions. Let me refer to Egypt.
The geography will naturally take the Nile, the drawing will take up
cardboard work, etc., the pupil will deal with the pyramid and the
triangle in mathematics, and with language work in the whole subject. I
give that as a simple illustration of concentration.
I turn to the part of the report where they take up correlation by
synthesis of studies; that, as I understand it, was the thought in the
mind of Miss Arnold, and it is what is in my own mind. They take up the
subject of Robinson Crusoe. I think they should look into it further,
but it is not my purpose to defend Robinson Crusoe. They have taken
the story of Robinson Crusoe as a type and they have condemned that as
a type. We may think they aim mainly at the story of Robinson Crusoe
alone, but they say, “Your committee would call attention in this
connection to the importance of the pedagogical principle of analysis
and isolation as preceding synthesis and correlation. There should
be rigid isolation of the elements of each branch for the purpose of
getting a clear perception of what is individual and peculiar in a
special province of learning.”
They warn us against having studies closely tied together. They do
not realize, as it seems to me, that the chief fault of our present
studies is that they do not support each other. The report is opposed
from principle to this kind of correlation. They refer later to
this matter in these words: “Your committee has already mentioned a
species of faulty correlation wherein the attempt is made to study
all the branches in each, misapplying Jacotot’s maxim, ‘all is in
all.’” Farther than that, they show a large lack of sympathy with this
point. They have no allusion to the fact that the different sciences
have a relationship with one another. By their omissions, as well as
their positive statements, they show their opposing attitude toward
correlation.
They talk about having a proper sequence in the studies,--they do not
insist upon it from principle. They say, “The most practical knowledge
of all, it will be admitted, is a knowledge of human nature,--a
knowledge that enables one to combine with his fellow-men and to share
with them the physical and spiritual wealth of the race. Of this
high character as humanizing or civilizing are the favorite works of
literature found in the school readers, about one hundred and fifty
English and American writers being drawn upon for the material.” In
other words, they are in sympathy with the text-book readers. In
enforcing that point further, “In the first three years the reading
should be limited to pieces in the colloquial style, but selections
from the classics of the language in prose and poetry shall be read
to the pupil from time to time.” “In the years from the fifth to
the eighth there should be some reading of entire stories, such as
Gulliver’s Travels, Robinson Crusoe,” and so forth.
As I understand it, we should have wholes in literature from the
beginning. There are sixty pages in this report, only two of them refer
to the subject of concentration, and they condemn that subject from
principle. They show that they do not, from principle, favor the idea
of connected thought. That is my first point--opposition to the whole
matter. [Applause.]
The next point is, What do they discuss? [Laughter.] They have four
points in their definition of correlation. The fourth point is the
chief subject. “Your committee understands by correlation of studies
the selection and arrangement in order of sequence of such objects of
study as shall give the child an insight into the world that he lives
in, and a command over his resources such as is obtained by healthful
coöperation with one’s fellows. In a word, the chief consideration
to which all others are to be subordinated, in the opinion of your
committee, is this requirement of the civilization into which the
child is born as determining what he shall study in school.” There is
the old idea of study, in which, from the adult standpoint, we decide
that what the child will use as a man shall constitute his course. We
have had the three R’s and we have tended to kill the children. The
new education is based on child study, apperception, and interest. We
have reached the conclusion that knowledge is not primarily for the
sake of knowledge, but for use, and the only condition under which the
ideas will be active is that they shall appeal to the child and shall
fit his nature. Child study, interest, and apperception demand that
the chief factor shall be the nature of the child--that is not the
attitude of this committee of five. “Your committee is of the opinion
that psychology of both kinds, physiological and introspective, can
hold only a subordinate place in the settlement of questions relating
to the correlation of studies. The branches to be studied and the
extent to which they are studied will be determined mainly by the
demands of one’s civilization.” Psychology, in a plain statement, “will
largely determine the methods of instruction, the order of taking up
the several topics so as to adapt the school work to the growth of the
pupil’s capacity.” In other words, the committee have failed to be
influenced as to a course of study by other considerations than the
demands of civilization. They state plainly that psychology shall be a
subordinate matter in determining curriculum. The fact is to be seen
in their course of study. Reading, nature study, and history are the
principal subjects, but in the minds of the committee the principal
subjects are reading, writing, etc., for the first three years. I do
not believe it. In the first three years, reading pieces; in other
words, the first three years do not deal primarily in rich ideas.
One objection to Robinson Crusoe--“It omits cities, governments, the
world commerce, the international process, the church, the newspaper,
and book from view.” They are not in sympathy with the child. I would
choose Robinson Crusoe because it does not deal with subjects which are
outside the child’s interest.
* * * * *
F. W. PARKER, _Cook County Normal, Chicago_: When I moved, two years
ago, the appointment of this committee, I had in mind the careful
study of the whole matter of correlation that teachers in this country
should get from the highest sources the doctrine and the highest
criticism,--that a report should be presented which should follow the
greatest report upon education in this century,--the report of the
Committee of Ten. I have not had time to study this report and can,
therefore, say very little upon it. These subjects should be studied
with the greatest care. It seems to me that there are some general
criticisms which may be made in the brief time at my command.
We cannot doubt that these gentlemen have made the most careful study
of the doctrine of Herbert and of his disciples,--Ziller, Stoy, and
Rein; they have also had their eye upon the distinguished students
of this doctrine in this country. The failure of this report is that
they haven’t even given us the fundamental doctrine of Herbert. There
is no doubt that the Herbartian doctrine and all other doctrines of
concentration are ignored in their fundamental essentials. That is what
this committee has left out--it is the old story, the play of Hamlet
with Hamlet left out, or to put it a little more mildly, Hamlet kicked
out. It seems that this doctrine is the only doctrine which furnishes
a grand working hypothesis to the teachers of the world. It should be
examined most carefully, and what cannot bear the closest criticism
should be rejected. The five, with the dissent of the Western men, have
not deemed it worthy of this attention and have rejected it _in toto_.
Poor old Robinson Crusoe bears the brunt, notwithstanding our esteemed
friends of the Normal University, who wish to interest the children
in something. Sometimes we go into schools where there is not much
interest, especially in spelling and grammar. I leave the defense of
Robinson Crusoe to Mr. McMurry.
The other reference is to language. “It is not wise to stop a child to
correct his mistakes in grammar”! “The development of language cannot
be organically related to the development of thought”! It is one of
the fundamental principles, if I understand it, that the development
of thought should have as a necessity the evolution of language. This,
says the report, cannot be done; grammar must be developed by itself
and language by itself. If I am incorrect, I beg to be excused. I can
only refer to a few features of this report in the tabulated programme.
A course of study is absolutely necessary, but it should be marked
“for this day only.” We take the subject of reading twice every day
for the first two years, once a day for the next six years. Reading
is thinking, it should be educated thinking. We cannot do thinking
without the subjects to be learned--as geography and science. Science,
according to the programme, is to be taught by oral lessons. The world
is round, but children cannot reason. Would it not be well to go into
the laboratory to see whether the children cannot reason? The child,
by force of his nature, must reason--must find out these things. I
am quoting from John Dewey. But we are told in this report that the
subject of science, at least a few things in these subjects, must be
told him first. I never knew a case of the kind, but it may be.
Now, I would say to this committee of five, have your reading the best
literature,--there should be nothing but literature. Should we not
have literature from the beginning? is the question we are asking. It
seems to be the case that this report leaves very little to ask. The
child spends all his time in reading--reading what? Can the child learn
to get thought in reading? Some of us think he can. Is it not well to
follow here the scientific method and find out whether the child can
learn to read beautifully and well? The same of writing. I see the
millions bowed down for years to the copy books. Is there no way out?
Is there no relief? Is it possible for the child to learn to write as
he learns to talk, or must he be bound to the desk? [Time]
I would simply say that this report should be entitled to the greatest
respect. I shall go home and study it carefully and prayerfully. I move
that a committee of fifteen be appointed to revise this report. [Great
applause]
* * * * *
PRESIDENT CHARLES DE GARMO, _Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania_:
Fellow-teachers: Those who are to discuss this question this morning
are placed under a great embarrassment. The report should have been
distributed before this meeting. That it has not been, I learn is not
the fault of the officers of the department. [Applause]
We might infer from what we have heard that the report is valueless.
This is by no means the case. It is an estimate of educational values.
Under the subject of language, I quote, “A survey of its educational
value, subjective and objective, usually produces the conviction that
it is to retain the first place.” Under arithmetic, “Side by side with
language study is the study of mathematics in the school, claiming the
second place in importance.” Under geography, “The educational value of
geography, as it is and has been in elementary schools, is obviously
very great. The educational value of geography is even more apparent
if we admit the claims of those who argue that the present epoch is
the beginning of an era.” As a critique of educational values the
report is a very important one. I would like to call your attention
to the correlation of the pupil to his environment. That, I think,
is an important matter. They have departed, at least in principle,
from that old formal discipline alone; this individual to be fitted
for life must master his environment. The committee have examined the
various studies as to their value, and that, I think, is a grand thing.
I cannot see at all that it is a correlation of studies. It has been
said in your hearing that the throwing of light by studies on each
other was disregarded. The report presents a very different idea of
the correlation of studies. The second address of last evening--by Miss
Arnold--has been referred to as an illustration of bringing the studies
together so that one throws light upon another. I think the idea that
there is no need of reform will be reinforced by this report; that the
report will have a reactionary effect upon those who think that way.
The committee have denied that we need any reform, or have implied
that we have the reform already. It seems that the name given to this
report should be taken off and the heading “An essay on educational
values” substituted instead. It is true that this committee have, at
the beginning, laid down a principle that would make a correlation. The
text is here, but the discussion is lacking. So far as I have read,
I have found but little in the report which shows what the sequence
of studies should be. There is a hint in arithmetic where it says,
“Common fractions should come before decimals.” Is this attempt at the
correlation of studies anything more than a series of tunnels through
the educational fields with switch connections, so that if we start
in at one end we are switched to this or that without any view of the
whole journey? We may light these tunnels with electricity, perhaps,
but, after all, we are spending eight years underground, switching from
one tunnel to another. Now the other alternative is to go out into
the world, out into the sunshine, and follow highways so clear that a
child can examine all that is about them. It is possible to relate one
subject to the other so that when it is dark the child, even if he has
not the sun to lighten his eyes, can at least have some stars of hope
above him.
* * * * *
PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT: From the course the discussion has taken,
it has seemed to me that Dr. Harris should say a word at this point and
read some additional parts of the report.
W. T. HARRIS, _Commissioner of Education_: I must set myself right
on Herbart. The report does not allude to Herbart anywhere except in
respectful terms. The criticism of the use of Robinson Crusoe does
not attribute its mistakes to the Herbartians. Perhaps they would not
recognize it as a true statement of their method. To make Herbart
of use in pedagogy we must to some extent ignore his philosophy.
His usefulness in education is proportioned to his uselessness as a
philosopher. What can we do with a philosopher who omits the will
from the three departments of the mind and retains only intellect and
feeling? Herbart was obliged to explain how man comes to act without
the will. He explains that desire can be aroused by interest in
such a way that action will follow. With this great defect, however,
Herbart is valuable in education. His doctrine of apperception does
not need any correction. His doctrine of interest, however, needs some
limitation, because the idea of the will and the idea of duty are
omitted from his system. He must make up by the idea of desire and
the idea of interest. I am surprised that the claim is made here that
the report does not treat the subject assigned to it. Correlation of
studies is assumed to mean concentration of studies. There is no such
definition to the word “correlation” in any dictionary; only four or
five obscure books in the English language give the word correlation
the meaning of concentration. I was told of this sense of the word
correlation, but did not believe for a moment that it had been the
intention of the department of superintendents, in appointing a
committee on this subject, to have a report on the Herbartian idea of
concentration.
* * * * *
CHARLES MCMURRY, _State Normal University, Normal, Ill._: In one of
your statements read: “Your committee would call attention in this
connection to the importance of the pedagogical principle of analysis
and isolation as preceding synthesis and correlation.” Now, as I
understand it, this is what this committee has attempted to report.
Now, he says that this precedes synthesis or correlation. I would like
to know if there is any dictionary or number of dictionaries to make
correlation mean what this says--the analysis and isolation of subjects
of study.
I have been very much afraid that Dr. Harris would take refuge in the
discussion of the subject of the will in which he distinguishes Herbart
from others. The exclusion of the will is held as far as Herbart is
concerned of moral education. Now I wish to say that Herbart has laid
down more and better educational principles than any other philosopher.
The more difficult thing is not exactly the best thing for the child in
the first and second grades. There was an old theory among the Latins
that if the child could be made to go through the difficulties of a
Latin speech, it would prepare him for the difficult things to follow.
Now, we wish to have life and not dead formalism. I believe that a
thoughtful study of this report will convince any one who is interested
in children that it is formal, and is a production of this old idea,
based upon language as the foundation of all education.
* * * * *
PRESIDENT W. H. HERVEY, _Teachers’ College, New York_: I find myself
drawn in two directions on this question. I fain would cleave to
everything that has been said this morning as containing the truth.
I believe that, so far as this report and these remarks confine
themselves to educational principles, any one of us may agree most
heartily. Only where they descend to particular applications are
we at variance. We always are at variance when we descend from the
clouds, but that is no objection to the clouds. Now, I take it there
are arrayed before us the two opposing camps,--the Hegelian and the
Herbartian. What does the Hegelian say? In order that you may know the
world you must turn your back upon yourself and lose yourself; you
lose your life that you may save it. Yon leave your home plate, go
to the second base, then to the third base, and you make a home run.
That is a true type of all development. What, on the other hand, is
the standpoint of the Herbartian? What we know depends upon what we
have known. And that is true. And what we can do, according to this
philosophy, depends upon the interest, the kinetic energy. About this
matter of will, we have the Calvinistic theology set over against the
Unitarian. Hegel’s Lord was a man of war. Herbart brings us to view the
New Jerusalem. He shows us the church, not militant, but triumphant.
Herbart distinguishes the good from the evil and makes it impossible
for a man to do a wrong deed or to think a wrong thought, and that,
I take it, is even a higher attainment than the Hegelian philosophy
has thought of. Any one who develops the will by the man-of-war idea
will have a sorry will upon his hands. There is, with the young child,
certainly, a synthesis, a correlation, a development of taste where
the analysis is suppressed and unconscious; and yet, my friends, if
you attempt to educate a boy in the upper grammar grades or the high
school according to the same principles as the primary grades, you make
a sorry muss of it. If we would pass from the state of the child to the
state of the man, it is necessary for us to go through the dry bones of
analysis.
* * * * *
DR. B. A. HINSDALE, _University of Michigan, Ann Arbor_: There are two
things which I wish very briefly to touch. First, I do not understand
Dr. Harris, in speaking of Herbart and the will, to leave the subject
in the form in which Dr. McMurry understood that matter. I understand
that Herbart does not base morals open the will, but rather upon the
feeling and the desires. Now, whether the will or the desires furnish
a proper basis is a question I do not wish to discuss. Certainly, when
any one says that the Doctor declared that Herbart does not take the
question of morals into account he makes a mistake. I understand him
to say that Herbart does not place morals upon the proper foundation.
In regard to courses of study, there is no such thing as considering
this question apart from criteria. Now, what are our criteria to be?
That I do not propose to discuss, but where are we to seek for our
criteria? For myself, I have been in the habit of discussing that
subject in this way. These are to be found, in the first place, in
the constitution of the human soul, and second, in the facts that
constitute the environment of men. I do not say which is below the
other. I do say that a serious mistake will be made by that pedagogist
who leaves out either of these or gives either a very inferior
position. As to how either presupposes the other, that is a very
important question, but I cannot discuss it at more length.
Now as to the process of isolation--the first process of knowledge is
to isolate things. We have certainly been taught that the first process
of the mind is not a synthetic, but an analytic process. Every person
coming into this hall took a view of it as a whole, and then began to
isolate this thing from that, and then this process, after a time,
ceased. But that there is to be no synthesis is a proposition which I
do not understand to be in this report.
When a child comes to school you may divide the subjects which occupy
his attention into two groups. The first are the elementary school
arts,--as the improving of speech, the studies of reading, writing,
drawing, and numerical calculations, if he has never entered upon
these. They are not studies, they are the arts of the elementary
school. We teach them, not for their own sake, but that they may be
used as instruments. [Time called by the chairman, and extended by vote
of the house.]
I wish, in the first instance, to express my sense of gratification. I
felt that I was leaving the matter in a very imperfect form.
Now, I had said all that I care to say about the arts in the elementary
schools. There are the studies, I mean the real studies, those we study
for the purpose of getting out of them all that there is in them. Now,
there is a discussion as to the relation in which the two classes of
studies shall stand at the beginning. Now, the old idea was, that
some of the first time in school should be devoted to these arts, and
the studies were permitted to fall into the background, or perhaps
fall clear out. Now, if I understand some of the pedagogists, their
idea is to put the beginner at the real thing, or perhaps I should
say to keep him at the real thing, that the arts should be acquired
during the studies. Now, the question occurs to me, whether, in the
elementary schools, these arts can ever be successfully taught when we
are pretending to teach something else? I must say that if the object
were to have a pupil advance the greatest distance for the first three
months or six months, you had better say nothing about the arts at all.
But we put him at the arts, knowing that when we put these gifts into
his hands we are giving him an instrument of power that he will be able
to use throughout his whole life. [Applause.]
Now, the question of concentration, so-called, is involved in this
matter. I want to ask the question, and I would discuss it if I had a
quarter of an hour,--I want to ask the question, how far it is possible
to do two things in an intense manner at the same time. When I was
superintendent of schools, a gentleman picked off the table a so-called
physiological reader, and, looking at the title page, said, “For one,
I could never teach physiology as a subject and reading as an art at
the same time. The physiology is not and it cannot be made a proper
material for a school reading book; a proper school reading book cannot
be made a good physiology.” Yet I believe in concentration, if it
means letting one subject assist and enforce another. I hope none of
the brethren will become so enthusiastic as to assume that the whole
round of information can be brought under the teaching of one subject.
[Applause.]
* * * * *
DR. E. E. WHITE, _Columbus, O._: I have a little hesitation in speaking
on this question, where I am only a learner. I am anxious to know what
my young friends mean. I hope I shall get the correlation of their
ideas in time. [Laughter.]
As it seems to me, correlation, as a distinctive method, assumes to do
more than it is possible for a method to accomplish. In my judgment,
there is no one method of education, whether it be Herbartian or
otherwise. To assume that a human soul is to be exclusively educated
by the Herbartian method is a great assumption. I do not believe that
we are to supplement and supplant now all that has been known in the
education of the young based on the psychology which the defenders of
this method are willing to discard. There are many of its methods we
are willing to accept, but the Herbartian pedagogy is based on the
Herbartian psychology, and if you discard that, you have no system of
pedagogy, but you have many elements which you can utilize. Now, we
make a mistake when we assume that there is only one method by which
the young man in college and the children can be educated. The lady
who spoke last night, Miss Arnold, had not such an idea. Now there is
a blending in the primary grades which is not possible in the upper
grades. That is emphasized completely in what we call the special
courses in colleges. That blending may be on mere surface relations
which will be discarded as soon as we pass above the primary grades.
While we may concede that this is possible in one exercise, it is not
possible in higher instruction. Our methods change, so let as not be
too sweeping, too confident in our terms. Further, I think that Dr.
Harris is entirely right in the position he has taken as to the meaning
of coördination or correlation. He uses the term correlation, not only
in its scientific, but in its recognized pedagogic sense. Concentration
is a different process, and should receive separate consideration.
May I add that the views I recently presented under what is called
concentration seem to make class instruction impossible. They lead
clearly to the one conclusion, that every child should be taught as an
individual, by himself, and this means that all class instruction is
to be given up. Individual instruction can alone meet the conditions
assumed to be essential by concentration, as explained. What does this
involve?
There have been many scholars since the Flood,--scholars who have
honored learning and widened its domain. How were they produced? Not
by any one method, and certainly not by “concentration.” These hosts
of scholars cannot be accounted for on any such assumption, for they
were produced under very unlike systems of elementary training. The
history of school education shows that we are not shut up to a diet of
pedagogic hash on the one hand, or one of baked beans on the other.
There is clearly no one universal method or process in education by
which alone a human soul is to be brought to power.
* * * * *
DR. NICHOLAS MURRY BUTLER, _Columbia College, New York_: This is an
interesting and exciting field of battle; it has not been a Bull Run,
and it is manifestly not an Appomattox. But let us be fair, and let us
discuss the question that is presented by this report. I shall spend no
time in eulogizing this report. I do say that such a report, presented
at this time, dealing with this specific topic in these words, is
little less than a misrepresentation.
Such a document as this, presented at this particular time in the
history of our educational development, and supposed to deal with
the practical problem of the correlation of studies, is extremely
unfortunate. This discussion has made it plain that there is among
us a difference of opinion as to what the term “correlation of
studies” means. This report interprets it to mean the correlation
between the studies of the school curriculum and the intellectual
environment of the pupil. Certainly that is not what the term is taken
to mean in our current educational literature and in our current
educational discussions. It has been claimed on this platform that
those who use the phrase “correlation of studies,” in reference to
the interdependence of school subjects one with another, are making a
strained and improper use of the word. This criticism is not correct.
The highest authority that we have, the “Century Dictionary,” gives
as a definition of correlation, “the act of bringing into orderly
connection or reciprocal relation.” It recites a passage from the
great work of Grove, who first made this term familiar in English
scientific literature, in illustration of the meaning of correlation.
This is precisely the sense in which the word is used by Dr. McMurry
and others, and it is precisely the sense in which we expect to find it
used in this report. Therefore, I say I am disappointed, and grievously
disappointed, that we have in these pages only a passing reference
to the real problem of correlation or concentration as it is before
American teachers at the present moment.
I can find no fault with the use of the word selected by the Committee,
but I do complain that they have not treated the problem, whatever
name they choose to give to it, that we asked them to solve. Instead
of that, they have given us a splendid and learned discussion
of educational values, an analysis of the history of the school
curriculum, and an elaborate defence of the _status quo_. It is
apparent to me, therefore, that this report faces backward and forward.
I Bay this despite the fact that it suggests and argues for more than
one important innovation in the curriculum.
For one hundred years, ever since the time of Pestalozzi, we have been
trying to extract the curriculum from a philosophical discussion of
this sort, but we have not succeeded in satisfying ourselves wholly.
We have made great advance, and for that advance we in America are
indebted more largely to Dr. Harris than to any other single person,
living or dead. He has taught us to understand why certain specific
branches of knowledge are selected for a place in the curriculum,
and now we ask him to tell us how they are to be correlated, or
coördinated, or concentrated, in practice, to meet the new demands that
are made upon the school, and we get no answer in this report.
The curriculum that this report recommends to us, and the methods that
it outlines, are arrived by an analysis made from the adult point of
view. Are we, then, to understand that child study is to be given
no hearing? Are we shut up to formal analysis as the sole method in
evolving a practical school plan? The newer education answers this
question directly in the negative. It is putting the child in the place
of honor and asking him to tell us what his nature demands and in what
order it demands it. Dr. White has said that the legitimate result
of this newer movement is individualism in teaching. I agree with him
absolutely. We hope that the time will come when the individuality
of every child will be respected. We want to rescue each child from
the thraldom to which the formalism of the schoolroom has subjected
him. For the sake of system we are reducing fifty, sixty, or seventy
individual children in a schoolroom to a common denominator. It is
true that there is no universal educational method, and that the
Herbartians are as little likely as the Hegelians to provide us with a
rule that shall know so exception. But in the point of view that they
take, based upon the doctrine of apperception and upon the doctrine oi
interest, they are absolutely right, and it is not what we expected
from a committee of this kind to find this entire movement turned out
of court without a hearing. Personally I am a slavish adherent of no
school of thought and wear the badge of none, but I do say that we
should not be prevented from giving to this great Herbartian movement
prolonged and sympathetic examination. Why is it that we find the
question of the correlation or the concentration of studies forced upon
us at all? Certainly the normal child-mind sees the world about it as
a correlated and concentrated whole. It is the adults and philosophers
who have made the analysis that has resulted in separating what to the
child is connected; so that, after all, the advocates of correlation
are simply endeavoring to put the subjects of study back where they
found them and to treat the curriculum from the child’s point of view.
The adult is able to distinguish a physical fact from a chemical fact,
a geographical fact from an historical fact, an arithmetical fact from
an algebraical fact, but the child is not. He views them all simply
as facts, and originally they are all on the same plane with regard
to his intelligence. We must, therefore, seek the real unity that
underlies the curriculum, and not proceed by making first an artificial
separation of studies, and then a doubly artificial synthesis of them.
A preceding speaker has sharply criticised the psychology of Herbart.
It is undoubtedly true that we cannot accept Herbart’s psychology as
a satisfactory explanation of mental life. But it is not necessary
that we should do so in order to secure the benefit of the educational
theory and the educational practice that bears Herbart’s name.
* * * * *
SUPERINTENDENT S. T. DUTTON, _Brookline, Mass._: About all has been
said that needs to be said now. It seems to me that the question takes
this form--the same God that made the child made the world about him.
The purpose of those who mean to work out something better is to find
how the child should be taught. My friends, we do not recognize the
value of this report. Dr. Harris said very distinctly that the course
of study in point should include the whole round of human knowledge.
Now, there are two things that have helped me in this matter. My view
is singularly different from Dr. White’s. If correlation makes the
kindergarten what it is, it seems to me that it should go on. It seems
to me that, in a certain way, this is true in the first year, in the
second, etc.
This cross section brings in so many things we find imposed upon the
schools that certain confusion and certain difficulties have been found
in working out the Herbartian plan. The only way is the working out of
these principles. If that is not done, we shall have reaction. I am not
afraid that this work shall be retarded because of this report. Every
teacher ought to understand this discussion of educational values. It
ought to help us; it will help us. If this report is not complete, it
will be completed in the good works of teachers in all this country.
[The chair here announced that Colonel Parker and Dr. Harris would be
asked to close the debate.]
* * * * *
COLONEL PARKER: Shall we study this question with open and unprejudiced
minds? I am not a Herbartian. I simply ask the most careful study of
all these questions and systems. There was a time when method seemed
to be incarnated. Now, in regard to this report and the eminent
philosopher who wrote it, I would not say one word except of the
most profound respect. I am never going even to make a pun before a
teachers’ meeting hereafter. When Dr. Harris says I do not believe in
grammar, he should say that I do not believe in certain methods. I
respect butterflies and grubs, but I respect language. When Dr. White
says that certain things are plain by concentration, he says what I
know nothing about. Herbart said of Pestalozzi that his great merit
did not consist in his method and his means, but in his sublime zeal.
He who faces this question of education faces infinity. I protest
against unfair statement as to discipleship, following leader, and so
forth, I acknowledge that I make such statements myself, but I hope
to do better. When Dr. White speaks of the great giants, we have but
to look at him and know it is true. But do we ever question what has
been lost? We are facing the great problems of the twentieth century,
and the present methods of teaching are not equal to their solution.
Under God, let us find the truth and follow it. Let us have the means
of knowing what each teacher and each superintendent is doing for the
child. Let us not lay down a great educational doctrine and say that
it is sufficient. The Sermon on the Mount is sufficient for nineteen
centuries; but what we want is an application of Hegel, of Herbart, and
of the wisdom of all other philosophers to the problems of the future.
All hail the future!
* * * * *
DR. W. T. HARRIS: I wish to add one remark as to the meaning of
correlation. I would call attention to its etymology, which makes it a
bringing into relation of what is coördinate. I knew of the Herbartian
idea of concentration of studies, but I was not familiar with the use
of the word “correlation” in the same sense as concentration. I have
given an example in discussing the methods of teaching geography of
the application of the deeper doctrine of concentration. I have shown
that we should start with the child and proceed in two directions, one
towards the elements of difference in order to explain the obstacles
which man has to overcome. On the other side, we should go towards the
subjects of human industry, invention, and commerce, and learn the
method by which man overcomes the “elements of difference.” Geography
for the child should begin in the centre and move outward towards these
extremes, including at every step a human side and a natural side. This
is not a philosophical study of correlation, Hegelian or otherwise,
although it has been called so in this debate, but a scientific study
of the educational value of the branches of the course of study. I
began it in 1870. Now, in a scientific study one does not allow his
feelings of attraction or repulsion to cloud his reason. He assumes
an unprejudiced attitude towards the object that he studies. Child
study, as it is pursued by Dr. Stanley Hall, is pursued with this true
scientific spirit. But child study is not the only thing in education,
nor can education be founded on child study alone. The child is here
to be correlated with the world. The educator must study the world and
study the child, and correlate the one to the other. That is to say, he
must bring the child into a knowledge of the world and a mastery of its
appliances. The report, of course, assumes the value of child study,
and in all the numerous places where attention is called to the danger
of producing arrested development the results of child study are drawn
upon; but, on the other hand, if you have a knowledge of the child,
and do not have a knowledge of the significance of the branches of
study and the way in which they unlock the world of reality, you cannot
correlate the child with the world.
[Transcriber's Note: