A student's history of education

by Frank Pierrepont Graves

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.

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.)

A more serious hindrance to the acceptance of Froebelianism Greatest weakness in symbolism and mysticism. 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 Fantastic and vague doctrines. 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 Notion that nature may illumine mental and social laws. 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.

Unfortunately, this mystic symbolism, vague and extreme as it is, is regarded by the strict constructionists Most essential to conservatives. 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 Effect upon pupils. 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.

But Froebel has had a most happy effect upon education as a whole. In some respects he utilized features Borrowed from others, 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 unique in motor expression, social participation and informal school. 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.

Froebel himself never fully worked out his theories in connection with schooling beyond the kindergarten, but Contribution to all stages of education. 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’ Manual training through Cygnæus 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 and Salomon. 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 Parker and Dewey. 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.).

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 visited all countries. 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 Foundation of Froebel Union. 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 Results in Western Europe. 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.

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. Voluntary basis through Elizabeth P. Peabody, 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 Maria Bölte, institution was opened in New York by 1872 in charge of Maria Bölte, who had also studied with Frau Froebel. Susan E. Blow, 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 Emma Marwedel, and others. 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.

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 Part of the public school system in all progressive cities. 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.

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 Studies improved by Pestalozzi 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 and Herbart, 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 and training contributed by Froebel. 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, Period of reforms of Pestalozzi, 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 Froebel, 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 and Herbart. 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.

Fig. 44.—Jean Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778).

Fig. 45.—Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi
(1746-1827).

Fig. 46.—Johann Friedrich Herbart
(1776-1841).

Fig. 47.—Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel
(1782-1852).

Great Educational Reformers