The antithesis between discipline and freedom, between training which aims to transform the child’s nature and training which gives the child’s nature opportunity to express itself without restraint, can be illustrated as follows. On the one side it is said that children have no power of concentration of attention. They are flighty and erratic. They must be made to think steadily in order to train their minds for hard mental work. On the other side it is asserted that when a child’s interest is aroused through an appeal to his natural tastes he will exert his mind to the limit of its powers, and this is all that can advantageously be required.
Popular Attitude toward Discipline
When the antithesis between discipline and natural interests is presented to the present-day world, it must be said that there is a widespread disposition to set aside discipline as arbitrary and puritanical. Our generation is in favor of natural development. Perhaps it would be truer to use the past tense in the last statement because the social attitude toward discipline has been profoundly affected by the war. Never in the history of this country has the lesson been clearer than it is at the present that social coöperation means the training of the individual to make some sacrifices. The American school has carried the elective system and its concessions to individuals to an extreme which is likely to be limited somewhat in the future by a recognition of social obligations.
Examples of Discipline and Freedom
It may be well to illustrate this abstract discussion of discipline and freedom with concrete examples. One of the most emphatic pronouncements in favor of the doctrine of freedom is that of Madam Montessori, an Italian physician whose system of education has been much heralded in this country as a substitute for the kindergarten. According to this writer’s views the pupil should have perfect freedom. The contrast with the kindergarten is described as follows by one of the observers of the two institutions:
A contrast between the Montessori school and the kindergarten of the more formal and traditional type may serve to give a clearer picture of the Montessori procedure, and consequently of the Montessori conception of liberty as it appears in practice. The most evident difference is seen in the function of the teacher. The kindergartner is clearly the center and arbiter of the activity in the room. The Montessori directress seems, on the contrary, to be at one side. The kindergartner contemplates at each moment the whole of her group; the directress is talking usually to one alone—possibly to two or three. The kindergarten children are engaged in some sort of directed group activity; each Montessori child is an isolated worker, though one or more comrades may look on and suggest. The arrangement of the room shows the same contrast. The kindergarten has a circle about which all may gather, and tables for group activity. The Montessori room is fitted, preferably, with individual tables, arranged as the children will. (In the writer’s observation, there has been little deviation, however, from arrangement in formal rows.) Montessori provides long periods, say of two or more hours, while the kindergarten period rarely goes beyond a half-hour. During the period assigned for that purpose practically all of the Montessori apparatus is available for any child (except for the very youngest or the newest comers), and the child makes his choice freely. The kindergartner, on the other hand, decides very nicely what specific apparatus shall be used during any one period. The Montessori child abides by his choice as long as he wishes, and changes as often as he likes; he may even do nothing if he prefers. The child in the traditional kindergarten uses the same apparatus throughout the period, and is frequently led or directed by the teacher as to what he shall do. At other times he may be at liberty to build or represent at will whatever may be suggested by the “gift” set for the period. The Montessori child, each at his own chosen task, works, as stated, in relative isolation, his nearest neighbors possibly looking on.[53]
At the other end of the educational system we find the example of “stiff” courses in college designed to “weed out” the slothful and incompetent. The “stiff” course is required mathematics, or a foreign language, or a course in English composition. Opposition to stiff courses expresses itself in the demand for an undiluted elective system in which the student may take whatever serves his purposes.
Natural Education and Recognition of Individual Differences
The advocacy of a natural education takes a different turn when it drops the word “freedom” and emphasizes the fact that individuals differ radically in their native capacities. Some pupils have an aptitude for one kind of work, others for other types. The school is to-day committed to a recognition of these differences and to a study of their meaning. There is a movement known as the vocational-guidance movement which is making progress in the direction of the discovery of methods for finding out what studies can properly be undertaken by students in view of their varying natural endowments. The individual’s natural bent being discovered, his educational training can be directed to the highest possible cultivation of his powers. Nature is thus recognized but is not made the dominant fact. The vocational end is the controlling factor in the situation. The attainment of this end may require the most rigid disciplining of one’s powers. The direction of this disciplining is dictated by nature, but not the particular steps of education. As a result of such a discussion it begins to appear that there is no fundamental reason for the abandonment of the idea of discipline even if there is a complete recognition of natural individual differences.
In concrete cases the opposition to the doctrine of discipline may, however, be acute. The pupil may say that he has absolutely no natural capacity for algebra or spelling. The teacher may answer that these are universal requirements and that there is no escape from these necessary studies because of individual differences. In such a dispute, tradition, on the one hand, and the wider opportunities of the modern curriculum, on the other hand, are likely to be arrayed against each other. Algebra as the conservative subject is likely to defend the view that discipline is necessary, whereas manual training and domestic science are likely to emphasize the natural attractiveness of the practical training which they offer. Thus it has come to pass that certain subjects, especially the older subjects in the curriculum, have come to be regarded as the defenders of the doctrine of discipline, while the newer subjects have often been regarded as opposed by their very character to the doctrine.