Natural Education as Training for Life
Still another turn is given to the discussion by an emphasis on the social demands of later life. As society is constituted, individual differences are sure to play a large part in determining success or failure. Furthermore, society as constituted in its commercial organizations accepts without hesitation the principle of division of labor. Why should not the school be like society? Why should not the school be a miniature world with all the different types of life that will later become real to the pupils? Practical needs thus come into the foreground.
Training in the Methods of Knowledge and General Training
Two views are sometimes offered in opposition to the doctrine of a strictly practical training. First, it is said that the pupil in order to prepare for later life must pass through certain forms of training which are preliminary, intended to set up his mental machinery before it begins to produce anything. Otherwise expressed, it is said that the pupil must get the tools of knowledge before he tries to take part in real life.
Second, it is said that there is no possibility in the complex society of the modern world of foreseeing just what will be the practical needs of pupils when they grow to adult life. It will therefore be better, it is argued, to aim at a broad flexible training which can in due time be turned into any channel that circumstances may dictate.
Examples of Views on Formal Training
The dispute which is introduced by these opposing statements is one of the bitterest in modern educational writings. Let us borrow two quotations which will present the case in detail. Frank M. McMurry has given in his report on the schools of New York City a striking example of the advocacy of direct and constant attention to social needs. In giving the quotation from this author it is possible to include incidentally his description of an earlier view of the curriculum which emphasizes general training or methods of thought rather than special content.
PROMINENCE OF CURRICULUM IN DETERMINING QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION
Thirty years ago the belief was often expressed that it made little difference what one studied, but all the difference in the world with whom one studied. That belief made almost any curriculum acceptable, and directed attention to the personality of the teacher and to method as the principal factors determining the effectiveness of instruction.
That belief, however, has been greatly modified. While no one will deny the importance of the teacher’s personality, most persons will admit that the proper expression of personality and skill in method are both greatly dependent upon the subject matter of the curriculum. Carefully selected subject matter is prerequisite to skill in method of presentation. Without a good curriculum there is bound to be great waste.
BASES FOR JUDGING CURRICULUM AND SYLLABI