(The Perry Pictures. Copyright, 1898, by E. A. Perry, Malden, Mass.)
Next to Germany in its list of great educational thinkers must come England. At the beginning of this century there were no “public schools” in England, in the American sense of the term. The great preparatory schools,—Eton, Rugby, Harrow, Winchester, etc.,—although called “public” by the English, were in reality endowed boarding-schools, where as a rule only the children of the rich could be found. General education was cared for by the village schools under the direction of the vicar of the parish, and usually presided over by elderly dames with varied degrees of attainments. At the end of the eighteenth century, the work of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster began to arouse some interest. Working independently, the one in India and the other in London, both developed the same method of providing general instruction at a minimum of cost, by using the more advanced pupils to instruct the beginners. “By the aid of monitors,” said Lancaster, “one master can teach a thousand boys.” In 1798, Lancaster opened the first English school of this kind in Southwark, London, placing this inscription over the door: “All that will may send their children and have them educated freely, and those that do not wish to have education for nothing may pay for it, if they please.” In 1808, the Royal Lancasterian Society was organized, to agitate for more schools; and although its name was changed, in 1814, to British and Foreign School Society, its work has continued down to the present time. In 1818, Lancaster came to America, and was at once placed in general charge of the public schools of Philadelphia. He was made principal of a model school for training teachers, which is believed to have been the first attempt at a normal school in America. After extensive agitation in New York, in Canada, where in 1829 he received an appropriation from the legislature to enable him to start his monitorial schools, and even in South America, Lancaster’s work was done.
Probably the greatest teacher of the century in England was Thomas Arnold, whose character will long live in literature through the loving portraiture of his pupils. While contributing little of importance to the science of pedagogy, he was yet able to work a revolution in the general conception of teacher and pupil, and their relations to each other. He insisted that his teachers must continue their studies after they had secured positions, and so raised professional ideals. “The pupil,” said he, “must drink from the running fountain, and not from the stagnant pool.” His sympathy gave him rare power to mould the character of boys. He trusted his boys and they became worthy of it. “It is a shame to tell Arnold a lie! He always believes one,”—was the common saying. As a consequence, there went out from Rugby School from 1827 to 1842, the years of Arnold’s headmastership, a group of clean, healthy, whole-souled boys, well fitted to become leaders in English life.
Many contributions have been made to the literature of pedagogy during the century, but there is none that has attracted more attention or stimulated more earnest discussion than Herbert Spencer’s “Education.” In the first chapter of his book, Spencer asks the question which aroused the educational world,—“What knowledge is of most worth?” It at once directed inquiry into the very heart of educational theory. The course of study, the order in which subjects should be considered, the time to be given to each,—all these problems were vitally concerned with the answer to this question. Mr. Spencer’s solution won instant favor: “How to live,” said he, “that is the essential question for us.... And this, being the great thing needful for us to learn, is, by consequence, the great thing which education has to teach. To prepare us for complete living is the function which education has to discharge.” This point of view led to the accenting of useful and practical subjects. The human body should be studied,—this is necessary to fulfill the first law of nature, self-preservation. The natural sciences should be an essential part of education: this is necessary for our acquaintance with the world in which we must live and work. History and social science should be studied: that each one may become fully in touch with the society in which he forms a unit. Naturally, little time would be left for branches that were æsthetic or cultural, and so Spencer would have the student give but his surplus time to these. But the important thing was that he should know himself, his world, and his society, so that he would be fitted to do his work in the most complete way. His practical influence upon education is best seen in the great increase of appreciation for the natural sciences, which has led to the introduction of nature observation and study, even in the most elementary schools.
FROEBEL, FOUNDER OF KINDERGARTENS.
(The Perry Pictures. Copyright, 1898, by E. A. Perry, Malden, Mass.)
In America there have been important contributions to educational theory during the century. There has been a perfect flood of educational books, pamphlets, and periodicals, whose merit is so great as to extort even reluctant admiration from foreign critics. While there has been much unevenness in quality, yet Americans have no reason to feel ashamed of their contribution to pedagogical literature. The best work has been done in the discussion of specific questions, rather than in an elaboration of general ideals. Administration, with its manifold problems, has appealed strongly to the American genius; and consequently the greatest names of the century are those of men who have devoted themselves to some practical work, the ideals and details of which they have thoroughly mastered, and so have left enduring monuments of their lives’ work.
