It can not be denied that every factor in the child’s surroundings has some influence upon him. It would be difficult to introduce principles of order and system into a child’s school work, if that child were surrounded by disorder in the school-room equipment. We all know that the appetizing effect of a luncheon is heightened by cleanliness, the taste with which the luncheon and the dishes are arranged, even the mode of serving the food and the general appearance of the room. Comparatively few teachers realize the relation of the school surroundings to discipline. The second part of the book is devoted to “The School.” This part of the Course discusses various factors in the surroundings which the teacher may control, and suggests many things about the room equipment which will greatly aid him in securing good work and order.
Every teacher, in dealing with pupils, should have well fixed in his mind the true province and end in discipline. The third division of this book is devoted to “The Province and End in Discipline,” which is an extremely important discussion. No idea is less understood than is discipline. In its restricted meaning and application, it means far too little. Discipline permeates most thoroughly every activity of humankind. Every avenue of progress owes its measure of success to the measure of discipline found therein. Could discipline come into its own province and manifest its fullest force, there evidently would be no need of penal institutions, courts of justice and other reformatory measures. Far too many teachers believe their work in the school-room well done and designate themselves as good disciplinarians if they have managed to get through the school year without any more serious difficulty than having to administer a whipping or two, or perhaps, suspend a pupil for a week or ten days. To call this discipline is indeed deplorable.
The True End in Discipline
Some teachers on being asked, “What is the end to be sought in discipline?” have answered, “Good order.” Others have answered, “Quietness such that lessons may be studied.” But these are mere conditions of successful school work and are not at all ends to be attained in discipline. The teacher who thinks of these conditions as being the ends in discipline is not only liable to use improper means, but will be satisfied with a mere semblance of success. The true end of discipline is none other than the acquirement of self-control. This includes six very definite things which are explained in Part Three.
It is the failure to understand the nature of children, which causes so much friction and trouble with them. By “nature,” we do not mean merely the child’s disposition, as this view is far too narrow. Let us clearly explain, in the next few paragraphs, the distinction between individual disposition and fundamental nature.
An Important Distinction
It is true, popular lecturers often bore us by speeches in which they emphasize over and over the necessity of knowing the disposition of our individual child. Of course, it is helpful to know the individual disposition; but the mistaken emphasis placed upon this detail as compared with really knowing the general and fundamental nature of children is indeed astounding.
A case was reported to us not long ago of a child-lecturer who chanced to be confronted with a practical situation. Little “George,” his son, was near a newspaper in the drawing-room. The gentleman asked George to bring the newspaper to him. George refused. The command was repeated. “George, bring me the newspaper.” George refused. He again gave more commands, in a louder tone of voice while George laughed at him. The lecturer then started over to him and George ran behind a table. The man soon managed to seize the boy’s hand and escorted him over to the newspaper, whereupon he again commanded him to pick up the paper. George refused. The gentleman took the boy’s hands and tried to force them to grasp the newspaper but George’s fingers were lax. At this moment, George received a keen slap on the side of the face. He was then told to pick up the paper and he did so. Why? Merely through fear? (The fallacy of this method will be discussed later on.)
The point of the above illustration is this: That man would treat all of ten thousand other children in precisely the same way as he did George if they refused to obey him. And yet this same lecturer is continually going before mothers’ clubs and admonishing them thus: “Mothers, mothers—know your individual child.” If his doctrine is so important, why does he not practice what he preaches? A man or woman, parent or teacher, who can not get a child to obey, without slapping him or threatening him, has something fundamental to learn about child training. This man not only failed to be influenced by the boy’s individual disposition but he showed by his method that he did not understand the fundamental nature of children.
To explain further the distinction between individual disposition and fundamental nature, you have in your room five pupils: Ralph, Charley, Miriam, Fay and Helen. Let us assume that these pupils are as different in disposition as it is possible for them to be. Ralph is pessimistic, secretive and has a bad temper. Charley is optimistic, frank and very amiable. Miriam and Fay have certain other opposite characteristics and Helen is in a class by herself—overbearing, spiteful, high tempered and hard to approach.