II. The opinions we obtained were certainly not favorable with regard to the present efficiency of these schools. It seemed to be agreed, that from various reasons, the military education given was susceptible of much improvement; that some of the Division Schools were really defective in teaching, whilst none could be pointed to as strikingly good. But it was also admitted that these blemishes arose from remediable defects in the working of the schools; that their principle was in itself sound, and capable of being carried out more perfectly, and excellently adapted to the object of giving some military instruction to all desirous of becoming officers of the infantry and cavalry.
III. The causes assigned for the present defects in the efficiency of the Division Schools were chiefly the following:—
(a.) That they were far too numerous.
Educated and scientific as Prussia may be called, it is not found practicable to supply nine army schools with exactly the sort of men fitted for the work of education. The pay, it must be added, is insufficient to attract many, and thus (as we were informed,) although many officers of intelligence are sometimes not unwilling to leave the life of drill for the life of education for a year or two, few do so with the serious purpose of doing it well. Neither the position nor the emoluments tempt them to make it a profession. Officers in command of the district have made the appointments, and often have “good-naturedly,” as it was said, appointed unfit persons, known as studious men.
(b.) The small number of pupils in each school was also spoken of as a very great disadvantage, as doing away with all emulation amongst themselves.
(c.) The independence which each school has enjoyed, and the want of any central body to watch its working and regulate its system, is also said to have had bad results. The teaching has been far from uniform,—in one school energetic, in another lax; in one school the most important subjects taught, in another, a little of everything; in a third, some special crotchet of a teacher. This has acted badly on the examinations, since it was thought hard to reject an “aspirant” who had done parts of his work well, and had been evidently ill taught or superficially instructed in others.
The remedies suggested were,—
(1.) Considerably to diminish the number of these schools. This, we were told, was about to be done by reducing them from nine to three. Such a course would obviously tend to remedy two of the evils complained of. It would give a larger choice of teachers, and afford more liberal means of remunerating them, and a larger attendance and competition of pupils.
(2.) To place the schools under the more direct regulation and management of the Central Educational Department at Berlin. This step would improve their teaching by subjecting it to constant inspection and reports. It would insure uniformity in the system of instruction and subjects of study; and, when combined with the presence of able teachers, it would enable the Board of Examiners at Berlin to pursue a more strict and unvarying course in rejecting ill-qualified candidates. By these means the teaching in the school would probably become more definite and higher.
One other point was mentioned to us as doubtful. It was thought that the time for attending the Division School came too soon after a young man’s entrance into the army, when he had but recently obtained his liberty, and was likely to be much more unwilling to be sent to school again than might have been the case a year or two later. General von Willisen, who urged this objection to us, was consequently for deferring the attendance at the Division Schools several years in an officer’s life.