Frank M. McMurry, Franklin School, Buffalo: My remarks have no reference to the dissenting opinions, but will be confined to the correlation in the main body of the report. So far, we have listened to the definition of correlation; my remarks refer to that, and to its influence on the course of study.
The address by Miss Arnold last night referred to correlation. That lecture is not in accord with the report of five in regard to this subject. We have been using two synonyms for correlation—coördination and concentration. Many persons have gotten their definition through their ideas of concentration. People have in mind, as I understand it, mainly the relation of studies to one another. Let me give one or two samples in addition to last night’s suggestions. Let me refer to Egypt. The geography will naturally take the Nile, the drawing will take up cardboard work, etc., the pupil will deal with the pyramid and the triangle in mathematics, and with language work in the whole subject. I give that as a simple illustration of concentration.
I turn to the part of the report where they take up correlation by synthesis of studies; that, as I understand it, was the thought in the mind of Miss Arnold, and it is what is in my own mind. They take up the subject of Robinson Crusoe. I think they should look into it further, but it is not my purpose to defend Robinson Crusoe. They have taken the story of Robinson Crusoe as a type and they have condemned that as a type. We may think they aim mainly at the story of Robinson Crusoe alone, but they say, “Your committee would call attention in this connection to the importance of the pedagogical principle of analysis and isolation as preceding synthesis and correlation. There should be rigid isolation of the elements of each branch for the purpose of getting a clear perception of what is individual and peculiar in a special province of learning.”
They warn us against having studies closely tied together. They do not realize, as it seems to me, that the chief fault of our present studies is that they do not support each other. The report is opposed from principle to this kind of correlation. They refer later to this matter in these words: “Your committee has already mentioned a species of faulty correlation wherein the attempt is made to study all the branches in each, misapplying Jacotot’s maxim, ‘all is in all.’” Farther than that, they show a large lack of sympathy with this point. They have no allusion to the fact that the different sciences have a relationship with one another. By their omissions, as well as their positive statements, they show their opposing attitude toward correlation.
They talk about having a proper sequence in the studies,—they do not insist upon it from principle. They say, “The most practical knowledge of all, it will be admitted, is a knowledge of human nature,—a knowledge that enables one to combine with his fellow-men and to share with them the physical and spiritual wealth of the race. Of this high character as humanizing or civilizing are the favorite works of literature found in the school readers, about one hundred and fifty English and American writers being drawn upon for the material.” In other words, they are in sympathy with the text-book readers. In enforcing that point further, “In the first three years the reading should be limited to pieces in the colloquial style, but selections from the classics of the language in prose and poetry shall be read to the pupil from time to time.” “In the years from the fifth to the eighth there should be some reading of entire stories, such as Gulliver’s Travels, Robinson Crusoe,” and so forth.
As I understand it, we should have wholes in literature from the beginning. There are sixty pages in this report, only two of them refer to the subject of concentration, and they condemn that subject from principle. They show that they do not, from principle, favor the idea of connected thought. That is my first point—opposition to the whole matter. [Applause.]
The next point is, What do they discuss? [Laughter.] They have four points in their definition of correlation. The fourth point is the chief subject. “Your committee understands by correlation of studies the selection and arrangement in order of sequence of such objects of study as shall give the child an insight into the world that he lives in, and a command over his resources such as is obtained by healthful coöperation with one’s fellows. In a word, the chief consideration to which all others are to be subordinated, in the opinion of your committee, is this requirement of the civilization into which the child is born as determining what he shall study in school.” There is the old idea of study, in which, from the adult standpoint, we decide that what the child will use as a man shall constitute his course. We have had the three R’s and we have tended to kill the children. The new education is based on child study, apperception, and interest. We have reached the conclusion that knowledge is not primarily for the sake of knowledge, but for use, and the only condition under which the ideas will be active is that they shall appeal to the child and shall fit his nature. Child study, interest, and apperception demand that the chief factor shall be the nature of the child—that is not the attitude of this committee of five. “Your committee is of the opinion that psychology of both kinds, physiological and introspective, can hold only a subordinate place in the settlement of questions relating to the correlation of studies. The branches to be studied and the extent to which they are studied will be determined mainly by the demands of one’s civilization.” Psychology, in a plain statement, “will largely determine the methods of instruction, the order of taking up the several topics so as to adapt the school work to the growth of the pupil’s capacity.” In other words, the committee have failed to be influenced as to a course of study by other considerations than the demands of civilization. They state plainly that psychology shall be a subordinate matter in determining curriculum. The fact is to be seen in their course of study. Reading, nature study, and history are the principal subjects, but in the minds of the committee the principal subjects are reading, writing, etc., for the first three years. I do not believe it. In the first three years, reading pieces; in other words, the first three years do not deal primarily in rich ideas. One objection to Robinson Crusoe—“It omits cities, governments, the world commerce, the international process, the church, the newspaper, and book from view.” They are not in sympathy with the child. I would choose Robinson Crusoe because it does not deal with subjects which are outside the child’s interest.
F. W. Parker, Cook County Normal, Chicago: When I moved, two years ago, the appointment of this committee, I had in mind the careful study of the whole matter of correlation that teachers in this country should get from the highest sources the doctrine and the highest criticism,—that a report should be presented which should follow the greatest report upon education in this century,—the report of the Committee of Ten. I have not had time to study this report and can, therefore, say very little upon it. These subjects should be studied with the greatest care. It seems to me that there are some general criticisms which may be made in the brief time at my command.
We cannot doubt that these gentlemen have made the most careful study of the doctrine of Herbert and of his disciples,—Ziller, Stoy, and Rein; they have also had their eye upon the distinguished students of this doctrine in this country. The failure of this report is that they haven’t even given us the fundamental doctrine of Herbert. There is no doubt that the Herbartian doctrine and all other doctrines of concentration are ignored in their fundamental essentials. That is what this committee has left out—it is the old story, the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out, or to put it a little more mildly, Hamlet kicked out. It seems that this doctrine is the only doctrine which furnishes a grand working hypothesis to the teachers of the world. It should be examined most carefully, and what cannot bear the closest criticism should be rejected. The five, with the dissent of the Western men, have not deemed it worthy of this attention and have rejected it in toto.