studies also suggested in principle by Herbart. Around each center has grown up a very extensive literature. From these two universities have gone out the most widespread influences, through trained teachers and normal schools and university instructors. Through these combined means the German schools have responded to these more advanced ideas and have, so far as the character of instruction is concerned, reached a higher degree of excellence than any other schools. In the United States the dates of publication of the Herbartian literature will indicate of how recent origin the movement is, though, to be sure, there is an extended magazine literature of somewhat earlier date. Though there were many other contributing forces, the most immediate response to this discussion was the Report of the Committee of Fif teen on Elementary Schools made to the National Educational Association in 1895. The aim of this report was to unify the work of the elementary school, to find a basis for that unity in a curriculum embodying some form of correla tion of studies, and to prompt to better methods of instruction. A similar report five years earlier by a “Committee of Ten" aimed to perform this work of unification for secondary education, and to bring about a closer articulation of elementary, secondary, and higher education. Through such means a very general influence is being exerted on the schools of our country toward placing the character of instruction on a higher basis than that reached through the Pestalozzian movements of some half century or more ago. The Froebelian Movement. As has been suggested, the influence of the Froebelian principles is practically coextensive with the most important educational tendencies of the present time. An analysis of these will make evident the fundamental character of the influence of Froebel on schools. The application which Froebel himself made of his principles to the kindergarten is being made by others to more advanced phases of education. All that can be sketched here is the spread of the kindergarten as an institution. In Germany a number of institutions similar to that at Keilhau were established before Froebel's death. But in 1851, a year before that event, kindergartens were prohibited by the Prussian government on account of their supposed revolutionary character. The Baroness Bertha von Marenholtz-Bülow, to whom the actual popularization of the kindergarten was largely due, transferred her activities, for the time being, to England. Though this prohibition was removed after ten years, kindergartens have not yet been incorporated into the public school systems. While many private ones exist, they are not considered schools. Their teachers are not required to comply with the standards required of elementary teachers and, though they are under the supervision of school inspectors, they may not teach anything which will duplicate the work of the elementary schools. Consequently in the work of these schools there has been comparatively little development. France best illustrates the extensive development of schools for very young children. But these infant schools-the écoles maternelles-are rather a development of the infant school movement than of the kindergarten. To a very slight degree do they embody the principles of Froebel — certainly not his fundamental one of self-activity. While these schools have developed for the most part since the War of 1870, and while their establishment is optional with the communes, yet in them are trained half a million children of the ages from two to six. First introduced into England in 1854, and advocated by a number of prominent men, such as the novelist Dickens, the kindergarten was established only in a few instances and then as a private institution for the wealthier classes. Not until 1874 did the ideas of the kindergarten begin to modify the work of the infant schools (see p. 726), which by this time had been incorporated as a part of the public school system. It was the procedure and methods rather than the principles and spirit of the kindergarten that were grafted on to this dominant institution. The first kindergarten in the United States was established by Elizabeth Peabody in Boston in 1860, though it was not until 1868 that she succeeded in embodying the spirit and purpose of Froebel's work. A number of private kindergartens were soon established. Under the leadership of Dr. W. H. Harris and Miss Susan Blow, among the most prominent of Froebelian exponents in this country, the kindergarten was first made a part of the public school system in St. Louis in 1873. Since that time the movement has developed until there is scarcely a city of any size but what has incorporated the kindergarten as a component part of its public schools. REFERENCES Pestalozzi. Barnard, Pestalozzi and Pestalozzianism. (New York, 1859.) Kruesi, Life and Works of Pestalozzi. (New York, 1875.) Neef, Sketch of a Plan and Method of Education. (Philadelphia, 1808.) Pestalozzi, Leonard and Gertrude. (Eng. Abstract, Boston, 1885.) Pestalozzi, How Gertrude Teaches her Children. (Syracuse, 1898.) Pestalozzi, Evening Hours of a Hermit, in Barnard's Journal, Vol. VI, p. 169. Pinloche, Pestalozzi. (New York, 1901.) Herbart. De Garmo, Herbart and Herbartians. (New York, 1895.) De Garmo, Essentials of Method. (Boston, 1889.) Eckoff, Herbart's A B C of Sense Perception. (New York, 1896.) Felkin, Herbart's Science of Education. (London, 1892.) Herbart, Psychology. (New York, 1891.) Herbart, Outlines of Pedagogical Doctrines (Lange & De Garmo). (New York, 1901.) Herbart, in Eckoff and Felkin, as above. Lange, Apperception. (New York, 1892.) Rein, Outlines of Pedagogics. (New York, 1893.) Ufer, Introduction to the Pedagogy of Herbart. (Boston, 1894.) Van Liew, Herbart and the Development of his Pedagogical Doctrines. (London, 1893.) Report of the Committee of Ten. (United States Bureau of Education, 1890.) Report of the Committee of Fifteen, in Educational Review, Vol. IX, p. 209. Froebel. Blow, Symbolic Education. (New York, 1894.) Blow, Letters to a Mother on the Philosophy of Froebel. (New York, 1899.) Froebel, Education by Development. (New York, 1899.) Froebel, Pedagogics of the Kindergarten. (New York, 1902.). MacVannel, The Philosophy of Froebel, in Teachers' College Record, Vol. IV, Quick, Educational Reformers, pp. 384-413. General. Buchner, Educational Theory of Kant. (Philadelphia, 1904.) Churton, Kant on Education. (London, 1899.) Rosenkranz, Philosophy of Education. (New York, 1894.) TOPICS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION 1. What similarity is there discoverable between the educational ideas of Rousseau and those of Pestalozzi? Of Herbart? Of Froebel? Of Kant? Of Richter? 2. Was there a consistent scheme of psychological thought in Pestalozzi's teachings? 3. What general conclusions concerning the change in the conception of education can you form from a comparison of definitions drawn from the later eighteenth and early nineteenth century, with those formulated during the last quarter century? 4. Point out some of the errors in practice in higher stages of educa tion resulting from applying principles formulated from a consideration of the elementary stages alone. 5. State in greater detail the educational philosophy of Kant. Of Froebel. Of Rosenkranz. 6. What criticism of Pestalozzi does Herbart offer in his A B C of Sense Perception? 7. What practices in your own or in any selected schoolroom are due to the influence of Pestalozzi? Of Herbart? Of Froebel? 8. What agreement do you find between the psychological theories of Herbart as applied to education and those of Pestalozzi? Those of Froebel? 9. What did Froebel owe to Pestalozzi? 10. What contrast exists between the fundamental conception of the mind held by Herbart and that held by Froebel? II. To what extent is the work of the elementary schools of our country now controlled by the principle formulated by Pestalozzi? By Herbart? By Froebel? 12. To what extent is it the duty of the school to give instruction in morals? To what extent is formation of character its aim? 13. To what extent can the work of instruction be made to bear directly upon conduct according to the Herbartian theory? 14. To what extent is the constructive work of the school based upon the Herbartian principle? To what extent is this justified? 15. What is the relation of interest to this process of character-forming instruction? 16. To what extent can interest be made the basis of school work? 17. What harmonization, if any, can be made between interest and the disciplinary conception of education? Is the idea of interest as the controlling principle of education incompatible with a training in will power? 18. To what extent does the importance of interest in education depend upon Herbart's doctrine of the precedence of ideas over volitions? 19. To what extent is there a conflict between individuality and character as stated by Herbart? 20. To what extent then can development of individuality be made the aim of education? 21. What is the basis of correlation of studies according to Herbart? What further reason can be assigned? 22. Which has the greater merit, the plan of concentration of studies or that of coördination of studies? 23. What is the difference in the psychological theory underlying the two? In the sociological theory? 24. Describe any particular concrete plan of concentration. Of coördination. |