CHAPTER II

SCHOOLS OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND OF OTHER TIMES

THE COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL METHODS

The scientific methods of studying school problems, which were illustrated in the last chapter, can be supported and supplemented by a comparison of the schools of the present with the institutions of earlier times, and by a comparison of the schools of different countries with one another. Such comparisons seldom serve as an adequate basis for the reorganization of school practices, because the conditions in one generation and in one country are so unlike those of others that direct transfer of methods of procedure is dangerous. Comparison serves, however, to set in clear perspective the characteristics which distinguish each situation from every other. If an American wishes to see the school system with which he is familiar from a new point of view, the comparative method furnishes a kind of outside station from which he may look back and see facts which were by no means clear in their meaning when viewed from near at hand.

THE AMERICAN TEXTBOOK METHOD OF TEACHING

One very impressive difference between the schools of the United States and the schools of Europe is to be found in the fact that class exercises in our schools are commonly based on assignments in textbooks, while in Europe the chief method of instruction is oral exposition by the teacher. The word “recitation,” which is often employed in describing a classroom exercise, is an American term. It originated at the period when devotion to the textbook was even greater than it is now,—when the pupil was expected to repeat verbatim the passage from the text. In British books on education the word “recitation” appears only when referring to American practices, and usually takes the form “the American recitation.” In the German educational vocabulary the word has no equivalent.

The unique American method of reciting lessons learned out of a book can be contrasted with the European method by taking a concrete case. If one goes into a geography class in a German school, one finds in the hands of the pupils no book, except that in the schools for the richer classes there may be an atlas; commonly the wall map serves. The teacher lectures on some section of the country, and follows the lecture by questions which the pupils answer. The advantages of the European method are that the pupils become trained, attentive listeners, and are able in answering questions to talk coherently for long periods, imitating the continuous discourse of the teacher. The disadvantages are that the information supplied is limited by the individual teacher’s training, and the pupils cultivate little or no independence in the collection and sifting of information. The influence of the teacher is always dominant—often oppressively so.

INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT BASED ON READING

The contrast here pointed out is one of fundamental importance. It can be adequately understood by a study of the history of American schools. When the colonists came to New England they were bent on securing for every individual independent personal contact with the truth. They had left their European homes because there dominating authority always stood between the individual and the sources of truth. One of the first acts of the colonists, therefore, was to provide for the training of every boy and girl in that power which would make him or her independent, especially in religion. The early legislation shows unequivocally this motive. Thus in 1650 Connecticut passed a law which had a preamble very much like that of the Massachusetts law of 1647. The preamble is as follows:

It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from a knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times, keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times, by persuading them from the use of tongues, so that at least, the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded by false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers [the court decreed that whenever a township increased to fifty householders they should employ someone] to teach all such children as shall resort to him, to write and read.

So strictly did the early schools devote themselves to reading that arithmetic and, in some cases, even writing were neglected in the exclusive cultivation of the one art of reading. Later generations of American teachers and pupils have experienced a great expansion of the content of the course of study, but the method of instruction has always been predominantly the reading method. The large number of supplementary readers used in history, in geography, and in nature study keep up the traditions of a school which was from the first a reading school.

The social consequences of this emphasis on reading can be seen in the fact that public opinion in America is controlled largely by an appeal to the people through reading matter. The importance of this kind of public opinion can hardly be overemphasized. In a democracy there must be ability to form independent opinions, and this is possible only where there is the widest training in reading.

EUROPEAN SCHOOLS CASTE SCHOOLS, AMERICAN SCHOOLS TRULY PUBLIC

A second characteristic of the school system of the United States which distinguishes it from the systems of Europe is described by the phrase, coined in England, “the educational ladder.” There is no limit in the American system to the possibility offered the individual pupil of going on to higher institutions. The boy or girl who has completed the elementary course can go on to the high school and from the high school to the college and university. This is not true anywhere in Europe. There the school systems are sharply divided into two wholly different and distinct lines of advancement. The children of the common people go to one school; the children of the aristocracy and richer classes go to a different school. The school for the common people is limited in time and opportunity, and does not lead into the universities. Thus the _Volksschule_ of Germany, which gave instruction before the war to 92 per cent of the total school population, is an eight-year school, teaching only the common branches. The pupil who enters the _Volksschule_ cannot look forward to entering any one of the professions or any civil-service position. He cannot be transferred from the upper grades of this common school into the secondary school. The common school of Germany is a social instrument for the perpetuation of a caste system. The common people know their place because they learn it when they enter school.

The European school for the aristocracy, on the other hand, is organized from its earliest years with a view to preparing its pupils for the higher callings. It is difficult for the American to understand how distinct this school is from the common school. The term “secondary school” is sometimes applied in educational writings to both the high school of the United States and the aristocratic schools of Europe. But the secondary school of Europe is entirely different from our high school. It takes little children in the lower grades and carries them through. Thus the German _Gymnasium_ takes boys of the age of six. These are received into what is called a _Vorschule_, or preliminary school. After three years in the preliminary school the pupil begins his nine-year course in preparation for the university. In some of the states of the German Empire the pupil may be transferred into the _Gymnasium_ from the earliest grades of the common school, but from this point on there is no commerce whatsoever, in teaching staff, in course of study, or in pupil constituency, between the common school and the school of the aristocracy. The division in France is quite as strict. In England transfer in the later years of the common-school course can be made, but only on the basis of examinations.

The social consequences of such a division within the school system need no detailed exposition. The hard-and-fast lines of caste are drawn very deep in any country where the boys and girls are marked from the beginning of their training by separation in opportunity.

INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN SCHOOLS ON THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTRY

It is not enough that we should see this contrast, however; we must learn its fuller meaning by looking into the history of our own school system. The fact is that we have not broken entirely away from the traditions of Europe. Our elementary school was borrowed directly from the _Volksschule_ of Germany, and many of the readjustments which we are making to-day are nothing less than efforts to shake ourselves free from that disjointed scheme of education.

The time of this borrowing of the German _Volksschule_ is clearly marked in our history. In the first three decades of the nineteenth century American schools were at a low level of development. A vivid picture of conditions in 1801 can be given by quoting from one of the earliest school reports that we have. The superintendent of the city of Taunton, Massachusetts, in a recent report reproduced this interesting historical document, of which we may quote certain sections in order to show the kind of school organization which prevailed at that date.

REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE OF TAUNTON IN 1801

The committee chosen by the town to inspect the schools beg leave to report their situation and examination....

January 6th, 1801. Your committee visited a school kept in Rueben Richmond’s house instructed by Mrs. Nabby Williams of 32 scholars. This school appeared in an uncultivated state the greater part of the scholars.

On the 26 of Feb., visited Mrs. Nabby Williams’ school the second time and found that the scholars had made great proficiency in reading, spelling, writing and some in the grammar of the English language.

Nov. 10th, the committee visited and examined two Schools just opened; one kept in a school house, near Baylies works, of the number of 40 scholars, instructed by Mr. Philip Lee. This School we found to have made but small proficiency in reading, spelling and writing, and to be kept only six or seven weeks; upon inquiry why it should be taught no longer, we were informed that the ratio of school money for this School was and had been usually expended in paying the Master both for his service and board, and in purchasing the fire wood which is contrary to the usual custom of the town.

The other School, visited the same day, was kept near John Reed’s consisting of the number of between 30 and 40 Scholars instructed by Mr. William Reed; This School, being formed into regular classes, appeared to have made a good and pleasing proficiency in reading, spelling, writing, some in arithmetic and others in the Grammar of the English language. This School’s share of school money is expended to pay the Master for his service only, so that the School will be continued three months.

On the 8th day of December they visited a School kept in a School house near Seth Hodges, in number 30 Scholars instructed by Mr. John Dunbar. This School appeared in a good way of learning, and to be kept four months.

* * * * *

On the 22nd of December your Committee visited two more Schools just opened, one in a School house near Samuel Pett’s of the number of 40 scholars instructed by Mr. Rufus Dean, and to be kept three months. This School appeared to be in a promising way of learning in reading spelling and writing and to be regularly taught.

The other School is kept in the home of Mr. Paul Chase and taught by Mr. Nicolas Stephens, consisting of 30 Scholars, and appears quite in a good way of learning especially in Spelling for scarcely a word passed a scholar misspelled, in writing some did very well and others in arithmetic appeared attentive.

January 8th, 1801 visited two Schools for the first time, one in the home of Mr. William Hodges of the number of 37 Scholars, instructed by Mr. Lovet Tisdale, the other in the home of Mr. Daniel Burt, of the number of 25 Scholars, instructed by Mr. Benjamin Tubbs. These Schools appeared in good order and attentive to their learning.

* * * * *

Feby. 26th, visited Mr. Dean’s School 2 times, the Scholars were crowded into a small room, the air was exceedingly noxious. Many children were obliged to tarry at home for want of room and though the school was kept only a few weeks they were deprived of its advantages. A want of books was the complaint. The committee were anxiously desirous that this evil might have a remedy and were of opinion it may be easily done. The Scholars appeared to increase in knowledge & claim our approbation.

March 5th, visited two schools, one kept at Mr. Aaron Pratt’s of the number of 30 scholars instructed by Mr. Philip Drown. This school appeared quite unimproved and uncultivated in reading and spelling, some of them did better in writing. This uncultivated state did not appear to be from a fault in the children but, as your committee were informed, from the disadvantage of having had masters illegally qualified for their instruction; of which class is their present master unauthorized by law.[7]

The situation here described was typical of all the settled towns. How much worse it was in sparsely settled districts one can easily imagine. Briefly put, one can say that up to 1830 schools throughout the country held short sessions in the middle of the winter when the pupils were otherwise unoccupied with home demands. There was no supervision except by visiting committees, no course of study, little or no material equipment, and small outlook for a higher education.

ADOPTION OF THE GERMAN MODEL

During the decade 1830-1840 there was an effort, especially in Massachusetts under the leadership of Horace Mann and in Michigan under John Pierce, to improve the common schools. In an illuminating historical treatise on this subject Mr. F. F. Bunker has reproduced some of the evidences that the changes made at that time in the schools of America were largely influenced by German models. The following quotations indicate how the movement began:

Charles Brooks, a man whose influence in Massachusetts was great, and who may be said to have prepared the way for the work of Horace Mann, did very much to disseminate knowledge respecting the Prussian system. He was primarily interested in establishing a normal school after the Prussian model, yet, during the campaign which he carried on for this purpose between the years 1835 and 1838 he did not limit himself to the consideration of the normal school alone, but sought to acquaint the people with the details of the German system of elementary education as well. His account of the return trip from England, which he made in company with Dr. H. Julius, of Hamburg, indicates the esteem in which he held the Prussian system:

A passage of 41 days from Liverpool to New York (with Dr. Julius) gave me time to ask all manner of questions concerning the noble, philosophical, and practical system of Prussian elementary education. He explained it like a sound scholar and a pious Christian. If you will allow the phrase, I fell in love with the Prussian system, and it seemed to possess me like a missionary angel.

* * * * *

Just at the time that Charles Brooks was laboring so diligently to incorporate in the Massachusetts system the results of Prussian experience, another man, John D. Pierce, in Michigan, also an enthusiastic believer in the preëminence of the Prussian organization, was laying the foundation for an educational system in his own State and building into it the best features of Prussian practice. It was mainly because of his suggestions to the chairman of the committee on education in the convention that framed the State government in 1835 that the article in the constitution respecting education was framed and provision made for the office of superintendent of public instruction. Mr. Pierce was appointed to the superintendency in 1836 and at once began the work of preparing a plan for a complete school system.

Before framing his recommendations, which were submitted in 1837 and which were approved for the most part, he visited the schools of New England, New York, and New Jersey. Prior to this, however, he had learned of the Prussian system through an English translation of Cousin’s report. This report of Cousin’s was first made known to the English-speaking people by Sir William Hamilton, who, in the Edinburgh Review, July, 1833, commended the report highly and quoted at considerable length therefrom. The next year (1834) that part of the report which treated of Prussian practice was translated into English by Mrs. Sarah Austin and appeared in London. A New York edition of the same translation was issued in 1835 and widely distributed. It was a copy of this edition which, falling into Mr. Pierce’s hands, profoundly influenced him in framing the system he later submitted to the Michigan Legislature. In describing his entrance into public life Mr. Pierce speaks of this circumstance:

About this time (1835) Cousin’s report of the Prussian system, made to the French minister of public instruction, came into my hands and it was read with much interest. Sitting one pleasant afternoon upon a log on the hill north of where the courthouse at Marshall now stands, Gen. Crary (chairman of the convention committee on education) and myself discussed for a long time the fundamental principles which were deemed important for the convention to adopt in laying the foundations of our State. The subject of education was a theme of special interest. It was agreed, if possible, that it should make a distinct branch of the government, and that the constitution ought to provide for an officer who should have this whole matter in charge and thus keep its importance perpetually before the public mind.

Mr. Pierce’s indebtedness to Prussia for many of the ideas which he worked out in the system which he organized is thus set forth by a later superintendent of the Michigan system, Francis W. Shearman, who, writing in 1852, said:

The system of public instruction which was intended to be established by the framers of the constitution (Michigan), the conception of the office, its province, its powers, and duties were derived from Prussia.[8]...

RESULTS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE GERMAN EXAMPLE.

It is a striking fact that all this borrowing had to do with the common school. Nor was it inappropriate at that period that emphasis should be on the school for the common people. In the young states there was relatively little higher education, and the need was great for an improvement of the common schools.

The consequences of this borrowing were momentous for our history. There are two characteristics which our American schools of elementary grade took on in imitation of the German model, which characteristics have determined in large measure their subsequent development down to the present. In the first place, the German common school was strictly a vernacular school, and, in the second place, it dealt only with rudimentary subjects. The _Gymnasium_, or the school for the aristocracy, was not a vernacular school. Latin and Greek and modern foreign languages were taught in even the lower grades of the _Gymnasium_. Furthermore, the _Gymnasium_ alone taught such “higher” subjects as the higher mathematics, while the common school confined itself exclusively to arithmetic as the rudimentary branch of mathematics. In point of time the German _Volksschule_, as noted above, conducted a course eight years in length. The pupils completed this course at fourteen years of age, when they were confirmed in the Church.

The common school was the institution which America borrowed in 1830-1840. The common school was set up in the United States as an eight-year school devoted exclusively to the vernacular and to rudimentary subjects. But the American system developed. The length of the school year increased, and the number of pupils who are ambitious to go on into the higher schools has enormously increased. In 1917 we were told by the Commissioner of Education of the United States that more than 1,300,000 of the young people in this country were in the high schools. Even now, however, the eight-year vernacular rudimentary school of Germany has its stamp on our American life. As a rule our American schools do not permit a pupil to study foreign languages in the lower school, even when we know that he is going on to high school. The general exclusion of languages is due to the tradition that the elementary school is a vernacular school, not to inability on the part of pupils to learn languages. We will not permit algebra to be taught in the elementary school, because algebra is not a rudimentary subject. To be sure, we have had a hard time trying to keep arithmetic in its position of exclusive domination of the elementary course. We have grafted into the arithmetic all kinds of economic information about insurance and banks and foreign exchange. We have exercised our ingenuity to the limit in inventing examples of a complicated sort in order to keep the pupils in the upper grades at work in arithmetic. But through it all we have been kept from a rational development by adherence to the tradition of the German common school,—the tradition which treats higher subjects as the exclusive property of the aristocracy.

THE REORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS

The day of reform is, however, at hand. Social pressure has gradually been making it evident to all that in America the elementary school cannot be a caste school. The people are demanding that pupils who are to have only a limited schooling be admitted to some of the higher subjects. Furthermore, there are enough pupils who go on into the high school to make it evident that the American scheme should be organized not with a view to distinguishing between the elementary school and the high school, but with a view to combining the two into a continuous institution.

Within the last five years there has spread rapidly a movement known as the junior-high-school movement, or the intermediate-school movement. This is essentially a reform of the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades, and consists, first of all, in the introduction into the course of study of material which formerly belonged to the high school. In the second place, this movement recognizes the maturity of pupils in a variety of ways. It adopts a form of discipline which throws responsibility on them. It departmentalizes the teaching and offers electives, thus securing the advantages of specialization. The movement promises to reorganize our whole school system in such a way as to give us a new kind of national education. America has at the present moment a closer approximation to a continuous educational ladder than any other country, but the ladder needs a little splicing. With the present enthusiasm for national development the splicing is likely to be facilitated.

ORIGIN OF THE HIGH SCHOOL

The foregoing statements extracted from the history of the elementary school may be supplemented by references to the history of the high school. The first schools of secondary grade in this country were patterned after the classical secondary schools of England. The Boston Latin School and the Hopkins Grammar School of New Haven are examples of early foundations of the kind in question. These schools were vestibules to the colleges, and the boys who attended them—for they were schools for boys—were looking forward to one of the learned professions, usually, in the early days, to the clergy.

The Latin school charged tuition, as do all the European secondary schools to-day. It was an exclusive school. It was not a part of the popular movement toward general education. In an important sense it was a vocational school and illustrates the general fact of history that higher schools always had a vocational motive back of their organization, whereas the people’s schools of elementary grade were at first always missionary enterprises intended to spread religious training rather than vocational training.

Parallel with the Latin school and growing out of an entirely different motive was another institution which was very much more genuinely American in its character. This was the academy. The academy was often a boarding school to which boys and girls alike went for an extension of their education. Later the village in which the academy was situated took it over or made arrangements to pay for all the pupils, and it became a free academy.

There were some other experiments in the extension of school opportunities. In New England, the oldest and economically most forward section of the country, a ninth grade was added to the elementary school. There are to-day in Maine, and to some extent in other New England states, elementary schools with a nine-year course. But the ninth grade never succeeded. It was cramped by the German definition of the elementary school as a vernacular and rudimentary school. To try to spend nine years rather than eight on the three R’s was not productive. The academy, on the other hand, knew no limits of this kind. It reveled in such subjects as French and music and literature and history.

At last the Latin school and the academy fused in the American high school, and the high school took its place at the end of the elementary-school course. The influence of the academy in determining this form of organization was very great, for the academy was from the first connected with the elementary school, while the Latin school was in its early days an institution quite separate from the common school both in its organization and purpose.

EDUCATION OF GIRLS

These sketches of school history could be supplemented by other discussions. Perhaps it will be well to comment briefly on the unique American attitude toward the education of girls. In Europe girls have only very recently been given opportunities of higher education, and even now the opportunity is limited to the few. We have undoubtedly made the mistake in this country, in our enthusiasm for equality of opportunity, of administering to girls a course of study originally designed for their brothers. In due time we shall learn how to give to girls an education suited to their needs, but there can never be any question among us about the wisdom of a higher education for women.

HIGHER EDUCATION FREE

It has also been noted incidentally that with us all education is free. This has not been attained without much discussion and much legislation. We shall later have an opportunity to treat more at length the fiscal policies of American schools. At this point it is enough to note that American schools are what they are because they are free.

An interesting contrast can be drawn here between the practice in England and in the United States. In England vast sums of money make a free education accessible to certain selected individuals. The higher schools are not free to all comers, as ours are, but a bright boy—it is usually only the boy—who can pass a competitive examination is given a stipend, which provides his tuition and often enough more to get books and, if necessary, pay for transportation. The English theory is that it is the duty of the public to pay for selected boys, but not for boys in general. To the American it seems a little hazardous to select the leaders of the nation by competitive examinations given to eleven-year-old boys. On the other hand, the English think of our plan as wasteful because we postpone selection longer than they think we should. The contrast here pointed out is enough to draw our attention to the unique attitude of American schools, which are free to all and in this sense far more democratic than the higher schools of any European country.

AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS SECULAR

Finally, we may point out that our schools are secular. Some of our own fellow countrymen do not believe in secular schools. We are familiar with the practice of organizing parochial schools. France and England have in recent years purchased secularization of their schools after long and bitter controversy. Germany gives instruction in religion as an important part of every course of study. In some sections of Germany the distinction between religious beliefs is carried into the school organization in such a way that one finds public schools set aside for the children of this and that sect. In all schools the pupil has a right to instruction in his own particular type of religion.

In the United States the complete democratization of the schools has been possible because differences in religion have been rigidly excluded. There is a common body of knowledge which can be administered in public schools without involving religion. The decision for such a separation was made long ago in this country and is one of the characteristic facts in our school system as well as in our general civic life.

THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND ITS DOMINATION OF THE TEACHER

The facts outlined in this chapter ought to create in the mind of the reader a vivid notion of what is meant by the words “school system.” The schools of America or any other country have a kind of colossal personality. The teacher who teaches a fifth grade or a sixth grade or a high-school class does not determine the character of the education given at these points in the system. To be sure, the teacher can do his or her work effectively or inefficiently. The special methods employed may be well or ill adapted to their ends. But above and beyond the individual teacher is the system which controls the pupil’s progress in many subtle ways and determines all the main lines of his training. The teacher who would succeed must understand this larger influence. Especially is it necessary that the teacher who aims to contribute to the rational development of the system through the scientific study of detailed problems become acquainted with the present characteristics of the system and comprehend something of the conditions which have produced these characteristics.

EXERCISES AND READINGS

Among textbooks there are such striking differences that the student will be able after even a superficial analysis to see that their authors had very different ideas about the use of texts. Find a textbook which is intended to give the pupil a start in a study rather than a complete discussion of the subject. Find a text which is intended to be learned rather than merely read. What parts of a textbook are addressed to the teacher and constitute teaching devices rather than material for students?

Contrast the ways in which different teachers use textbooks. Are there teachers who neglect the book very largely? When should a teacher lecture? Find specific examples of lessons which can best be taught (1) by questions and answers, (2) by written work, and (3) by lectures.

With regard to a given high school it is important to find out when it was established. What was its first course of study?

With regard to courses for girls, it is interesting to inquire how far classes in an elective system are chosen by boys and how far by girls. Why are conditions as they are?

The foregoing questions are asked on the assumption that the contrasts presented in the chapter are of value only when they make students keenly aware of the facts in their own environment. The facts of history are valuable chiefly because of the light they throw on the present.

BROWN, E. E. Making of our Middle Schools. Longmans, Green, & Co. This is the only history of American secondary schools.

BUNKER, F. F. “Reorganization of the Public School System,” in _Bulletin No. 8_, United States Bureau of Education, 1916. This shows how our present school system was organized.

FARRINGTON, F. E. French Secondary Schools. Longmans, Green, & Co.

FARRINGTON, F. E. The Public Primary School System of France. Teachers College.

JUDD, C. H. “The Training of Teachers in England, Scotland, and Germany,” in _Bulletin No. 35_, United States Bureau of Education, 1914.

MONROE, W. S. “Development of Arithmetic as a School Subject,” in _Bulletin No. 10_, United States Bureau of Education, 1917. This bulletin tells of the origin of the present methods of teaching arithmetic.

PARKER, S. C. The History of Modern Elementary Education. Ginn and Company. This is a very good summary of the facts regarding the development of American schools.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] Reprinted in the Report of the School Committee of the City of Taunton, Massachusetts, for the Year Ending December 31, 1915, pp. 68-73.

[8] Frank Forest Bunker, “Reorganization of the Public School System,” in _Bulletin No. 8_, United States Bureau of Education, 1916, pp. 21-23.