CHAPTER XI

PRINCIPLES INFLUENCING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM

NECESSITY OF PRACTICAL DECISIONS IN SPITE OF CONFUSION

With the expansions in education that have been reviewed in foregoing chapters, there has come a certain confusion and uncertainty of practice which sometimes tends to lower the standards of work in the school.

Consider a concrete case. A small city can afford to offer only a limited number of courses in its high school. Shall the choice fall on Latin or typewriting? Among the sciences shall botany or chemistry be provided? Botany would relate itself well to agriculture, and chemistry would be a basis for domestic science. Sometimes in the effort to meet both demands, weak courses are tolerated, and teachers are either overloaded because they are called on to carry heavy programs or are inadequately compensated in the effort to provide a sufficient number to do all the work demanded.

Nor is it the school alone which is confronted with the necessity of choosing; the individual student must elect. There is a high school in a small city in Illinois, as shown by the last report of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, which enrolled in 1915 four hundred and sixty-one students. This school offered twenty-three units in academic subjects and twelve units in vocational subjects. If each pupil took five units a year, which would be a very heavy program, he would be able to complete in four years only twenty units, or fifteen less than the school offers. Another high school in the same state with an enrollment of five hundred and thirty-two students offers an aggregate of forty-four units.

Finally, there are choices to be made within these choices, because after the decision has been reached that botany is to be taught, the teacher must select from the abundant material within this science that which seems most productive. The student, also, gives more attention to one subject than to the others which he is pursuing, thus exhibiting another kind of selection.

Choices have to be made, and every choice has back of it some prejudice or some clearly thought-out principle or some experience collected by the teacher or pupil through contact with earlier educational problems. Our business in this course is, first, to become aware of the chief reasons for the choices actually made in schools, and, second, to take up some of the evidences which justify one or the other of these reasons. The present chapter will be devoted to a brief statement of the principles most commonly urged as the basis of choice.

THE DOCTRINE OF DISCIPLINE

The historical reason for training children which has come down to us from the religious traditions of the Middle Ages, and more directly from the austere beliefs and practices of the Puritans, is the supposed demand for a curbing of the naturally perverse tendencies of children, for a disciplining of nature into a higher form of morality. This reason has in more recent times been phrased in new terms. The mind, it is said, must be made strong through struggle with difficulties as the athlete becomes skillful and muscular through training. If the training seems for the time being monotonous and overvigorous, well and good; the end justifies the effort. This is the doctrine of discipline.

THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL EDUCATION IN THE FORM OF THE DOCTRINE OF FREEDOM

Against the notion of discipline there has been matched, especially in the last century, the opposing notion that all good qualities are natural and will express themselves freely if the artificial restraints of life are removed. Rousseau, in his famous attack on social conventions, pointed out the truth that the child is naturally an eager learner. Biology reinforced Rousseau’s teachings with the doctrines of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, meaning by the fittest those able to take on complete adaptation to the present environment. The belief that nature is a safe guide has led to the doctrine of freedom for the child in all matters of intellectual development.

CONCENTRATION AND INTEREST

The antithesis between discipline and freedom, between training which aims to transform the child’s nature and training which gives the child’s nature opportunity to express itself without restraint, can be illustrated as follows. On the one side it is said that children have no power of concentration of attention. They are flighty and erratic. They must be made to think steadily in order to train their minds for hard mental work. On the other side it is asserted that when a child’s interest is aroused through an appeal to his natural tastes he will exert his mind to the limit of its powers, and this is all that can advantageously be required.

POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD DISCIPLINE

When the antithesis between discipline and natural interests is presented to the present-day world, it must be said that there is a widespread disposition to set aside discipline as arbitrary and puritanical. Our generation is in favor of natural development. Perhaps it would be truer to use the past tense in the last statement because the social attitude toward discipline has been profoundly affected by the war. Never in the history of this country has the lesson been clearer than it is at the present that social coöperation means the training of the individual to make some sacrifices. The American school has carried the elective system and its concessions to individuals to an extreme which is likely to be limited somewhat in the future by a recognition of social obligations.

EXAMPLES OF DISCIPLINE AND FREEDOM

It may be well to illustrate this abstract discussion of discipline and freedom with concrete examples. One of the most emphatic pronouncements in favor of the doctrine of freedom is that of Madam Montessori, an Italian physician whose system of education has been much heralded in this country as a substitute for the kindergarten. According to this writer’s views the pupil should have perfect freedom. The contrast with the kindergarten is described as follows by one of the observers of the two institutions:

A contrast between the Montessori school and the kindergarten of the more formal and traditional type may serve to give a clearer picture of the Montessori procedure, and consequently of the Montessori conception of liberty as it appears in practice. The most evident difference is seen in the function of the teacher. The kindergartner is clearly the center and arbiter of the activity in the room. The Montessori directress seems, on the contrary, to be at one side. The kindergartner contemplates at each moment the whole of her group; the directress is talking usually to one alone—possibly to two or three. The kindergarten children are engaged in some sort of directed group activity; each Montessori child is an isolated worker, though one or more comrades may look on and suggest. The arrangement of the room shows the same contrast. The kindergarten has a circle about which all may gather, and tables for group activity. The Montessori room is fitted, preferably, with individual tables, arranged as the children will. (In the writer’s observation, there has been little deviation, however, from arrangement in formal rows.) Montessori provides long periods, say of two or more hours, while the kindergarten period rarely goes beyond a half-hour. During the period assigned for that purpose practically all of the Montessori apparatus is available for any child (except for the very youngest or the newest comers), and the child makes his choice freely. The kindergartner, on the other hand, decides very nicely what specific apparatus shall be used during any one period. The Montessori child abides by his choice as long as he wishes, and changes as often as he likes; he may even do nothing if he prefers. The child in the traditional kindergarten uses the same apparatus throughout the period, and is frequently led or directed by the teacher as to what he shall do. At other times he may be at liberty to build or represent at will whatever may be suggested by the “gift” set for the period. The Montessori child, each at his own chosen task, works, as stated, in relative isolation, his nearest neighbors possibly looking on.[53]

At the other end of the educational system we find the example of “stiff” courses in college designed to “weed out” the slothful and incompetent. The “stiff” course is required mathematics, or a foreign language, or a course in English composition. Opposition to stiff courses expresses itself in the demand for an undiluted elective system in which the student may take whatever serves his purposes.

NATURAL EDUCATION AND RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

The advocacy of a natural education takes a different turn when it drops the word “freedom” and emphasizes the fact that individuals differ radically in their native capacities. Some pupils have an aptitude for one kind of work, others for other types. The school is to-day committed to a recognition of these differences and to a study of their meaning. There is a movement known as the vocational-guidance movement which is making progress in the direction of the discovery of methods for finding out what studies can properly be undertaken by students in view of their varying natural endowments. The individual’s natural bent being discovered, his educational training can be directed to the highest possible cultivation of his powers. Nature is thus recognized but is not made the dominant fact. The vocational end is the controlling factor in the situation. The attainment of this end may require the most rigid disciplining of one’s powers. The direction of this disciplining is dictated by nature, but not the particular steps of education. As a result of such a discussion it begins to appear that there is no fundamental reason for the abandonment of the idea of discipline even if there is a complete recognition of natural individual differences.

In concrete cases the opposition to the doctrine of discipline may, however, be acute. The pupil may say that he has absolutely no natural capacity for algebra or spelling. The teacher may answer that these are universal requirements and that there is no escape from these necessary studies because of individual differences. In such a dispute, tradition, on the one hand, and the wider opportunities of the modern curriculum, on the other hand, are likely to be arrayed against each other. Algebra as the conservative subject is likely to defend the view that discipline is necessary, whereas manual training and domestic science are likely to emphasize the natural attractiveness of the practical training which they offer. Thus it has come to pass that certain subjects, especially the older subjects in the curriculum, have come to be regarded as the defenders of the doctrine of discipline, while the newer subjects have often been regarded as opposed by their very character to the doctrine.

NATURAL EDUCATION AS TRAINING FOR LIFE

Still another turn is given to the discussion by an emphasis on the social demands of later life. As society is constituted, individual differences are sure to play a large part in determining success or failure. Furthermore, society as constituted in its commercial organizations accepts without hesitation the principle of division of labor. Why should not the school be like society? Why should not the school be a miniature world with all the different types of life that will later become real to the pupils? Practical needs thus come into the foreground.

TRAINING IN THE METHODS OF KNOWLEDGE AND GENERAL TRAINING

Two views are sometimes offered in opposition to the doctrine of a strictly practical training. First, it is said that the pupil in order to prepare for later life must pass through certain forms of training which are preliminary, intended to set up his mental machinery before it begins to produce anything. Otherwise expressed, it is said that the pupil must get the tools of knowledge before he tries to take part in real life.

Second, it is said that there is no possibility in the complex society of the modern world of foreseeing just what will be the practical needs of pupils when they grow to adult life. It will therefore be better, it is argued, to aim at a broad flexible training which can in due time be turned into any channel that circumstances may dictate.

EXAMPLES OF VIEWS ON FORMAL TRAINING

The dispute which is introduced by these opposing statements is one of the bitterest in modern educational writings. Let us borrow two quotations which will present the case in detail. Frank M. McMurry has given in his report on the schools of New York City a striking example of the advocacy of direct and constant attention to social needs. In giving the quotation from this author it is possible to include incidentally his description of an earlier view of the curriculum which emphasizes general training or methods of thought rather than special content.

PROMINENCE OF CURRICULUM IN DETERMINING QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION

Thirty years ago the belief was often expressed that it made little difference _what_ one studied, but all the difference in the world _with whom_ one studied. That belief made almost any curriculum acceptable, and directed attention to the personality of the teacher and to _method_ as the principal factors determining the effectiveness of instruction.

That belief, however, has been greatly modified. While no one will deny the importance of the teacher’s personality, most persons will admit that the proper expression of personality and skill in method are both greatly dependent upon the subject matter of the curriculum. Carefully selected subject matter is prerequisite to skill in method of presentation. Without a good curriculum there is bound to be great waste.

BASES FOR JUDGING CURRICULUM AND SYLLABI

1. BY RELATION OF SUBJECT MATTER TO CHILDREN’S PURPOSES

In harmony with the previous discussion of standards for judging the quality of instruction, as a whole, the quality of the curriculum in particular is to be determined partly by its tendency to influence the tastes, purposes, and hopes of children. Any curriculum for the elementary school should have its content selected from among those experiences of mankind that have seemed most valuable. That is to be presupposed. But this selection can be indifferent to the tendencies, interests, and capacities of children in general, and of certain ages in particular, and aim only at present storage of facts and ideas that may count in a dim future, i.e., in adult life. Or it may be made with constant reference to the abilities, tastes, and needs of children at the present time. In the former case, motive on the part of children is overlooked; in the latter case, the extent of provision for it is accepted as one of the standards by which the curriculum is to be judged. We represent the latter point of view.[54]

The group of thinkers to whom McMurry refers with disfavor as absorbed in methods rather than content has never been more ably represented than by President Hadley, extracts from whose statement are as follows:

Greek is an intellectual game where the umpires know the rules better than they know the rules in the game of French, for instance, or history, or botany. A man’s rating in an examination on any one of these last three subjects is largely the result of accident unless the examiner is quite unusually skillful. A man’s rating in Greek, on the other hand, means something. There never were intellectual competitions keener than the classical competitions at Oxford in the days when the best men in England wanted their sons to learn that particular game.

Unfortunately, a large number of the strongest men, both in England and in the United States, have decided that this game takes more time than it is worth. Personally, I believe that this change of mind is in many respects a misfortune; that in trying to get more practical results in the way of knowledge or culture a great many American college boys have lost the training which the Greek would have given them and gained nothing of equal value in its place....

It was a mistake for the advocates of the old curriculum to think that all the students required the same treatment. It is, I believe, an equal mistake for the advocates of the elective system to think that each student requires a different treatment. For while there is a very large number of subjects of interest to study, and an almost infinite variety of occupations which the students are going to follow afterwards, there is a comparatively small number of types of mind with which we have to deal. If we can have four or five honor courses, something like those of the English universities, where the studies are grouped and the examinations arranged to meet the needs of these different types, we can, I think, realize the chief advantages of the elective system or the group system without subjecting ourselves to their evils. I am confident that we can secure a degree of collective intellectual interest which is now absent from most of our colleges, and can establish competitions which will be recognized not only in college but in the world as places where the best men can show what is in them.

It may be objected that any such arrangement would render it difficult for a boy to study the particular things that he was going to use in after life. I regard this as its cardinal advantage. The ideal college education seems to me to be one where a student learns things that he is not going to use in after life, by methods that he is going to use. The former element gives the breadth, the latter element gives the training.[55]

FORMAL DISCIPLINE AND TRANSFER OF TRAINING

The controversy here illustrated has led to the development of a number of technical phrases. The doctrine that emphasizes form or method as opposed to content is known as the doctrine of formal discipline. The advocates of this doctrine defend the view that training gained in one field will transfer to other fields of activity. Stated in these terms the doctrine is referred to as that of the transfer of training.

The doctrine of transfer of training is capable of experimental and statistical verification or refutation. A vast body of evidence has been collected in recent years. The conclusions to be drawn from this evidence are clear. There are certain general habits, such as concentration of attention and power of arranging and expressing ideas, which carry over from one field of experience to another. The transfer of training is facilitated if the original training is given in such a form that it lends itself readily to application in new spheres of thought. So important is the development of general habits that it is entirely legitimate to proceed at every stage of education slowly enough to give to each subject its relations through a variety of possible applications. It is recognized as impossible to give in the schools direct special training for all possible lines of activity upon which the pupil is to enter. Some effort must be expended in cultivating what may properly be called the applying attitude of mind. Once the applying attitude is aroused in any individual, the transfer of training will be likely to go on through individual recognition of the advantages of application.

RELATION OF SUBJECTS TO MATURITY OF PUPILS

The quotation from McMurry given some pages back suggests another aspect of this whole matter which has been a subject of much dispute. When should certain kinds of training be introduced into the curriculum? A quotation will help to make the problem clear.

So far as high-school instruction is concerned, the most important practical question raised in the present discussion is whether the ability to learn a foreign vocabulary varies with age. It is almost universally claimed that a student must begin a language when young in order to learn it effectively and economically. In opposition to this theory, we shall maintain, as in the case of motor skill, that a foreign vocabulary can be learned just as economically at the later end of the period from six to eighteen years of age as at any other part of it. As the basis for this contention we have some very closely related evidence from experimental psychology, in the work done upon facility in memorizing at different ages.[56]

If the statement here quoted is accepted, it still remains an open question whether the pronunciation of a foreign language is worth acquiring and whether pronunciation is to be sought as an important element of the study, for if it is, there is little doubt that young children acquire it more easily and more accurately than do older persons.

The example is introduced not for the purpose of attempting a settlement of the question but for the purpose of showing that the organization of the curriculum raises questions which are now answered for the most part on the basis of mere prejudice, but should be answered in the light of a body of broad, scientific evidence. Certainly the problem of the distribution of a pupil’s studies through the various periods of his mental development is one of the most important of these problems.

SUMMARY

The doctrine of discipline holds that it is desirable by training to transform in some measure the natural tendencies of the child’s mind.

The general doctrine of natural education emphasizes the importance of following the lines of natural development in education. Often this doctrine is so formulated as to be opposed to the doctrine of discipline.

When dealing with the intellectual side of the pupil’s nature the doctrine of discipline takes the form of a demand for cultivation of concentration. Natural education asserts the right of the child to his personal interests and is liberal in making concessions to these interests.

The form of the doctrine of natural education most directly opposed to the doctrine of discipline is the doctrine of freedom. According to this view the pupil should be left to follow his natural impulses.

Another form of the doctrine of natural education recognizes the differences between individuals as important considerations in governing their training.

Training for practical life is a very common basis for the organization of the curriculum and has been amply illustrated in earlier chapters.

Training in the methods or tools of knowledge is in some measure opposed to the demand for practical training.

Training of general intelligence is advocated because it gives the student greater freedom in adjusting his career to the circumstances of later life.

Training in the forms of knowledge, or formal training, sometimes called formal discipline, is practically synonymous with training of general intelligence.

The doctrine of transfer of training is one formulation of the doctrine of formal discipline. Evidence is abundant that transfer takes place. Its degree and the methods of securing it are subjects of vigorous investigation.

The adaptation of training to the maturity of pupils is one of the most important requirements in arranging a curriculum. In a later chapter this will be discussed under the title “Periodicity in the Pupil’s Development.”

EXERCISES AND READINGS

The arguments for and against disciplinary subjects should be followed in detail. Thus, why so much arithmetic in the lower school? Is it necessary to have as much as we do in the upper grades, even admitting its value in the lower grades? Are students of higher mathematics practical men?

A child brought up in an indulgent home is sometimes pointed out as a horrible example of a child brought up with unlimited freedom. Is the example just? What are the different meanings which may attach to the term “freedom”?

What does maturity on the part of a pupil mean? What are the marks of increasing maturity? Can maturity be produced by deliberately adopted school methods?

What elements of one’s own education can be traced to the demand on the part of some teacher or parent for discipline? Was the demand when put into actual operation in the school successful in producing general improvement in one’s ability?

Classify subjects in the curriculum as designed to satisfy different aims. How many different aims can be distinguished as appealing to men of ordinary experience in their efforts to secure an education? Booker Washington used to say that he found many people desiring an education in order that they might escape from hard work. Is this a common desire? Is it legitimate? Is it harder to earn one’s living by composing music or by keeping books? Why do men want an education?

HECK, W. H. Mental Discipline and Educational Values. John Lane Company. A summary of the arguments for and against formal discipline with a very strong bias against.

JUDD, C. H. Psychology of High-School Subjects. Ginn and Company. Especially the chapter which deals with formal discipline, with an affirmative statement of what such discipline means.

MCMURRY, C. A. Conflicting Principles in Teaching. Houghton Mifflin Company. An interesting and balanced summary of the general principles discussed in this chapter and other principles of like type.

FOOTNOTES:

[53] William Heard Kilpatrick, The Montessori System Examined, pp. 14-15. Riverside Educational Monograph. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914.

[54] Frank M. McMurry, Report on Educational Aspects of the Public School System of the City of New York, 1911-1912, Part II, p. 265.

[55] Report of the President of Yale University, 1908-1909. Published by the University, New Haven, 1909.

[56] Samuel Chester Parker, Methods of Teaching in High Schools, pp. 318-319. Ginn and Company, 1915.