Secularization.
Secularization of the school system has also gradually taken place. First, the courses of study were secularized by the substitution of civic and moral instruction for religious (1881); next, the instructional force was secularized by providing that members of the clergy should no longer be employed in the public schools (1886), and by recognizing public school teachers as state officers (1889); and finally, the schools themselves were completely secularized by compelling the teaching orders to report to the state authorities (1902), and afterwards by closing the free schools directed by them (1904). Thus within a generation universal elementary education has been established in France and brought completely under state control.
The Secondary System.—As in Prussia, the secondaryschool system of France does not connect with the primary, but is quite separate and distinct (Fig. 49). The training has, since the time of Napoleon, been furnishedDevelopment of lycées and communal collèges.chiefly by the lycées and communal collèges. During the Restoration (1814-1830) and the reign of Louis Philippe (1830-1848) the lycées came to be called ‘royal colleges,’ but, with the advent of the second republic (1848-1851), the Napoleonic name was restored and the curricula were completely reorganized. By this revision some elasticity was introduced into the last three years of the lycée by a bifurcation into a literary and a scientific course, and during the third republic further elections were introduced, until finally (1902) four distinct courses were established. In the leading lycées and collèges special preparation is also afforded for schools like the military institution of St. Cyr or the Polytechnic of Paris; and in some there is a short course of three or four years in modern languages and sciences that in function closely approaches that of the German real-school.
Organization of lycées
The boys ordinarily begin the first ‘cycle’ of the lycée or collège at ten years of age, and while they may transfer from the primary system at this stage, in most lycéesand collèges.and collèges there are preparatory classes to train the pupil from six to ten. The second ‘cycle,’ during which the differentiation in courses largely occurs, takes the pupil from fourteen to seventeen, and leads upon completion to the bachelor’s degree. Education in a lycée or collège is not gratuitous, but the income from tuition fees is so small as to cover but a small fraction of the cost, and the rest is contributed by the state. The communal collèges differ from the lycées in being local, and they are maintained by the communes, as well as by the state.They have not the same standing, and the same attainments are not required of their professors. Until 1880 there were no lycées and communal collèges for girls, andSecondary institutions for girls.convents and private schools furnished the only means of female education. Even now the usual course in the public secondary institutions for girls is two years shorter than in those for boys.
The Institutions of Higher Education.—More than one-half of the universities established in the variousSuppression and restoration of the universities.‘academies’ by Napoleon were suppressed as soon as the monarchy was restored. But about half a dozen were reopened in the reign of Louis Philippe, and were gradually improved by the addition of new chairs. Beginning in 1885, a number of decrees established a general council of faculties in each academy to coördinate the different courses and studies, and in 1896 a law was passed, which established a university in each of the sixteen ‘academies,’ except one. These universities differ greatly in size, but all grant thelicense, or master’s degree,Degrees.and the doctorate. The university degrees are ordinarily conferred in the name of the state and carry certain definite rights with them, but of late years a new type of degree, ‘doctorate of the university,’ is granted upon easier terms to foreigners more desirous of the degree than of its state privileges. In Paris, besides the university, there is the College of France, which still endeavors to foster freedom of thought (see p. 110),Other higher institutions.and a dozen other institutions of university grade, connected with some special line, have been established.
Centralized Administration of the French Education.—The centralization of education is even more complete in France than in Germany. The supreme head of theDuties of minister,system is the minister of education. He is immediately assisted by three directors, one each for primary, secondary,rectors,and higher education. A rector is in charge of each of the ‘academies,’ except Paris, where the minister nominally holds the office and a vice rector performs the duties. The rector has authority over all three fields of education in his academy, but does not appoint theprefects,teachers. That office is performed by the prefect, or head of each civil department, upon the recommendation of the academy inspector. There is also a departmental council, presided over by the prefect, that appoints delegates in each canton, to take charge of the school premises and equipment. Further organization is effected through the maintenance of a complete corps ofand inspectors.general, academy, and primary inspectors.
Early Development of English Education.—In England the nationalization of education was delayed even longer than in France. This country was never controlled by enlightened despots, who could, as in Germany, force the growth of public educational sentiment, nor was it overwhelmed by the sweep of a great revolution, destroying, as in France, all opposition to popular progress. National education in England has graduallySlow evolution.grown out of the conflict of a number of elements represented in its society. It has been the product of a series of compromises among many different factors,—the church, state, economic conditions, private enterprise, and philanthropy. For several centuries education was regarded as a function of the church and family, and theChurch monopoly.sentiment for universal training was retarded by the attitude of the upper classes, who strove to keep the poor in ignorance and to maintain the educational controlof the church. This domination was first seriously challengedPhilanthropic institutions.in the eighteenth century, and while the training then furnished through the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, the Sunday schools, and other philanthropic institutions (seepp. 232ff.), was rather meager, these organizations, together with the ‘monitorial’ instruction of the British and Foreign, and the National Societies (seepp. 240f.), greatly advanced the cause of universal education. And toward the close of the century there began to appear a new point of view, especially with men like Bentham, Blackstone, Robert Owen, and Adam Smith, who advocated universal education, compulsory attendance, and a national system of schools.
Educational Movements in the Nineteenth Century.—The theory of these great thinkers was somewhat in advance of the times, but, early in the nineteenth century,First signs of progress.social changes began to favor better educational opportunities. The Factory Act (1802) provided for the obligatory training of apprentices; Mr. Whitbread introduced (1807) a bill to permit the civic officials of any township or parish to establish schools for the poor wherever none existed; and Brougham, while losing his bill for popular education (1820), previously secured two commissions of inquiry on school facilities. In 1832, the passage of a reform bill, which largely increased the suffrage, aroused Parliament to the need of educatingFirst parliamentary grant in 1833.the masses, and the next year the first grant, £20,000, was made for elementary education. This sum was to be used solely to aid in building schoolhouses for which subscriptions had been privately obtained, and so could be passed as a vote of ‘supply,’ without referring itto the House of Lords. For lack of a government organization of education, it was apportioned through the National and the British and Foreign Societies (see p. 240). Governmental activities constantly increased. In 1839 the annual grant was increased to £30,000 and allowed to be used for elementary education without restriction. In the same year, a separate committeeCommittee of Privy Council in 1839.of the Privy Council was designated to administer the educational grants; and in 1856 a Vice President was appointed to act as chairman of this educational committee. Then, in 1861, through another commission on popular education, it was arranged to base the grant to any school upon the results shown by‘Payment by results’ in 1861.the pupils in the governmental examinations. This ‘payment by results’ was intended to increase efficiency, but, used as a sole means of testing, it soon proved narrowing and unfair, and had to be supplemented by the general opinion formed of each school by the inspectors. Yet it somewhat increased the efficiency of the work.
Agitation in behalf of universal education continued, and organizations like the ‘Lancashire Public School Association’ of Manchester (1847) and ‘The League’ of Birmingham (1869) spread rapidly through the manufacturing centers. And when the franchise was further extended in 1868, the necessity for preparing millions of the common people for new responsibilities in publicIn 1870 establishment of ‘board schools’, supported by local ‘rates,’ as well as grants.affairs led in 1870 to the passage of the epoch-making bill of William E. Forster. Under this act ‘board schools,’ or institutions in charge of a board chosen by the people of the community, were to be established wherever a deficiency in the existing accommodations required it. The ‘voluntary,’ or denominational schools, most ofwhich belonged to the Church of England, were to continue to share in the government grants upon equal terms with the new institutions, but the latter had also the benefit of local ‘rates.’ Elementary instruction in all schools had to be open to government inspection, and the amount of the grant was partly determined by the report of the inspectors. The board schools were forbidden to allow “any religious catechism or religious formulary, which is distinctive of any particular denomination;” and religious instruction in either type of school had to be placed at the beginning or end of the school session, so that, under the ‘conscience clause’ of the act, any scholar might conveniently withdraw at that time.
This act of 1870 was, of course, themagna chartaof national education, and has become the basis of much school legislation. The compromise in the bill that allowed the voluntary schools, with their sectarian instruction, to continue receiving government support, however, prevented a logical and consistent system from being established. The dual system of elementary schools continued to be developed in a variety of enactments.Compulsory attendance,Compulsory attendance laws were passed (1876,minimum age,1880), the minimum age of exemption was set first atfree tuition,eleven years of age, and then raised to twelve (1893, 1899), and an extra grant, to take the place of tuition fees (1891), made it possible for most schools to becomeand Board of Education.absolutely free. Finally (1899), there was created a central Board of Education, which assumed the functions of the Committee of Privy Council on Education and similar agencies for managing educational interests.
Subsequent Educational Movements.—Within a generation of existence the board schools met with a phenomenalgrowth, and came to include about seventy per cent of the pupils. They were spending about half as much again upon each pupil as were the voluntary schools, and were able to engage a much better staff of teachers. This extension of civil influence in education was bitterly opposed by the Established Church, and when the conservatives came into power through the assistance of the clergy, they passed the act of 1902, whereby the denominationalIn 1902 ‘voluntary’ schools also allowed local rates,schools were permitted to share also in the local rates. While under this act the administration of both board and voluntary schools was now centralized in the county and city councils, the immediate supervision of instruction in the individual schools was placed in the hands of a board of managers; and, despite their receipt of local taxes, the voluntary schools were required to have but two of their managers appointed by the council, and the other four were still selected by the denomination. Serious opposition to the enforcement of the new law arose among nonconformists and others, and coercive measures were taken by the government. The new act, however, while unfair to those outside thebut dual system swept away,Church of England, tended to sweep away the dual system of public and church schools, since both were coming to rest upon a basis of public control and support. Since 1902 all elementary schools have been considered as part of one comprehensive system, and the board schools have been distinguished as ‘provided schools’ and the voluntary as ‘nonprovided.’ Moreover, under the legislation of 1902 steps were also taken to coördinate secondary with elementary education, and bring it somewhat within the public system. The board schools had early in their existence begun to develop upward intosecondary education and before long had come to compete with the older grammar and public schools, but in 1900 the ‘Cockerton judgment’ forbade the use of local rates for other instruction than elementary, and it remainedand secondary instruction supported at public expense.for the new act to impose upon councils the duty to support instruction in subjects beyond the elementary work. The Board of Education was also empowered to inspect the work of the great public schools and other endowed secondary institutions, and to allow grants to all schools meeting the conditions of the Board.
After the liberals returned to power, they continued the conservatives’ policy of granting local rates to all elementary schools, and of bringing secondary education under public support and control. While the educationBill of 1906 defeated,bill of 1906, which was kept from passage by the House of Lords, did not recognize church schools as such, and insisted upon bringing them under the complete control of the public authorities, it made no attempt to return to the former dual system of schools and the isolation of secondary from elementary education. It still held also to religious, and, under safeguards, even to sectarian instruction in the elementary schools, and may yet be passed in a revised form. A voluntary committee for a ‘resettlement in English elementary education,’ through the mediation of the President of the Board of Education and the Archbishop of Canterbury, has formulated abut new plan, placing all schools under public control.plan, which concedes the principle of public control and support for all elementary schools and religious freedom for teachers and pupils, but provides local option for the continuance of denominational schools. Thus, while England is not prepared to adopt a secular system, like that of France and the United States, and has not yetfully articulated its secondary education with elementary, (Fig. 50), it is upon the high road to a complete centralization of school administration in the national government.
During the nineteenth century also the classical andClassical and ecclesiastical monopoly broken in secondary and higher education.ecclesiastical monopoly in secondary and higher education was largely broken. All the older public and grammar schools (seepp. 412f.) developed ‘modern sides,’ and during the Victorian era a number of new schools were founded, which gave considerable attention to the modern languages and the sciences from the start. A recognition of the scientific ideals began also to appear in the curriculum of Cambridge (1851) and Oxford (1853), and the theological requirements for a degree were dropped (1856). By the last quarter of the century actual laboratories had been introduced, and students were freed from all doctrinal tests at both universities. Moreover, new universities, better adjusted to modern demands and more closely related to the school systems and the civil government, began to arise in manufacturing centers. Since 1889 such municipal or ‘provincial’ institutions as the Universities of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, and Bristol have sprung up, and the University of London, started as an examining body in 1836, has become a teaching institution.
Development of Education in the Dominion of Canada.—Canada developed schools in very early days. In the beginning education was cared for in the four provinces separately, and when the Dominion of Canada was finally formed (1867), the federal government left to each province the administration of public education within its borders. The same autonomy was extendedto the provinces that have since been admitted to theTwo types,federation. Two types of educational control,—state and ecclesiastical, have been developing from the first. The former method is best illustrated by the system of(1) Ontario and (2) Quebec.Ontario; and the latter by that of Quebec. Ontario was settled mostly by emigrants from England, Scotland, and the United States, and practically all brought with them the concept of public control of education. The French Catholics of Quebec, on the other hand, naturally followed their traditions of parish schools.
DIAGRAM OF FRENCH EDUCATION.Fig. 49.DIAGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION.Fig. 50.
DIAGRAM OF FRENCH EDUCATION.Fig. 49.
Fig. 49.
DIAGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION.Fig. 50.
Fig. 50.
The Public School System of Ontario.—The system of schools in Ontario began with the passage of its Common Schools Act in 1846. This was formulated after a careful study of the systems of Massachusetts, New York, and the European states, and included excellent elements from various systems and many original features of value. By 1871 this fundamental law had come to include free tuition, compulsory attendance, county inspection, and uniform examinations. In 1876 an evenUniversal education, and since 1870 great centralization through ministergreater centralization of the provincial system was effected through substituting for the chief superintendent a ‘minister of education’ with much larger powers, and bringing all stages of public education,—elementary, secondary, and higher schools, into much closer relationship. The minister now has many assistants, including an Advisory Council of Education; and he initiates and directs all school legislation, decides complaints and disputes, sets examinations for the high, elementary, model, and normal schools, prescribes the courses of study, chooses the text-books, and appoints the inspectors.and subordinate authorities.The system is further administered by subordinate authorities elected in the localities, whose duties areclearly defined by law. The province is for educational purposes divided into counties, which are in turn divided into townships, and subdivided into sections and incorporated cities, towns, and villages. The central and local administrations are wisely balanced, and while the one determines scholastic standards through its professional requirements, the other establishes schools and appoints teachers.
Unification of the several stages of education.
The system of elementary schools, high schools, and universities, is fully unified, and the work of each stage fits into the others even more exactly than in the ‘ladder’ system of the United States. The training of teachers is cared for through the departments of Education in the universities, the eight provincial normal schools, and a model school in each county. The teachers for secondary institutions are prepared at the universities, the normal schools grant a life certificate to teach in the elementary schools, while the model schools afford fourteen weeks of training for country teachers. The buildings, equipment, courses, and instruction of the high, elementary,Inspectors.and model schools are each reported upon by inspectors of assured scholarship and experience. Since 1863 permission has been granted to establish ‘separate schools’ for any peculiar creed or race, wherever there are five families requesting it. This opportunity to have schools of their own faith has not been embraced by any save the Roman Catholics. Any one paying‘Separate schools.’toward the support of a ‘separate school’ is exempt from taxation for the regular public schools. Special provincial inspectors report upon these schools, but in the same way as for the public schools.
The System of Ecclesiastical Schools in Quebec.—TheOntario system may be considered typical of theOther provinces similar to Ontario.educational administration in the various provinces of Canada, except Quebec. Every other province has sought uniformity of school provision and educational standards through government control, although none of them grant their central official quite as much power as Ontario. Alberta and Saskatchewan likewise permit ‘separate schools,’ and they existed in Manitoba until 1890. But the type of control in Quebec is very differentIn Quebec parish as unit,from that of the other provinces. There in 1845 the parish was by law made the unit of school administration.but since 1859 Council of Public InstructionBut seven years later government inspectors were established, and in 1859 a central organization was completed with a Council of Public Instruction. This authority is composed of two divisions, a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, which sit separately and administer theand superintendent of schools.schools of their respective creeds. The provincial superintendent of schools, appointed by the lieutenant governor, isex officiochairman of both divisions, but he can vote only with the division to which he belongs by religion. Each division makes regulations for the instructionSchool support.and tests of its own schools, and appoints inspectors of its own faith. The proceeds from the general public school fund or from any educational legacies are divided in proportion to the Catholic and Protestant inhabitants, but the regular school rate may be assigned to whichever of the two school systems the taxpayer wishes.
Graves,In Modern Times(Macmillan, 1913), chap. IX; Parker,Modern Elementary Education(Ginn, 1912), chaps. X and XI. The following works throw light upon various phases of the respectivecountries: Nohle, E.,History of the German School System(Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education, 1897-1898; vol. I, pp. 26-44); Paulsen, F.,German Education(Scribner, 1908); Russell, J. E.,German Higher Schools(Longmans, Green, 1896); Paulsen, F.,The German Universities(Macmillan, 1895; Scribner, 1906); Kandel, I. L.,The Training of Elementary School Teachers in Germany(Columbia University,Teachers College Contributions, No. 31, 1910); Brown, J. F.,The Training of Teachers for Secondary Schools in Germany(Macmillan, 1911); Beard, Mary S.,Écoles maternelles of Paris(Great Britain,Board of Education,Special Reports on Educational Subjects, vol. VIII, no. 8); Farrington, F. E.,French Secondary Schools(Longmans, Green, 1910) andThe Public Primary System of France(Columbia University,Teachers College Contributions to Education, no. 7, 1906); Smith, Anna T.,Education in France(Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, 1890 to 1914, see tables of contents); Greenough, J. C.,The Evolution of the Elementary Schools of Great Britain(Appleton, 1903); Montmorency, J. E. G. de,State Intervention in English Education(Macmillan, 1903); Sharpless, I.,English Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools(Appleton, 1892); Smith, Anna T.,Education in England(Monroe Cyclopædia of Education, vol. II); Sandiford, P.,The Training of Teachers in England and Wales(Columbia University,Teachers College Contributions, no. 32, 1910); Coleman, H. T. J.,Public Education in Upper Canada(Columbia University,Teachers College Contributions, no. 15, 1909); Ross, G. W.,The School System of Ontario(Appleton, 1896); Smith, Anna T.,Education in Canada(Monroe Cyclopædia of Education, vol. I).
During the past two centuries a great growth has taken place in the natural sciences. For a long time this development affected practical life very little, but during the nineteenth century the application of science to industrial problems has resulted in a host of inventions.Because of the importance of the sciences to life, Spencer and others have urged the inclusion of them in the curricula of schools and colleges. While the content of the sciences has furnished the chief argument for this, many scientists have urged their value as formal discipline.Instruction in the sciences has gradually been included in the higher, secondary, and elementary institutions of Germany, France, England, and the United States.This marked scientific movement is allied with the psychological tendency in its improvement of method, and with the sociological in its emphasis upon human welfare.
During the past two centuries a great growth has taken place in the natural sciences. For a long time this development affected practical life very little, but during the nineteenth century the application of science to industrial problems has resulted in a host of inventions.
Because of the importance of the sciences to life, Spencer and others have urged the inclusion of them in the curricula of schools and colleges. While the content of the sciences has furnished the chief argument for this, many scientists have urged their value as formal discipline.
Instruction in the sciences has gradually been included in the higher, secondary, and elementary institutions of Germany, France, England, and the United States.
This marked scientific movement is allied with the psychological tendency in its improvement of method, and with the sociological in its emphasis upon human welfare.
The Development of the Natural Sciences in Modern Times.—We have already (chapter XV) witnessed the growth of the natural sciences and the beginning of their introduction into the curriculum toward the close of the seventeenth century. This tendency was also greatlyRemarkable achievements during past two centuries.stimulated by Rousseau, who, we have seen (pp. 218-222), may be held to advocate the scientific, as well as the sociological and psychological movements. And duringthe past two centuries this development has become most rapid and extensive. The desire for scientific investigation steadily grew throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries until its ideals, methods, and results became patent in every department of human knowledge. The strongholds of ignorance, superstition, and prejudice were rapidly stormed and taken through new discoveries or new marshallings of facts already discovered. But evident as this movement has been, it is scarcely possible here even to mention the more important scientific achievements, or to outline the broad sweep of progress in astronomy, geology, biology, physiology, chemistry, physics, and other sciences within a century. The Newtonian theory has been confirmed by the investigations of Lagrange and Laplace and by the discovery of Neptune by mathematical reasoning from the effectsHutton, Agassiz, Darwin, and others.of its gravitation. Hutton’s ‘Plutonic’ theory of continents and Agassiz’s hypothesis of a universal ice-age have been formulated; the doctrine of evolution of Darwin (Fig. 51) and Mendel’s law of inheritance have been established; Liebig and others have thrown light upon the process of digestion and the functioning of the lungs and liver; atoms, molecules, and ions have been defined; Joule and Mayer have demonstrated the conservation of energy; and the periodic law of chemical elements has been discovered by Newlands.
The Growth of Inventions and Discoveries in the Nineteenth Century.—It should be noted, however, that the majority of these investigations were for a long time carried on outside the universities, and, owing to the almost proverbial conservatism of educational institutions, the natural sciences scarcely entered the courseof study anywhere. In fact, these great discoveries at first seem not to have affected practical life in any direction. Huxley tells us that in the eighteenth century “weaving and spinning were carried on with the old appliances; nobody could travel faster by sea or by land than at any previous time in the world’s history, and King George could send a message from London to York no faster than King John might have done.” But a little later, as he adds, “that growth of knowledge beyond imaginable utilitarian ends, which is the conditionDuring nineteenth century science appliedprecedent of its practical utility, began to produce some effect upon practical life.” The nineteenth century will, on this account, always be known for its developmentto problems of labor, transportation, communication, comfort, and hygiene.of inventions and the arts, as well as of pure science. During this period science rapidly grew and took the form of applications to the problems of labor, production, transportation, communication, hygiene, and sanitation. The reaper, the sewing machine, the printing press, and the typewriter greatly reduced the cost of labor; the steamboat, locomotive, electric railway, telegraph, and telephone linked all parts of the world together; anthracite, friction matches, petroleum, and electric lighting and heating greatly enlarged the comforts of life; and stethoscopes, anæsthetics, antiseptics, and antitoxines added wonderfully to the span of human life.
Herbert Spencer andWhat Knowledge is of Most Worth.—Because of these practical results, the vital importance of a knowledge of natural phenomena to human welfare and social progress was more and more felt throughout the century. It gradually became evident that the natural sciences were demanded by modern life and constituted elements of the greatest value inmodern culture and education. Many English and American writers began to maintain that an exclusiveContest between advocates of classics and sciences.study of the classics did not provide a suitable preparation for life, and that the sciences should be included in the curriculum. This step was bitterly opposed by conservative institutions and educators. During a greater part of the century a contest was waged between the advocates of the classical monopoly and the progressives, who urged that the sciences should be introduced.
A representative argument for sciences in the course of study is that made by Herbert Spencer (Fig. 52) in his essay onWhat Knowledge Is of Most Worth. He ventured to raise the whole question of the purpose ofPreparation for complete living as the purpose of education.education. He held that “to prepare us for complete living is the function which education has to discharge; and the only rational mode of judging of any educational course is, to judge in what degree it discharges such function. Our first step must obviously be to classify, in the order of their importance, the leading kinds of activity which constitute human life. They may be arranged into: 1. Those activities which directly ministerLeading kinds of activity;to self-preservation; 2. Those activities which, by securing the necessaries of life, indirectly minister to self-preservation; 3. Those activities which have for their end the rearing and discipline of offspring; 4. Those activities which are involved in the maintenance of proper social and political relations; 5. Those miscellaneous activities which make up the leisure part of life, devoted to the gratification of the tastes and feelings. The ideal of education is complete preparation in all these divisions. But failing this ideal, the aim should be to maintain a due proportion between the degreesof preparation in each, greatest where the value is greatest, less where the value is less, least where the value is least.”
for all of these, sciences are most useful;
Applying this test, Spencer finds that a knowledge of the sciences is always most useful in life, and therefore of most worth. He considers each one of the five groups of activities and demonstrates the need of the knowledge of some science or sciences to guide it rightly. An acquaintance with physiology is necessary to the maintenance of health, and so for self-preservation. Any form of industry or other means of indirect self-preservation will require some understanding of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. To care for the physical, intellectual, and moral training of their children, parents should know the general principles of physiology, psychology, and ethics. A man is best fitted for citizenship through a knowledge of the science of history in its political, economic, and social aspects. And even the æsthetic or leisure side of life depends upon physiology,and a change of educational content is advocated.mechanics, and psychology as a basis for art, music, and poetry. Hence Spencer advocates a complete change from the type of training that had dominated education since the Renaissance and calls for a release from the traditional bondage to the classics. Instead of Greek and Latin for ‘culture’ and ‘discipline,’ and an order of society where the few are educated for a life of elegant leisure, he recommends the sciences and a new scheme of life where every one shall enjoy all advantages in the order of their relative value. But Spencer uses the term ‘science’ rather loosely, and seeks to denote the social, political, and moral sciences, as well as the physical and biological, as being ‘of most worth.’ Hencehe does not deserve to be severely arraigned for his ‘utilitarianism,’ as he has been so frequently. His ‘preparation for complete living’ includes more than ‘how to live in the material sense only,’ and with him education should contain such material as will elevate conduct and make life pleasanter, nobler, and more effective.
Advocacy of the Sciences by Huxley and Others.—Another great popularizer of the scientific elements inHuxley’s ridicule of the education in vogue.education, who also stressed the value of the sciences for ‘complete living’ and social progress, was Thomas H. Huxley (Fig. 53). His use of English was vigorous and epigrammatic, and he showed great skill in bringing his conclusions into such simple language that the most unscientific persons could understand them. Especially in an address onA Liberal Educationbefore a ‘workingmen’s college,’ he has most forcefully depicted the value of the sciences and other modern subjects in training for concrete living, and ridiculed the ineffectiveness of the current classical education. He maintains that “the life, the fortune, and the happiness of every one of us depend upon our knowing something of the phenomena of the universe and the laws of Nature. And yet this is what people tell to their sons: ‘At the cost of from one to two thousand pounds of our hard-earned money, we devote twelve of the most precious years of your life to school. There you shall not learn one single thing of all those you will most want to know directly you leave school and enter upon the practical business of life.’” Instead of this, “the middle class school substitutes what is usually comprised under the compendious title of the ‘classics’—that is to say, the languages, the literature, and the history of the ancient Greeks and Romans, andthe geography of so much of the world as was known to these two great nations of antiquity.” Thus “the British father denies his children all the knowledge they might turn to account in life, not merely for the achievement of vulgar success, but for guidance in the great crises of human existence.”
Many other vigorous lecturers and writers entered into this reform of the curriculum. Opposition to the over-emphasis of languages, especially the classics, in the content of education was undertaken even earlier inCombe.the century by the distinguished phrenologist, George Combe. In his ‘secular’ schools and in his work onEducation, he emphasized instruction in the sciences relating to moral, religious, social, and political life, as well as those bearing upon man’s physical and mental constitution. After the middle of the century a number of men undertook to popularize the sciences in America by tongue and pen. One of the most effectiveYoumans.of these was Edward L. Youmans, who collected and edited a set of lectures urging the claims of the various sciences under the title ofCulture Demanded by Modern Life(1867). He also founded theInternational Science Series(1871) and thePopular Science Monthly(1872). A service for the sciences, bearing more directly upon the educational world, was that performed byEliot.Charles W. Eliot (Fig. 54), President of Harvard. This he accomplished largely by an extension of the elective system and an emphasis upon science in the curriculum of school and college. In his description of ‘a liberal education,’ he argues that “the arts built upon chemistry, physics, botany, zoölogy, and geology are chief factors in the civilization of our time, and aregrowing in material and moral influence at a marvelous rate. They are not simply mechanical or material forces; they are also moral forces of great intensity.”
The Disciplinary Argument for the Sciences.—Thus, in general, the writers and lecturers interested in the scientific movement held that a knowledge of nature was indispensable for human welfare and that the content of studies rather than the method was of importance in education. Many of them also expressed their dissent from the disciplinary conception of education urged by the classicists. Huxley, for example, parodies the usualHuxley parodies the argument of formal discipline.linguistic drill by stating: “I could get up an osteological primer so arid, so pedantic in its terminology, so altogether distasteful to the youthful mind, as to beat the recent famous production of the head-master out of the field in all these excellences. Next, I could exercise my boys upon easy fossils, and bring out all their powers of memory and all their ingenuity in the application of my osteogrammatical rules to the interpretation, or construing, of those fragments.”
Yet the tradition of ‘formal discipline’ and the belief in faculties or general powers of the mind that might be trained by certain favored studies and afterward applied in any direction (seepp. 182f.) were too firmly rooted to be entirely upset. Even the greatest of the scientists seem to have been influenced by this notion and to have attempted occasionally a defense of their subjects on the basis of superiority in this direction. After SpencerBut Spencer and others borrow the disciplinary argument of the classicists.has made his effective argument for the sciences on the ground that their ‘content’ is so much more valuable for the activities of life, he shifts his whole point of view, and attempts to anticipate the classicists by occupyingtheir own ground. He admits that “besides its use for guidance in conduct, the acquisition of each order of facts has also its use as mental exercise.” As evidence of this, he undertakes to show that science, like language, trains the memory, and, in addition, exercises the understanding; that it is superior to language in cultivating judgment; that, by fostering independence, perseverance, and sincerity, it furnishes a moral discipline. A similar argument is made by Combe, when he maintains that “it is not so much the mere knowledge of the details of Chemistry, of Natural Philosophy, or of any other science that I value, as the strengthening of the intellect, which follows from these studies.” So Youmans declares that “by far the most priceless of all things is mental power. Science made the basis of culture will accomplish this result.” In fact, nearly every apologist for the natural sciences at some time or other has advocated these subjects from the standpoint of formal discipline, although the implied attitude toward the transfer of a generalized ideal is often in harmony with modern psychology (see p. 184).
Fig. 51.—Charles Darwin(1809-1882).Fig. 52.—Herbert Spencer(1820-1903).Fig. 53.—Thomas H. Huxley(1825-1895).Fig. 54.—Charles W. Eliot(1835- ).
Fig. 51.—Charles Darwin(1809-1882).Fig. 52.—Herbert Spencer(1820-1903).
Fig. 51.—Charles Darwin(1809-1882).
Fig. 51.—Charles Darwin(1809-1882).
Fig. 52.—Herbert Spencer(1820-1903).
Fig. 52.—Herbert Spencer(1820-1903).
Fig. 53.—Thomas H. Huxley(1825-1895).Fig. 54.—Charles W. Eliot(1835- ).
Fig. 53.—Thomas H. Huxley(1825-1895).
Fig. 53.—Thomas H. Huxley(1825-1895).
Fig. 54.—Charles W. Eliot(1835- ).
Fig. 54.—Charles W. Eliot(1835- ).
A Group of Educational Leaders in the Scientific Movement
Introduction of the Sciences into Educational Institutions; Germany.—Contemporaneously with the growth of inventions and the cogent arguments and vigorous campaigns of advanced thinkers during the nineteenth century, training in the sciences was gradually creeping into educational practice. While the sciences began to work their way into institutions of all grades early in the eighteenth century, it was not until about the middle of the nineteenth that the movement was seriously felt in education. Even in Germany the first attempts at studying nature were made outside the universities inthe ‘academies of science.’ We have seen (pp. 177f.) that during the eighteenth century most of the Protestant universities had started professorships in the sciences. But it was not until the beginning of the second quarter of the nineteenth century that, in Liebig’s laboratory atGerman universitiesthe University of Giessen, students first began to be taught through experiments, and it was after the middle of the century before this investigation work had generally replaced the formal science instruction in German universities. Since then the development of science in the higher education of Germany has beenandHochschulen.phenomenal. TheTechnische Hochschulen(see p. 380) have also come to furnish instruction in all fields of applied science.
In German secondary instruction the realistic instruction of the pietists was brought by Hecker (see p. 176) to Berlin, where he started his famousRealschulein 1747, and before the beginning of the nineteenth century similar institutions had spread throughout Prussia. Early in the nineteenth century the course of study in the gymnasiums of Prussia was considerably modified, and, as part of the compromise, some science was introduced. The movement later spread into the secondary education of states in South Germany, and, while theReal schools, gymnasiums,total amount of science was not large, it managed to hold its place in the gymnasial curriculum even during the reaction to absolutism between 1815 and 1848. But, as we have seen (p. 378), two types of real-schools were eventually recognized,—RealgymnasiumandOberrealschule, and they at present devote approximately twiceand technical schools.as much time to the physical and biological sciences as do the gymnasia. Technical and trade schools, withscientific and mathematical subjects as a foundation for the vocational work, have also appeared as a species of secondary education in Germany (see p. 420). The first of these were opened in Nuremberg in 1823, but their rapid increase in numbers, variety, and importance has taken place since the middle of the century, and their development in organization and method has occurred within the past twenty-five years.
The scientific movement was also felt in the elementary schools of Germany during the early part of the nineteenth century. Science was considerably popularized by the schools of the philanthropinists (pp. 227f.), and was widely introduced into elementary education by the spread of Pestalozzianism in Prussia and the other German states (see p. 289 f.). Before the close of the first quarter of the century the study of elementary science,—natural history, physiology, and physics, appeared in various grades; geography and drawing were taught throughout the course; and geometryVolksschulen.was included in the upper classes of theVolksschulen.
France.—Before the Revolution in France the higherFrench collèges and universities.and secondary institutions found little place for instruction in science. There was a chair of experimental physics at the College of Navarre of the University of Paris and at the Universities of Toulouse and Montpelier, and natural history was also taught at the more independent College of France, but, as a whole, education was dominated largely by humanism. However, with the establishment of the republic a new régime began in education, as in other matters, and science entered more largely into higher and secondary instruction. Most of the revolutionary proposals subordinated letters to science,and in 1794 the republic founded a great central normal school, where the famous Laplace and Lagrange for a short time gave instruction in science. In 1802 NapoleonLycées.had included in the scientific course for the lycées natural history, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and mineralogy, and a definite advance in quantity and method of the scientific instruction in the secondary schools was made in 1814. On the ground that they were injuring classical studies, Cousin in 1840 had the sciences curtailed, but he was shortly forced to restore them upon an optional basis. A contest between the two types of studies was carried on in the lycées until 1852, when a bifurcation in the course put the two theoretically upon the same basis. The scientific course, however, has never been considered equal in prestige to the classical, although it has constantly increased in length and difficulty.
Some instruction in science has come to be given duringLower and higher primary,the past forty years even in the elementary schools of France. In the lower primary schools the work is informal, and consists mostly of object lessons and first scientific notions. These are developed in connection with drawing, manual training, agriculture, and geography of the neighborhood and of France in general. Instruction becomes more formal in the ‘higher primary’ schools, and includes regular courses in the natural and physical sciences and hygiene, as well as geography,and normal schools.drawing, and manual training. In the normal schools for primary teachers instruction in all the physical and biological sciences is even more thorough, and includes not only the facts and theories of general scientific importance, but it also emphasizes their applications to everyday life. For example, the flora and fauna of theneighborhood are studied in their special relation to agriculture.
England.—In England, several chairs in the natural sciences were established at Cambridge during the eighteenth century. But it was almost the middle of the nineteenth century before the biological sciences and the laboratory method of instruction were introduced, and not until toward the close of the century did science becomeCambridge and Oxford,prominent at Cambridge and Oxford. And the most marked promotion of the scientific movement in England has occurred within the past fifty years throughmunicipal universities,the foundation of efficient municipal universities in such centers as Birmingham, Manchester, London, and Liverpool (see p. 392). For many years the laboratory instruction was given only in institutions outside the universities. Higher courses in science by the new methods were afforded through the foundation of the Royal School of Mines (1851), the Royal School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (1864), and the Normal School of Science (1868), which were all combined in 1890 into a single institution known as the Royal College of Science, and in 1907, when the Technical College (founded 1881) of the City and Guilds of London Institute was also merged, the entire corporation becameand Imperial College of Science.known as the Imperial College of Science and Technology. An agency that was instrumental in encouraging the advanced study of science, although it accomplished even more for elementary and secondary schools,Science and Art Department.was the national Science and Art Department. This organization was founded in 1858 to bring under a single management the science, trade, and navigation schools already existing, and to facilitate higher instruction inscience, and a few years later began to offer examinations and to grant certificates to teach science in the elementary schools. It was taken over by the national Board of Education, when that body was organized in 1899 (see p. 389).