The Difference between Ancient and Modern Systems of Education. — Plato Blinded by Half-truths. — No place in the present order of things for Dogmatisms. — Education commences at Birth. — The Influence of Woman extends from the Cradle to the Grave. — The Crime of Crimes. — Neglect to educate Woman. — The Superiority of Women over Men as Teachers. — Froebel discovered it. — Nature designed Woman to Teach; hence the Importance of Fitting her for her Highest Destiny.

This, from the lips of Plato, was the theory of the ancients: “The earth is the common mother of the human race, but it has pleased the gods to mix gold in the composition of some, silver in that of others, iron and copper in that of others.”[5] On this divinely established principle of caste all the ancient educational systems were founded. They were limited to the development of the few in whose composition gold was supposed to be mixed.

The idea of a universal education is modern, and all other differences between the ancients and moderns combined are as nothing to this one fundamental difference between the two civilizations. Plato’s ideal republic was based upon the assumption that the “guardians” might be made just and wise by educating them; but that the other classes might also be made just and wise by education, and the State be so rendered absolutely secure, did not occur to the great philosopher.

Plato was blinded by half-truths, as Rousseau was two thousand years later, when he said, “The poor stand in no need of education; that of their station is confined, and they cannot obtain any other.”[6] That men are created unequal intellectually is only a half-truth in an educational view; the whole truth is that every child is susceptible of the developing influence of education, and hence the obligation of the State to educate relates to all children. Plato’s simile of the gold, the silver, and the iron shows how autocratically even the greatest mind is controlled by its environment, and limited by the facts which constitute the basis of its generalizations. Were Plato teaching here, now, he would transpose the order of statement in his simile, since iron, not gold, is the king of metals. Each generation increases the world’s stock of facts; hence there is no place in the modern order of things for the dogmatist—the dogmatisms of yesterday become apt themes for the satires of to-day, subjecting their authors to ridicule. This fact should impress upon professional teachers, and upon all persons engaged in seeking to promote the cause of education, the importance of a reverently studious habit of mind touching the progress of events. The tyranny of tradition is an ever-present, potent influence, and only the growing mind can resist it.

But there are certain principles upon which not only ancient and modern educators agree, but about which there is no dispute between existing rival schools, as, for example, this proposition of Plato—

“The beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with anything young and tender, for that is the time when any impression which one may desire to communicate is most readily stamped and taken.”[7]

And this proposition of Rousseau—

“The education of a man commences at his birth; before he can speak, before he can understand, he is already instructed.... Trace the progress of the most ignorant of mortals from his birth to the present hour and you will be astonished at the knowledge he has acquired.”[8]

And this further proposition, also of Rousseau—

“The common profession of all men is humanity; and whoever is well educated to discharge the duties of a man cannot be badly prepared to fill up any of those offices that have a relation to him.”[9]

The truth of these propositions being admitted, some conception may be formed of the tremendous influence exerted by woman upon the destinies of the human race. It extends literally from the cradle to the grave. All other influences combined are less potent, less comprehensive than this single, persistent force that creates the very atmosphere in which the infant mind develops, holding the ground alone and undisturbed until the child’s plastic character has been formed, receiving ineradicable impressions. What a crime, then, was the neglect of the people of past ages to educate woman! It is in vain that the education of man is attempted if that of woman is neglected. It was Rousseau who in despair exclaimed:

“How can a child be properly educated by one who has not been properly educated himself?”

Since, therefore, the education of the man begins while he lies helpless in his mother’s arms, and since the first steps in this direction are the most important, and since some sort of education proceeds with almost inconceivable rapidity through all the early years of life, it follows that the kindergarten fills a place in the educational field entirely unoccupied until the time of Froebel. He first applied the ideas of Rousseau to school life. But when the kindergarten receives the child, three or four of the most precious educational years have already passed away, and at the still tender age of seven the child is surrendered to a very different system of training. The kindergarten is therefore only a brief episode in the educational period of the child’s life. But if it be the true education, it is susceptible of universal application. Throughout all nature the order of development is constant and harmonious, and the child-nature cannot in reason constitute an exception to this rule. Froebel said, “The end and aim of all our work should be the harmonious growth of the whole being.” If his principle is the true one, his method is susceptible of such modification and expansion as to render it applicable to the whole educational period. All mothers should therefore be trained in the principles and methods of the new education—the kindergarten system should prevail in all schools, and the kindergarten curriculum should be extended and adapted to all ages and grades of pupils.

Several great minds, separated by considerable intervals of time, have united in condemning the old systems of education—Bacon, Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Bacon, himself a university man, said, “They learn nothing at the universities but to believe;” and he proposed that a college be appropriated to the discovery of new truth, “to mix like a living spring with the stagnant waters.” Three of these great men—Comenius, Pestalozzi, and Froebel—were professional teachers. Theoretically they were in accord with and followers of Bacon, and in practice they were substantially agreed. Comenius said, “Let things that have to be done be learned by doing them.” Pestalozzi said, “Education is the generation of power,” and Froebel said, “The end and aim of all our work should be the harmonious growth of the whole being.”

These are very high authorities, and they are buttressed by seemingly impregnable educational propositions. The record of Froebel’s life is worthy of great weight in support of his theory. His devotion to the cause of education was absolute. He never knew a selfish aim. He struggled for the race, not for self. He was the victim of many misfortunes, but none disturbed the serenity of this great soul devoted to the greatest of great causes—the cause of education. And education to his apprehension was the thorough training of every faculty of the mind and every power of the body for the duties of actual practical life. His love embraced the world in its entirety and in all its parts. Dying, he said, “I love flowers, men, children, God! I love everything!” It was his profoundly philosophic conception of the innate lovableness of every natural object that made him shudder at the cruel distortion wrought in the natures of little children by false methods of education. Hence his intense devotion to the subject of infant training, and hence the excellence of the system which bears his name.

Froebel’s most subtile discovery was the fact of the superiority of women over men, as teachers. Only an honest, brave soul could have made this discovery, for tradition stood like a lion in the way, and prejudice discouraged investigation. But Froebel sought truth for truth’s sake, fearlessly defying tradition and ignoring prejudice; and years of experiment convinced him that the greatest measure of success in infant training was surely attainable through women. That this discovery, so simple, yet so big with grand possibilities, was not made earlier is due to the fact that there is so little really independent thought, so little investigation free from the trammels of prejudice. Now that a great mind has pointed the way it is obvious that Nature, having designed that the years of early childhood should be spent with the mother, must have also designed that women should be the chief educators of children. And it follows, of course, that the education of women is more important than that of men, since it is from them that children receive their first impressions, and since first impressions are indelibly stamped upon the infant mind, giving it form, color, and substance.

In confiding to women this great trust, Froebel imposed upon them an incalculable weight of responsibility. It comprehends the destiny of the human race, involving the problem of its progress or retrogression.

A common first conception of the kindergarten is—a convenient asylum for the children of mothers who desire to be relieved of their care. A more thoughtful study reveals its poetry and sentiment, the innocent joy of the assembly of pupils, the harmony of song, and the grace of motion in the games and dances. A final, large view discloses the true educational principle. The kindergarten is more clearly comprehended after studying the manual training school—moving from the effect to the cause; for as the child is father of the man, so the kindergarten is father of the manual training school. The kindergarten comes first in the order of development, and leads logically to the manual training school. The same principle underlies both. In both it is sought to generate power by dealing with actualities. The corner-stone of both is object-teaching—teaching through things instead of through signs of things. This principle, common to both, is the concrete as opposed to the abstract. The theory of both is that, in teaching, ideas should never be isolated from the objects they represent.[E3] The kindergarten and the manual training school, being one in principle, should have common methods of instruction, varied sufficiently to adapt them to the whole range of school life.