On the Firing Line in Education | Page 8

absolute monarchy can act quickly, for there may be but one individual
to assimilate the new idea or to be convinced of the wisdom of the
proposed change.
These facts are easily made clear by historical references, and, happily,
in the very matter under discussion--educational procedure. In the
eighteenth century Prussia, under the two great Hohenzollern kings,
Frederick William I and his son, Frederick the Great, the two ruling
from 1713 to 1786, made most rapid strides in education. Both were
practically absolute rulers, but they were benevolent and far-sighted,
and the educational reforms that they inaugurated were basic and
far-reaching, such as state-control and support, compulsory attendance,
and the professional education of teachers. Being absolute in authority,
all they needed to do was to promulgate the decrees and order their
execution. The result was that, educationally, Prussia immediately
forged ahead of all the other European countries.
England, on the other hand, was a limited monarchy. Her king could
not have acted thus even if he so desired. Such mesures had to have the
sanction of Parliament, which would have to hark back to an

enlightened public opinion since Parliament was a representative body.
And public opinion, especially in matters of education, is slow of
creation. As a matter of fact, even tho the English people were much in
advance of the Germans in civilization and in all the refinements of life,
it was not till 1833 that England as a government took her first step
looking toward the education of her children thru appropriating money.
And the grant of that Act was only a paltry £20,000 a year to be used
by two religious societies for the erection of school houses. And it was
an entire generation later, even 1870, before they adopted the necessary
principles of compulsory attendance and local taxation. More than a
hundred years behind Prussia, England was, in the management of
educational affairs!
Another illustration of the slow action of democracy is nearer at hand
both in time and space, even in our own country. For one reason or
another, rather, for many reasons, education was at a low-water mark in
the United States the latter part of the eighteenth and the first part of the
nineteenth centuries. Thoughtful men, progressive educators,
prominent statesmen, searching for the cause and for the remedy, found
the one in the poor character of the teaching being done and the other in
the establishment of the State Normal School patterned after those of
Germany. This was first suggested in 1816 in Connecticut and pretty
faithfully kept before the people of New England thereafter. But in
spite of every effort, including a campaign of education and the
establishment of private normal schools for the purposes of
demonstration, it was not till 1838 that the Massachusetts legislature
could be induced to act. And she would not have done so then had it
not been that a very prominent man of Boston, a friend of the cause, Mr.
Edmund Dwight, showed his faith in the movement by making a
generous contribution out of his private funds. Note, too, this action
from another point of view--the amount of Democracy's initial
contribution toward this new great movement in America: Mr. Dwight's
gift of $10,000 was evenly matched by that of the wealthy state of
Massachusetts! And the $20,000 was the amount planned for the
establishment of three new normal schools and their maintenance for
three years! That amount to-day would scarcely build a coal shed for
each of three new normal schools!

But I am not advocating monarchical methods even to hasten so good a
cause as educational improvement. I am merely accounting for our
slowness of action in needed reform. For several reasons I should be
decidedly opposed to adopting such a program of centralization even if
we could. In the first place, not every absolute monarch would act as
did Frederick the Great. There are few benevolent despots. In France
during the seventeenth centuries the Louises were just as absolute as
were the Fredericks in Germany. But they were not interested in
education for the people. Again, Germany's system of education, tho
objectively efficient, has been far from satisfactory because not based
on sane moral principles. And that fact, by the way, has finally been
Germany's undoing. Now, we can scarcely conceive of Democracy
erecting an educational structure on an unsatisfactory moral foundation.
And still again, the action of an absolute monarch, in all such matters
as education, tho perhaps temporarily rapid, is not permanent. Remove
the guiding spirit and it slips back. An illustration will assist. Again
Germany furnishes it. The little duchy of Gotha, just south of Prussia,
serves us. During the Thirty Years' War Gotha had suffered greatly.
Near its close, in 1640, Duke Ernest the Pious became its ruler. He