{IHIHWIENlllillliN.llHl|HllllllflllztllillililW L 24 0.32 007.

3 1293 00573 3179

r,
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

i—’_._ _— b

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
THE HOLISTIC TEACHING METHODS OF

FRANCIS PARKER, JOHN DEWEY, RUDOLF STEINER,
HUGHES MEARNS, AND LAUPJX ZIRBES:
LITERACY VIA THE WHOLE CHILD

presented by

Mary Patricia Cavanaugh

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhoDo degree in Teacher Education

Made a, MAW,

M a jor professor

Date Q/Pc‘

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0» 12771

 

_'w- ‘&

‘-— “'1,

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before one due.

57

DATE DQE DATE DUE DATE DUE

‘ —h""”

’6‘}; .3 5‘11: {MR3} 2pr

fr“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W a? l

. “ )éhfr’yis

[Li

 

 

 

 

Amw- ww

3“" 331992

.—

 

 

SEP 9 7 $096

W

f

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

THE HOLISTIC TEACHING METHODS OF
FRANCIS PARKER, JOHN DEWEY, RUDOLF STEINER,
HUGHES MEARNS, AND LAURA ZIRBES:

LITERACY VIA THE WHOLE CHILD

by

Mary Patricia Cavanaugh

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1990

0050979

ABSTRACT

THE HOLISTIC TEACHING METHODS OF
FRANCIS PARKER, JOHN DEWEY, RUDOLF STEINER,
HUGHES MEARNS, AND LAURA ZIRBES:
LITERACY VIA THE WHOLE CHILD

W

Mary Patricia Cavanaugh

This is an historical description of the lives and
educational endeavors of Francis Parker, John Dewey, Rudolph
Steiner, Hughes Mearns, and Laura Zirbes. The lives and
educational endeavors spanned 100 years. The findings have been
divided into six areas commencing with the biographies of the five
educators. This is followed by their study of children--the
center of their schools and their curriculum--which includes a
definition of childhood, how children learn, how they should be
treated in a holistic classroom, of what they are capable, and the
role of education and society in relation to children. Chapter
III covers language and literacy and includes a theoretical base
along with how children learn language, holistic methodologies for
teaching and learning language, and practices to avoid. The

section on academic and school discipline combines curriculum

Mary Patricia Cavanaugh

discipline and methodological discipline. This discussion of
school structure includes the history of the schools involved--the
Quincy (Massachusetts) Schools, the Cook County (Illinois) Normal
School, the Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, the
Chicago Institute, the Waldorf Schools, the Lincoln School of
Teachers College at Columbia University, and the Laboratory School
of The Ohio State University--their purposes, how they were
organized, and the roles of the teachers, students, and parents.
The study concludes with a comparatively brief presentation of the
attitudes and practices of these five educators toward grading,

evaluation, and assessment.

DEDICATION

I wish to dedicate this work--
what is printed here and all that has gone into it--

to my parents,

THOMAS J. and MARY MARGARET GIBBONS

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank all the people who aided in this endeavor. I
received a tremendous amount of help from librarians and clerical
workers who toil with great care and deliberation. I thank Dr.
Sheila Fitzgerald for her support and encouragement. I thank Dr.
Ben Bohnhorst for his initial comradeship and interest in our
quest for information regarding Steiner's Waldorf Schools and for
his steadfastness and wisdom throughout the many years I have been
fortunate to know and work with him. I thank Dr. Stephen Tchudi
for his initial direction and inspiration in the selection of this
topic and for his substantial and positive criticism which saw me
through to the completion of this study. I thank Dr. Charles
Blackman for his patience, insight, historical prowess, and
consideration. Not the least, I thank Ms. Barbara Reeves for not
only the typing, printing, mailing, and delivering of the actual

study, but for her faith in this writer.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: BIOGRAPHIES 1
Francis Parker 4
John Dewey 24
Rudolph Steiner 42
Hughes Mearns 56
Laura Zirbes 62
Notes 67

CHAPTER II: THE CHILD 73
Introduction 73
Definition of Childhood 75
Childhood Learning 83
The Treatment of Childhood 9O
Childhood Capabilities 109
The Role of Education and Society in Childhood ll7
Postscript 119
Notes 122

CHAPTER III: LANGUAGE/LITERACY 129
Introduction 129
Theory of Language and Literacy 133
The Learning of Language and Literacy 139

Natural, Experiential, Interest 139
Developmental 153
The Methodology of Language and Literacy 162
Don'ts in Language/Literacy Learning 176
Summary 180
Notes 182

iv

CHAPTER IV: ACADEMIC AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Academic Discipline
Basic
Mental
Integrative
School Discipline
Notes

CHAPTER V: STRUCTURE: HISTORY, PURPOSE,
AND ORGANIZATION

History
Purpose
Organization
Notes

CHAPTER VI: STRUCTURE: TEACHERS, STUDENTS
AND PARENTS
Teachers
Students
Parents
Conclusions
Notes
CHAPTER VII: GRADING, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT
Problems with Evaluation
Suggestions for Evaluation
Postscript
Notes

CHAPTER VIII: ESTOPPEL

Notes

REFLECTIONS

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

186

187
187
199
204
218
236

241
242
252

263
301

307
308
321
323
325
328
331
332
335
341
342
344

352

353

358

366

CHAPTER I
BIOGRAPHIES

An onogoing protest against "the imposition of unpleasant
tasks, against rote learning and drill, and against harsh and
repressive discipline" appears to have been woven together
philosophically five educators who, thought they had never met,
seem to have a great deal in common in their attitudes toward
children and toward "spontaneity, freedom, and joy in learning
along with shared association."1 The careers of Francis Parker,
John Dewey, Rudolph Steiner, Hughes Mearns, and Laura Zirbes
spanned one hundred years, 1853-1967. The pendulum of curriculum
reform is not easily explained or moved, yet each of these five
educators attempted to do so both for the good of the child and
for the good of society.

Conditions in an unbalanced environment eventually led to
change. In the late 18003, there was a break in the relative
homogeneity of the population in America. Once predominantly
Yankee Protestant, it was becoming infiltrated and altered by the
immigration of Europeans who had different traditions, religions,

2

and languages and whose numbers challenged assimilation. The

rise of industrialization and urban expansion caused innumerable

 

changes, one of which was to add farmers to the growing urban
population and the children of farmers along with the children of
immigrants to the schools.

The children in American public schools were often being
taught traditional, unrelated subjects by drill and memorization
under repressive discipline. While some of these pupils could
pass the end of the year examinations, this was not to say they
understood, appreciated, or utilized what they were taught.

In 1875 Charles Adams, a member of the school board of Quincy,
Massachusetts, initiated a change in the examination policy.
Rather than use teacher-prepared examinations, board members
examined the children with questions relevant to the material
studied and with practical writing exercises. What they found out
astonished them. The children could not use what they had been
taught. Most could not write an impromptu theme or letter. Costs
had risen, and the members of the school board realized they were
getting less while spending more. Furthermore, not only was money
being wasted but

Since intelligence is the most significant
function in experience, the most important in all
human life, it is most important in education for
education is life. It should, therefore, follow
that in school the constant aim, the only one
worth emphasis, is training pupils in the use of
intelligence, in the transformation of experieqce,
and in the handling of problematic situations.

Many years after Adams and the Quincy school board's struggle

to improve conditions, John Dewey would comment,

No one can really be happy until allowed to
mind his own business. No one can be intelligent
about his affairs unless he knows the consequences
of his actions. No one can know these when his
experience is restricted by artificial barriers.
Practical freedom requires intelligence and
intelligence requires experience.

In the case of the Quincy schools, it happened that Francis
Parker was looking for a position in education at the same time
that Adams was searching for a superintendent who could propose
and promote effective change. The ensuing partnership between
Parker and the Quincy schools brought success and fame. Yet, this
was not Parker's first position in education. He had been in, and
briefly out, of education for some twenty years and, commencing
again with Quincy, another twenty-five yet to come.

While both Parker and Dewey worked to improve society in the
late 18003 through education, Steiner was called upon to do the
same in the early 19003 in Germany. Though miles and ideologies
apart, they struggled toward the same end which was to create a
curriculum that centered upon the whole child--body, mind, and
soul--and helped the child achieve independence and regard for
society.

Then in the 19203 and 19303, Mearns and Zirbes began their
struggle in the same direction, although Mearns' focus was on high
school writing and Zirbes' was on elementary reading. Regardless
of their backgrounds, these five educators were interested in a

strong, substantial education in which the child is the central

focus.

1837

1844

1844-48

1848-53

1854-59

1859-61

1861

1864

1865-68

1868

1869

1871

1872-75

1875-80

1881-82

1882

1883

1899

1901

1902

Francis Parker

Born, Piscataquaq Village, New Hampshire

Father died

Farmer's apprentice, the Moore Farm, Goffstown, NH
Attended school, Mt. Vernon, NH

Taught in country schools, New Hampshire

School principal, Carrollton, Illinois

Accepted commission in New Hampshire Volunteers

Wounded, Deep Bottom, James River, Virginia; married
Phennie E. Hall

Principal, North Grammar School, Manchester, NH
Principal, First District School, Dayton, Ohio
Principal, Normal School, Dayton, OH

Phennie Hall Parker died

Studied in Europe

Superintendent, Quincy, MA, Public Schools

Summer Institute, Martha's Vineyard

Married Mrs. Frank Stuart

Principal, Cook County Normal School, Englewood, IL

Resigned Cook County Normal School to head Chicago
Institute

Merged Chicago Institute with University of Chicago
Laboratory School

Died, Pass Christian, Missouri

Francis Parker was born on October 3, 1837, in Piscataquaq
Village, New Hampshire. His mother, Mille Rand, had been a
teacher before she married, and his father was a cabinet maker.
Through his mother, he inherited the influence of another teacher,
his grandmother; a Harvard librarian, James Rand; and an Indian
fighter, Colonel John Goffs. From his father, he inherited a life
line to ministers, soldiers in the Revolutionary War, and John
Cotten. Francis Parker eventually became a teacher, a teacher of
teachers, and, in his own small way in the arena of education, a
revolutionary, a defender of democracy and individual freedoms.

Parker's paternal grandfather William was a wealthy speculator
and landowner. Parker's father did not, however, inherit any of
these financial skills. He was often in debt. When William
Parker died, his estate had to be divided among ten children.
Francis Parker's father Robert may have inherited $2000, but it
was not long before he, again, was in debt. In fact, when he died
in 1844, he left only about $200.

Francis Parker's uncle, James Walker, agreed to act as
guardian for Frank and his sister after Robert's death. About a
year later, Walker decided to apprentice Frank to a farmer named
William Moore who lived near Goffstown. Frank Parker was eight
years old. He was to be apprenticed to Moore until he was twenty-
one year old. The negative aspects included separation from his
family, minuscule personal accommodations (an attic room), and a

shortening of his schooling to eight weeks annually. The positive

 

 

aspects were the kindness of the Moores, Mrs. Moore's good
cooking, and the natural education he received on the farm.
As Parker's biographer Campbell reported,

Parker found that on the farm the word "study"
did not apply to book learning only. He studied
geography by observing the hills, valleys, and
brooks on the old rocky farm. Topography was
discerned in the neatly divided fields, pastures,
and patches of woods. He studied geology and
mineralogy in the soil he worked. He observed the
effect of sunshine, draught, drainage, and
fertilization. He studied botany with the hoe and
his bare hands while he learned the name and
characteristic of every weed and plant. He knew
the trees by name--the best ones to climb, the
best for lumber, fences, or firewood. He studied
zoology. The animals of the farm were his
subjects. He helped break steers, kill hggs, hunt
for eggs, and feed and clean the animals.

Parker, of course, didn't realize then that all of this natural
kind of education would one day be the basis of his educational
philosophy.

He knew the wild animals, too, and the insects
that "scurried away" when he turned over a stone.
He knew the birds--the wrens that nested in the
barn, the partridge that would die for her young.
And he studied meteorology, learning the signs of
different weather. The steady breezes from the
east would bring the rain, and rain gave him a day
off to go fishing. He knew the lack of shadows
meant the noon hour and dinnertime. Most of all,
the farm taught him how to be alone with himself
and how to 8bserve, investigate, and draw
inferences.

According to Campbell, by the time Parker had reached the age
of thirteen, his desire for the kind of knowledge he could not
receive on the farm forced him to confront and disobey his

guardian. He left the Moore's farm and went to Mt. Vernon, New

 

 

Hampshire, where he attended school and worked part-time at odd
jobs to support himself. He did not complete his senior year.
Instead, at age sixteen he got his first teaching job. That was
1854 in the Corser Hull School in Boscawen (now Webster). He made
$15 a month. Some of his students were older than he was, yet he
seemed to be successful, perhaps, because of his concern for each
of his students.

The next winter he taught at Over-the-Brook School in Auburn
for $17 a month and board. Parker was succeeding because he
treated his pupils with respect. He loved education and teaching,
and he managed to communicate this as soon as he began speaking.
For example, he told his students that "his idea of a good school
was a place to have a 'first class time' and that they must all
take hold and work together."7 While he maintained high standards
of academic and school discipline, he also maintained that the
pupils had to have a stake in the school and that they were all
there to have a good time. For example, if the school yard needed
work, Parker and his students "turned out the rooting hogs,
repaired and whitewashed the fence, pulled the weeds and planted
grass and flowers."8 He and his students spent time outside
playing and learning. He became very popular, taught the next
three winter terms, and opened a "select school" the following
autumn term.

Parker loved what he was doing, but then and throughout his

career, he would be compelled to move on, so as to be able to

 

reach and help more children. He was working at a time when
children needed help due to poor, meager school systems,
industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and educational
controversy over how to teach what to whom.

In 1859 when Parker received a call to become a school
principal in Carrollton, Illinois, despite the distance and
separation from home, the low pay, and rough school population, he
headed west. He was popular with the students, teachers, and
parents, but he gradually lost favor with the town fathers because
of his pro-Union partisanship. He returned home the summer of
1861 to ponder his next course.

That year he accepted a commission in the New Hampshire
Volunteers and headed south. He learned much during the war, not
the least of which was how much he hated war and loved teaching.
He learned that discipline and regimentation can be of benefit
when presented and employed properly. For example, he made
certain that his orders were made in such a manner that his men
could understand their reasonableness. Though he demanded that
their haversacks, knapsacks, canteens, and general mode of dress
strictly adhere to regulation, his men realized that only in this
way their regiment could be pronounced in good order.9 He
learned, sometimes the hard way, that if people, in one case he
and his men, were given an explanation rather than an order, the
road to completion would be shorter and have fewer pitfalls. He
always defended his men and was concerned for their welfare, hence

earning their respect.

Parker was not a purist and perhaps this aided him in
understanding human nature and the trouble humans could cause each
other. He was a precocious child. He scolded his teachers if he
did not approve of what and how they were teaching. Then in the
army, though loved by his men, he did not always please his
supervisors. He was accused of being drunk on duty, but the
charges were never proven.

In 1864 he was wounded in the neck and chin; and while on
recuperative leave, he married Phennie E. Hall of Bennington, New
Hampshire. He left the army with a raspy voice and the title of
lieutenant colonel. The lieutenant somehow was lost, but the rasp
and the title colonel remained until he died. The title would
help his career advance as he did not have much formal education.

Colonel Francis Parker was a thorough patriot. He was
descended from and grew up with soldiers from the Revolutionary
War. They believed this country had a mission for all the world
which was the salvation of the human race bound up in a free
government. Parker believed that the only salvation of democracy
was in education. His motive for teaching was to fit people for
the responsibilities of self-government. Therefore, when he left
the army, though he offered military preferment, a political
office, and a business position, he became the principal of North
Grammar School in Manchester, New Hampshire, instead.10

In 1902 Wilbur S. Jackman, a co-worker of Parker's in Chicago,

said of him,

10

Parker was a natural iconoclast, as the sparks
fly upward, he was born to trouble. He was the
arch-infidel of orthodoxy in educational creeds.
Incisive in his thinking, in his best days he
could demolish with a word where another,
smothering courage apd indiscretion, used
arguments in folios.

The sparks commenced to fly in Manchester.

Parker began by concentrating on North Grammar School. He
raised standards in academics and deportment while demanding
almost militaristic discipline but not regimentation. His early
childhood reading of Pilgrim's Progress and the Bible along with
his farm education influenced him to appreciate physical strength,
self-control, and resourcefulness. His military career confirmed
his dislike of war and regimentation.12 Yet the war had taught
him to fight injustice as well as to hold command.13

He ranked the students according to scholastic achievement,
attendance, and department and allowed the rank to change as the
students' behavior and studies changed. He demanded the best from
his students, and he gave them his. He worked all day and then
spent half of the night planning for the next day. This was at an
annual salary of $1100.14 Parker scandalized New England
scholastics with his advanced educational ideas; new promotion
plans, new schemes for grading, new modes of classifying pupils,
and new methods of supervised study. He also added physical
education to the curriculum.15

Parker was the principal of North Grammar School from 1865 to

1868. He initiated changes and the school improved. The two

 

 

 

 

11

superintendents who served there during Parker's time were pleased
and impressed with his work, but Parker had criticisms of the
system. He found that though the children spent many hours
learning to read, they really could not read very well. They
spent many hours learning to spell--
. more than three thousand half-hour

lessons in spelling without being able to write a

common letter. He began to realize that the

methods of cramming were only making the child's

mind stultified. Each grage had a required number

of pages to be memorized.

Parker felt there was no coordination between grades on
subject matter. Teachers did not have specific items to be taught
at one level so that students would be prepared for the next
level.

Despite the fact that he was asked to return for another year,
Parker decided to move on. According to Washborne, he reasoned he
could reach more people, thereby helping more children. In 1868
he accepted the principalship of the First District School in
Dayton, Ohio. One reason may have been that the West seemed to be
less restricting. Parker found Dayton ripe for change with an
active citizenry and two opposing newspapers extremely interested
in education. First District was mainly a primary school, and
Parker was eager to work with young children. He felt it
important to learn more about primary education and was surprised
his teachers did not study education.

Though the Dayton School System had made some progressive

innovations such as object teaching and a ranking system similar

12

to the one Parker had developed in Manchester, education was still
based on the examination plan.
The whole idea of per cents was related to

cramming and unnatural methods of learning. On

examination days, the various neighboring cities

went wild and even telegraphed each other to

compare per cents. This whole procedure was to

learn words and recite them, and then write7them

down in the examinations stiff and strong.

Parker continued his innovations. He switched reading
instruction from a phonetic plan to word method, and he dropped
the study of technical grammar. He brought parents and board
members in to the schools to see the children perform in special
ceremonies. He did not approve of textbooks which he felt
dictated the curriculum so he dropped them. He added a
controversial writing and drawing slate requirement. So many
parents complained about the cost that Parker clashed with the
school board on this, and he dropped the requirement.

In order to bring some cohesiveness to the district, the board
organized the City Teachers Institute. Parker presided over these
meetings which were mainly on methodology. That was in April
1869. In September Parker was named principal of Dayton's first
normal school. He got on very well with the people of Dayton, for
the most part. It was with the "old guard principals and
traditionalist teachers that Parker frequently lost his own self-
control. He battled for the children's right to think, to learn

18

through their senses, and to have an attractive classroom." But

he continued to maintain his popularity. One of the reasons some

13

people approved of him was because his students in the Sixth
District School did not scratch their desks.

Sometime in 1869-70, Phennie Parker became ill. She died on
December 6, 1870. Parker rarely spoke of his private life, so
little is know about Mrs. Parker's death or where their little
girl went to live afterward. One of Colonel Parker's biographers,
Flora J. Cooke, wrote, "Parker would have been shocked at the
interest in his life though he had an insatiable curiosity
himself."19

In March of the following year, Parker took a major stand by
refusing to take his regular renewal of certification exams. He
reasoned that such tests either developed or reinforced rigidity
in teachers. Then he rejected tests, grading, and the ranking
system for his pupils; however, the school board did not allow
these changes.

The normal school under his direction was prospering and
receiving good press. So, in August 1871, Parker was named
supervising principal. In this position he concentrated on the
supervision of the primary grades, while the new superintendent
concerned himself with the upper. They worked well together, but
less than a year later, in June 1872, Parker left the Dayton
Public Schools to study in Germany. He may have realized that he
would need credentials to continue to advance in education, and he
had been criticized for his poor educational background. He also

wanted to strengthen his theories regarding the education of young

14

children. His years in Dayton seemed successful for the most
part, yet Parker "was in constant conflict because he deserted the
old methods, failed to respect traditions, and implied the
customary ways were not the best."20

Parker studied at the Frederick Wilhelms University in Berlin.
He was not able to work for a degree, but he was allowed to study
according to his own interests and needs. This was what he had
advocated for his own students. He studied geography, history,
philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy. He studied with Frederick
Harms, a Hegelian professor who impressed Parker with Hegel's
world spirit. This was close to Parker's belief that God was
working out man's character through the schools.

Parker felt that the Germans were far above the Americans in
methodology. He also found the confirmation of many of his
theories such as self-activity and "the harmonious development of
mind, body, and soul."21 What he could not understand was how
such educated thinkers could approve a monarchy. Then he saw it.
It was the structure. The structure of the organization of German
schools was prescriptive, rigid, class conscious, and sexually
segregated. Parker continued to believe the only preservation of
democracy was co-educational, common public schools.

While he was abroad, Parker visited schools in Holland,
Switzerland, Italy, and France. He ended his travels at the
Vienna Exhibition. He was amazed at seeing the world in miniature

but disappointed with the American exhibit. He lamented that an

 

 

15

observer of the exhibit could assume Americans were interested
mainly in killing hogs, making sewing and mowing machines, and
soda fountains.22 He liked the American education exhibit except
that it did not clearly demonstrate the common tuition-less school
concept.

Colonel Parker returned home in 1875, the year Charles Adams
was in search of a school superintendent. Adams was having a
difficult time locating the right person for the position. He
found it "inexplicable [that] . . . men can be trained to care for
children's bodies and teeth but not their minds."23 Colonel
Parker walked into the school board office to apply for the
position.

Parker's themes were similar to those he formulated in Dayton
though certainly strengthened and more clearly defined following
his European studies. He fought for freedom and teacher
education. He wanted to give the children freedom and have the
teachers inspire them to learn. He intended to inspire the
teachers. He demanded discipline but through self-control rather
than mandates and penalties. He believed in sense learning first.
For example, students in geography would not begin by studying a
textbook. First, they would go outside and see the landscape and
walk the land. In composition students would write first for
enjoyment and emotion; later they would concern themselves with
technical grammar. In other words, they would learn the sense,
essence, and perception of the subject and seek the technical laws

and rules at a later, more appropriate time.

l6

Parker's ideas were revolutionary. He expected to teach his
teachers. He became a teacher of teachers and held classes after
school. He urged teachers to visit each other and observe, and he
asked principals to help. At these meetings he urged teachers to
talk about their classes. To shy or reticent teachers, he chided,
"You ought to be glad to tell about it. It clarifies your
thinking in your own mind."24 He never posed before them as a
know-it-all, nor did he want anyone to imitate his teaching. He
"recognized and encouraged originality in thought, methods, and
devices."25 He set the example by going around the Quincy school
system and teaching classes himself.

In time word spread and educators from all over the country
came to observe "the Quincy method." Parker remained modest about
his work and the Quincy achievements. These were conflicts, of
course, among people who did not approve of the "new" education.
Even Charles Adams, one of Parker's strongest proponents, said of
him,

He lacked business methods, he had no
practical judgment, he was apt to do the right
thing at the wrong time and he was impatient of
opposition. Yet when possessed with an idea he
was indefggigable in his efforts to put it into
practice.

He did achieve success. "Out of five hundred grammar school
children taken promiscuously from all the schools, no less than
four hundred showed results which were excellent or

satisfactory."27 Despite the work of the school committee and

Parker, there were factors working against total success. Parker

17

had wanted to eliminate bad teachers. Instead, in some cases,
lowered salaries eliminated good ones. Students classified as
"dull" were taught along with regular students, and they could
have been in the numbers tested.

Even though the school board voted to renew Parker's contract,
he made the decision to move on. In 1880 he became one of six
supervisors in the Boston public school system. He was
responsible for forty-two primary schools, four hundred teachers,
and roughly twenty-thousand children. He continued to pursue his
desire to reach more teachers, thereby reaching more children.

But he came in at a politically difficult time. The grammar
school masters had recently lost control of the primary schools to
these six supervisors. That power struggle would continue, and
Parker had a way of stirring things up. He spoke to his teachers
about the improvements he intended, but he was speaking to
Bostonians who believed they had a fine school system. Parker
survived the first year and was asked to return. He implemented
some changes, encouraging teachers to adopt the Quincy methods.

In ways, the Boston schools were slowly moving in that direction.
They had a similar ranking system: academics, attendance,
department. A new superintendent with whom Parker was in almost
complete agreement was hired, and Parker wholeheartedly supported
him. Still, he was a rough, rather uncultured outsider. "Without
a formal education, Parker must have been regarded as a barbarian

in Boston . . . 'I am going to have a hard fight here, and I am

18

going to be beaten, but I shall make it easier for the next
man."'28

His first Boston summer, 1881, Parker lectured at a summer
institute on Martha's Vineyard. His presence had not been well
advertised, and only fifty students attended his classes. The
next summer one hundred fifty students from twenty-three states
and Nova Scotia attended.29

It was at his first summer institute that Colonel Parker met
Mrs. Frank Stuart. She was a graduate and teacher at the Boston
School of Oratory. They continued their friendship during the
next school year in Boston, and they were married before he moved
on again.

Also during the summer institutes, Lelia Partridge, a teacher
who was impressed with the colonel's work, took notes on his
lectures and sought his permission to have them published. He
revised her notes and 1883 they published Talks on Teaching. It
sold more than any educational book of the time. Commissioner of
Education, William T. Harris, claimed Talks on Teaching would be
more helpful to stimulate student motivation than any other
book.30

History will relate what a revolution he
inaugurated in methods of teaching and the
government of little children . . . [then followed
bitter and prolonged attacks] . . . today (1902)
this book is to primary teachers what Blackstone

is to lawyers--an inexhaustible source of help a3?
inspiration in the daily work of the profession.

19

In 1882, while still supervising in Boston, Parker received
two requests for his services. One was the principalship of the
Cook County Normal School; the other was the superintendency of
the Philadelphia Public Schools. For every conceivable reason
including salary, the Philadelphia position was the better offer.
Parker chose Cook County Normal School over advice against it.
His reasoning was two-fold: he could ultimately reach more people
and, therefore, more children, and he could teach.

Parker again believed the West was ripe for change and would
be more receptive to his new education. "Parker's personal touch
had always worked magic, but he was now in search of a universal
touch."32

Colonel Parker was twenty-five years ahead of
his time and the incomparable leader of this new
educational movement. He was portly, florid, and
had an erect military bearing. He was somewhat
wheezy and short of breath. And he was gentle

with a sweet atgitude toward children--"1et the
children rule."

He was a thorough non-conformist, intense,
vehement, tender, intuitive, aggressive,
dominating, witty, and sarcastic. He respected
integrity and freedom. He showed the marks of
self-education. He was gruff and spartanlike. He
was called by some an ignoramus and a faddist.34

Cook County Normal School had been founded fifteen years
earlier. Its purpose was to train local high school graduates to
teach in the rural schools. There were influential people who did
not care about rural children let alone about the training of
their teachers. The school budget was low and times always hard.

Parker entered a situation which was not altogether popular with

20

theories he intended to practice which were not altogether
popular. Fortunately, he seemed to thrive on agitation.35

He found success in his innovative methods and in his battles
against his opponents for sixteen years. He deplored the
exclusive emphasis on oral reading; he believed publishers should
not determine education through textbooks; he believed there were
no bad children, only bad homes, bad habits, and bad conditions;
he opposed elementary industrial education because it
predetermined a given way of life; he was concerned about the
immigrants; he believed rulers forced anarchy upon the poor; he
loathed sham and impractical idealism. Clearly he was going to
anger some of the Cook County citizens.

Parker set about to collect the best teachers he could find
and he began. He made great demands but he put forth so much of
himself he was.an inspiration. He maintained constant contact and
communication with his staff through a system of lieutenants named
daily. He did not want his teachers imitating him but becoming
teacher-artists in their own right.

Parker's standard for his teachers was

. high and stern. He searched for
teachers with personality, power, and scholarship.
His teachers were to see education as both science
and art. They were to possess vigor of body,
alertness of mind, independent spirit, a
prodigious sense of humor to keep them sweet and
sane, wide interests which they would never have
time to enjoy, and be in love with children. (He
said) there is no coin small enough to pay the
salary of a poor teacher; there is not gold enough

in the mines of3ghe world to measure the value of
a good teacher.

 

 

21

Prior to Parker's arrival, students at Cook County Normal
School remained one year. Parker did not feel that was enough and
convinced twenty students to remain a second year, thereby
establishing a two-year course. There were two divisions of
instruction: professional training and school practice. There
were four teachers, each with twelve to fourteen students in each
corner of the room. Each practice teacher had to submit his plans
to the room teacher who in turn submitted them to Miss Spear, the
assistant principal, and each week the entire staff met with
Colonel Parker.

Parker established a manual training department and physical
education classes in which he emphasized health, posture, and
carriage.37 These were new to Cook County, but the colonel
explained his changes to his staff and to concerned parents of the
children who attended the practice school. Parker rarely had
trouble with his staff or parents. His main source of opposition
were politicians who had different agendas.

A battle of sorts was carried on for much of Parker's tenure
at Cook County Normal School--most of it political. The county
did not want the expense, so they gave up responsibility. The
city of Chicago had to assume control but not without battle.

They did not want the fiscal responsibility and some on the
Chicago Board of Education did not want Parker. In 1887 the board
lowered Parker's salary in an attempt to force him to resign out

of professional pride. His supporters fought and won a reprieve.

22

But the battles continued. Finally, Parker was offered a
different solution. Mrs. Emmons Blaine, daughter of Cyrus
McCormick, was enthusiastic about Colonel Parker and his
teachings. She was aware of the political pressure and offered to
endow a new, private school for Parker.

The spring of 1899 was a tragic and tumultuous time for
Parker. He lost his wife to cancer. It was a deep loss for him,
and he left Cook County Normal School, which also was a great loss
for him. He began to organize the new Chicago Institute, funded
by Mrs. Blaine. He had ambitious plans for the new school. He
would not have to work alone because 14 of his teachers and many
of their students, the practice teachers, left Cook County Normal
for the Parker-Blaine Chicago Institute. Parker encountered
financial difficulties again, and they began in temporary quarters
the summer of 1900. The school year was plagued with the sense of
a temporary existence and the financial concerns continued.

For a variety of reasons the Chicago Institute merged with the
University of Chicago's educational endeavors to become the
Department of Education. Parker was to be the head of the new
department and the director of the kindergarten, the elementary
school, and the Francis W. Parker School on the North Shore. In
June 1901, a ground breaking ceremony was held for the new school
of education. A generous tribute was given to Colonel Parker.

Colonel Francis Parker died on March 2, 1902. He had not been

in very good health since his wife died, and he left the public

 

23

schools--the schools he championed as the only answer to the
continuance of democracy. He had spent time in a sanatorium in
Alma, Michigan, in early 1900. He was planning an early
retirement, and he meant to return to a farm in New Hampshire. In
February 1902, Parker journeyed to Pass Christian, Mississippi,
for rest and recuperation. By March his condition had
deteriorated. Near the end, his nurse dispatched emergency
telegrams to his friends and family, but no one was able to be
there in time for his passing.

No one had really known how tired and sick he was. He had
been fighting for his cause for twenty-five years. His cause was
to find and fight for the best way to educate children. "He cared
for nothing but the sake of the little children of the land; when
he dies, they lose their warmest friend, ablest champion, and

wisest benefactor."38

1859

1867

1872

1875

1880-1881

1882

1884

1886

1888

1889

1894

1895

1896

1901

1902

1904

1905

1919-1921

1924

1926

1928

1928-1929

1930

24

John Dewey

Born, Burlington, Vermont

Began school

Began high school (age 12) in Burlington, VT
Entered University of Vermont (age 16)

Taught elementary School, Oil City, Pennsylvania

Taught LakeView Seminary, Charlotte, VT; entered the
Johns Hopkins University

Instructor, University of Michigan

Married Harriet Alice Chipman

Professor of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
Chair, Philosophy Department, University of Michigan
Chair, Philosophy Department, University of Chicago
Chair, Pedagogy Department, University of Chicago
Opened University Elementary School

Chicago Institute and University Elementary School
merged

Head, School of Education, University of Chicago
Resigned, University of Chicago

Professor, Columbia University

Far East lectures

Turkey, educational consultant

University of Mexico lectures

American educators visit Russia

Gifford Lectures, Edinburgh University

Retired from Columbia

25

1934 Attended South Africa Education Conference
1946 Married Roberta Lowitz Grant
1952 Died, New York City

John Dewey was born in 1859 in Burlington, Vermont. Both his
father, Archibald Sprague Dewey, and his mother, Lucina Artemisia
Rich, came from farming families. Lucina's grandfather had been a
congressman for ten years, and her father had served in the
Vermont General Assembly for five years. Archibald entered the
Civil War as a Vermont Cavalry Quartermaster a few years after
John was born. After three years' separation, Lucina moved her
family to North Virginia to be near her husband.

In Social Ideas of American Educators, Curti observed that
during his early childhood, "persons and situations influenced
Dewey more than books. He grew up in a rural culture with
democratic neighborliness and nonconformist individualism. This
did much to develop his own independent and democratic temper."39

In Coon's Columbia; Colossus on the Hudson, he wrote, "Dewey
changed school from a place where children prepare for life to a
place where children live."40 His own introduction to education
in September 1867 was less than ideal. He had no formal education
during the war, but when it ended the family returned to
Burlington. At that time, Dewey's biographer Dykhuizen reported,

. public education had deteriorated to a
degree little short of scandalous. Crowded

classrooms (Dewey's had fifty-four students age
seven through nineteen), low standards, lax

26

discipline, irregular attendance, poorly prepared

teachers, andaiun down school buildings were the

general rule.
Concerned citizens had been working for improvements. By Dewey's
second year classes were graded, and there was some uniformity
within the district. Still the methodology was in the traditional
manner which included drill, memorization, recitations, and
lifeless oral readings. Dewey was keen to learn. He took
reading, writing, arithmetic, spelling, grammar, history, and
geography, but he was bored by the way these were taught.

Dewey began high school in 1872 and selected the college-
preparatory course in case he might attend college. He studied
Latin, Greek, French, English, and math. By this time, he loved
to read. His parents encouraged him in this and, although very
religious, did not restrict his selections.

The Dewey family was Congregationalist. John was somewhat
influenced by liberal Evangelicalism and he believed in the Bible,
but he also felt interpretation should be left to the individual
reader. His mother often asked him, "Are you right with Jesus?”2
He remained a practicing Congregationalist for many years, but
eventually left the church. Mrs. Harriet Dewey, John's first
wife, once remarked that "religious attitude is indigenous in
natural experience. It is theology and ecclesiastic institutions
that benumb it rather than promote it."43

In 1875 at the age of sixteen, Dewey entered the University of

Vermont. The faculty there "believed in the sanctity of the human

 

 

27

mind and its right to think freely and independently."44 The
curriculum of the first three years was of a classical nature
based on the past. Dewey was bored with historical studies. He
wanted to read current philosophy. Consequently, for his first
three years, he maintained only an average grade point. During
this senior year, the courses were organized to follow the theme
of the problems of human existence. Dewey was more interested in
these studies. For example, he took a course in physiology for

which the text was Huxley's Elements of Physiology. In it he was

 

exposed to the idea that a biological organism has an
interdependence of parts. This led him to realize the possibility
of an interdependent and interrelated existence. As a
consequence, he began his lifetime philosophical search for the
resolution to the problem of "how to resolve the chasms that
seemed to separate the material and the moral sciences."45

Students were rather rambunctious then, though in his earlier
schooling Dewey was quiet, well-behaved, almost shy. The worst he
did was fidget about and yawn when too bored by recitations.46 In
college he was part of a group that tied a door shut and locked a
professor in a room. He also skipped military drill.

At age twenty despite a B.A. degree, Dewey could not find a
high school teaching job because he was too young. At last, due
to help from a relative who was a high school principal, Dewey was
hired to teach elementary school in Oil City, Pennsylvania. He

was there for two years, 1880-1881. He taught Latin, algebra, and

28

natural science. He was friendly, sincere, modest, and
well-liked.

In the winter of 1882, he taught at the LakeView Seminary in
Charlotte, Vermont. The students there were not prepared to do
high school level work. Since there were some resulting
discipline problems, certain people in Charlotte assumed Dewey was
not a good teacher.47

Dewey returned to Burlington and began independent studies of
philosophy through H.A.D. Torrey of the University of Vermont and
Dr. W.T. Harris, editor of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy,
also the Commissioner of Education, who had admired Parker's work.
He decided he would prefer to further his studies in philosophy
than teach high school. He was accepted as a graduate student at
The Johns Hopkins University in 1882. He applied for a
fellowship, a teaching assistantship, and a scholarship but all
were denied. The University "recognized his mental power but
questioned his pedagogic power."48

Dewey began an intense study of philosophy with history and
political science as minor fields of study. He had selected Johns
Hopkins because of its excellent reputation, but at that time the
emphasis and the larger portion of the university's budget went to
scientific studies. The Philosophy Department consequently was
not as large, nor could it offer as many courses as Dewey would
have liked. During his first year, he studied history, political

theory, biology, and elocution. He was introduced to the work of

 

 

29

Hegel through Professor G.S. Morris, a visiting professor from the
University of Michigan. Morris was able to help Dewey obtain a
teaching assistantship at Johns Hopkins. Dewey accepted Hegel's
views because they recognized the interdependence and
interrelatedness which Dewey preferred to study. Dewey wrote,
Hegel's synthesis of subject and object,

matter and spirit, the divine and the human .

operated as an immense relief, a liberation.

Hegel's treatment of human culture, of

institutions and the arts, involved the

dissolution of hard and fast divigéng walls, and

had a special attraction for me."
During his second year, Dewey studied logic with Charles S.
Pierce, but he was disappointed at the time because it was
mathematical and scientific "rather than what he sought which was
a study of the different forms of knowledge, their origins and
development, their interconnection, and their comparative value as
embodiments of truth."50 He also studied physiology, experimental
psychology, and scientific pedagogy with G. Stanley Hall. "With
Hall he encountered the genetic orientation that came by way of
Haeckel and Spencer, and the idea of studying the development of
children from a scientific, evolutionary point of view."51 Though
there were times when Dewey wondered if he should have left
secondary education, he was finally able to teach the subject in
which he was so interested.

In September 1884, Dewey became an instructor of philosophy at

the University of Michigan. George Morris, Dewey's teacher from

graduate school, was chairman of the Philosophy Department, and

 

 

30

the two men worked together on re-structuring and course
offerings.

Dewey became interested in the need for a link between the
high school and the college. In 1871 the University of Michigan
had established a system of accreditation. Prior to that, all
students who wished admittance to the University had to pass
entrance examinations. Following accreditation, students with
diplomas from accredited schools were admitted. Accreditation was
given to schools which met the university's standards. These were
judged by a committee from the university. Dewey served on some
of these investigation committees. He realized the high school
was much closer to the elementary school than it was to the
college. He understood the need for a strong link. He also
studied the elementary schools. He felt that the teaching methods
were not compatible with the current psychology of learning.
First, the quality of the secondary school was dependent upon the
quality of the elementary school. Next, he felt that the
elementary training did not coincide with the normal learning
processes of young children. He criticized programs, methods, and
the lack of coordination between the levels. He instigated a
search for new methods that would integrate educational,
psychological, and philosophical ideas.52 Dewey was developing
his attitude about elementary education while Colonel Parker, well
aware of the problems in elementary, was by that time on the

battlefield of Cook County.

31

On July 28, 1886, Dewey married Harriet Alice Chipman.
Harriet was a former school teacher from Fenton, Michigan, and
then was a student at the University of Michigan. She lived in
the same boarding house as Dewey. They might have married sooner
but for financial considerations. Dewey was then an assistant
professor but still not making very much money, and that
influenced his next move.

Dewey became professor of philosophy and chairman of the
Philosophy Department at the University of Minnesota. This not
only meant a salary increase, but also the opportunity for
developing and enlarging the department. While at Minnesota he
continued his interest in the need for a link between the schools
and the colleges. The University had developed a sub-freshman
class because the incoming students were not prepared for
college-level work. There was resentment because many faculty
members felt it was the responsibility of the schools to prepare
students for college.

Dewey did not remain long enough to be very effective or make
many changes. In March of 1889, George Morris, Dewey's friend and
mentor, died of over exposure on a fishing trip. The University
of Michigan asked Dewey to return and accept the chairmanship of
the Philosophy Department. He did and remained until 1894.

Dewey was very active with students while at the University of
Michigan. He worked with the student literary magazine, the

students' Christian association, and the philosophical society.

 

32

In 1894 President Harper of the University of Chicago offered
Dewey the position of head professor and chairman of the
Philosophy Department. There were two enticing challenges. One
was to develop a new curriculum and department, and the other was
the opportunity to work with graduate students. Though he would
be making less money, he was offered longer vacations. To Dewey
this meant more time to be with his family and more time to write.

Dewey's reputation brought students and faculty to the
university. As the department grew, so did their published
research. Dewey also spread their philosophical developments via
lectures around the country. He spoke at Chatauqua, the
University of California at Berkeley, Brigham Young Academy, and
at the North Central Association.

President Harper was also very interested in public education.
So, upon Dewey's suggestion, Harper opened the Department of
Pedagogy and appointed Dewey chairman. Dewey's psychology of
education was learning through purposeful activity. He did not
believe in the absence of control or direction.53 He felt that
traditional education wanted school desks for listening while the
new education wanted desks for working. He believed that
"education is the reconstruction of experience."54 As a child
growing up in the mid-18003 in New England, Dewey's initial
education was based on and developed by experience both individual
and through that of others. "Most children shared in the

activities and responsibilities of the home. In the course of

33

growing up, they became aware, at first hand, of the round of
simple industrial and agricultural occupations."55

In 1896 Dewey and Harper opened the University Laboratory
Elementary School. This was to be an experimental school where
Dewey could "put substance and concreteness into a form developed
from his abstract ideas."56 In January 1896, the school had
sixteen students and two teachers. By 1902 there were one hundred
four students and twenty-three teachers, plus several graduate
assistants.

Many people seemed to be angry, disappointed, and
disillusioned at the discrepancy between the American ideal and
the American reality. There were armies of reform: labor
unionists, free silverites, civil service reformers, female
suffragists, settlement workers and populists. The attitude
seemed to be that if there were something wrong outside the
schools, there must be something wrong inside. The people had
been told to

. educate your children so they will vote
wisely. The upper class were told to be taxed so
poor children can be educated. This will lead to
universal reason and contentment. Your property
will be safe, your workers will be happy,
virtuous, and productive. The lower class was
told that education was the great equalizer of
conditions. Your children will rise to more
profitable and honorable employments. Yet after a
half a century of universal education, there was
chronic political corruption, vandalism, rioting,
unemployment, and impoverishment. It was

generalized exploitation of one order by another.
So the people were ripe for reform.

34

Harper's administrative innovation, the University Extension
Division, was to bring the University and its faculty to the
people. The university also sought to raise educational standards
and improve articulation with the schools. There were many
courses and non-credit campus meetings and lectures regarding
education, so Dewey had a large and keen audience. He also spoke
at the Chicago Athenaeum, Cook County Normal School, the Chicago
Free Kindergarten, Hull House, the Civic Federation, and the
Chicago Women's Club. In these lectures he attacked the formal
discipline of the memoriter, symbol-centered recitation school.

Under criticism from members of all classes in
the lay population owing to broad societal
disillusionment, under assault from practitioners
and theoreticians among professionals, the old
education was thought toséack practical and
theoretic justification.

There was an equally determined force of both lay and
professional people who suspected the new education and its
promoters. In Chicago at the time "every educational controversy
became a bitter clash between pro- and anti-Parker forces . . . he
(Parker) was said to have come to Chicago because he expected it
to be the educational storm center of the nation."59

Dewey did not appear to be such a forceful fighter.
Discussions following papers he presented forced him to defend and
clarify his ideas and consider other theories.60 For example, he
was working on the concept of child study through experimental

psychology and the philosophy of instrumentalism whereby education

adopts the scientist's technique of hypothesis development and

35

experimental and experiential trial and error.61 He needed
stimulation and challenge from people and events in order to work
out his ideas. In Dewey's Chicago, McCaul wrote:

Institutional changes are made by people; in
our society people act in response to persuasion.
If the reformer is to effect change, he must
persuade people. To persuade them he must reach
them with his arguments and proposals.
Institutional structures provide him with avenues
by which he can reach an audience and by which an
audience can reach him. Persuasion is facilitated
if the audégnce is already in a state of
readiness.

The people of Chicago appeared to be ready for a change.

Parker and Dewey respected each other. Dewey regarded Parker
as the "father of progressive education," and Parker applauded
Dewey's work and his ideas. Local reporter Ellen Eames Degraff in
December 1894 wrote on Dr. Dewey's address at the Cook County
Normal School:

Dr. Dewey is one of the quietest and most
modest appearing men imaginable. He appears like
a gentle young man who is studious and willing to
learn. To see him on a platform in his gray sack
coat, dropping moustache, hair part in the middle,
and his "excuse me for intruding" as opposed to
Colonel Parker, with his massive bald head, his
impressive and aggressive personality and his "you
had better not get in my way” air, one would never
dream that the quiet man with his level eyebrows
and pleasant, gentle voice, wagSthe lion and the
great Colonel Parker the lamb.

Also, both men feared that the rapid change from an agrarian
society to an industrial one challenged the democratic
tradition.64 They believed the best way to meet the challenge was

through education.

36

In 1901 Parker and his Chicago Institute merged with the
University of Chicago. Parker became the head of the Department
of Education and the training school Dewey remained chairman of
the Departments of Philosophy and Pedagogy and the head of the
University Laboratory School. Harper had wanted to merge the
schools, but temporarily backed down under faculty and parental
pressure and protest. Following Parker's death, Dewey was
nominated to head the School of Education. He, in turn, selected
Mrs. Dewey to run the training school. The selection was not
welcomed by the faculty of the training school. They complained
to Harper who promised them Mrs. Dewey would receive a temporary,
one-year appointment. Something abut the way this decision was or
was not communicated to the Deweys angered them. They resigned
one day apart--April 5 and 6, 1904.

In search of a new position, Dewey wrote to James Cattell, a
friend from graduate school at Johns Hopkins, who was at Columbia
University. Cattell replied that there were no vacancies but that
he would see if anything could be done. Dewey had a reputation
and national following by then. Cattell reasoned with President
Butler that if they did not hire Dewey, someone surely would.
Butler managed to obtain an anonymous donation and the Deweys
moved to New York.

Dewey wanted nothing to do with administration. But that did
not necessarily mean he was about to enter a tranquil period. His

assignments were to teach and supervise theses and research. He

 

37

added metaphysics and politics to his interest in education. He
spoke out in support of teachers' unions. He also supported
women's suffrage. He was against American intervention in both
world wars. He attacked invasions of civil rights and academic
freedom. In 1920 he supported and joined the ACLU.

Following World War One, Dewey and his wife began to travel.
While on sabbatical in California, he decided to go to Japan where
he lectured at the University of Tokyo. Even though Dewey
lectured all over the world, he was not a good speaker, but he was
popular because he "articulated what many believed." At the
University of Tokyo he gave eight lectures. There were eight
thousand in attendance at his first lecture and a mere thirty
listeners at the last. Even so, he lectured at the University of
Peking and was asked to remain an additional year.

Back in New York in 1924, Dewey supported Robert LaFollette,
the Progressive Party candidate, for the presidency. That same
year the Turkish government requested his services as an
educational consultant.

In 1926 when Dewey was lecturing at the University of Mexico,
his wife Alice learned she had a serious heart condition. Her
health deteriorated. Dewey took a term off in order to be with
her. She died in July 1929. They had been married for forty-one
years. This was a great loss to Dewey. At this difficult time,
it must have been helpful to be asked to join a group of American

educators on a tour of Russian schools.

 

 

38

In 1928 Dewey was named honorary president of the Progressive
Education Association. Through this office he urged schools to
attempt to organize subject matter along the lines of the
intellectual history of the subject development and to study
conditions that are favorable to learning. He stressed the
quality of activity rather than the quantity. He criticized

Thorndike s all can be measured"65 He did not believe in the

absence of control or direction.66

More than any other American educator, Dewey
was instrumental in breaking the shackles of harsh
school discipline and inflexible teacher routine.
But he did not want unwarranted freedom or the
absence of a program. He had, unfortunately,
overzealous disciples who took the bit in their
mouths and ran away wigh the wagon--much to the
chagrin of the master.

The problem was his "interests were eclectic enough, his language

imprecise enough, and his publications frequent enough for many

varieties of progressivism to be sheltered under his mantle.68

That same year Dewey delivered the Gifford lectures at Edinburgh
University in Scotland.

Professor Dewey became Professor Emeritus in Residence in June
1930. He wanted to write, speak, and support causes. He had been
a teacher for forty-five years. His strongest belief remained:

If I were asked to name the most needed of all
reforms in the spirit of education I should say:
cease conceiving of education as mere preparation
for later life, and make it full of meaning for
present life. And to add that only in this case
does it become truly preparation for after life,
is not the paradox it seems. An activity which
does not have worth enough to be carried on for
its own sake cannot be very effective as

39

preparation for something else. It (the new
spirit of education) forms the habit of requiring
that every act be an outlet of the whole self and
it provides gBe instruments of such complete
functioning.

Some progressive educators carried the theme of freedom, the
spirit of inquiry, and the avoidance of formalism and
regimentation too far. Some allowed children to determine what
they wanted to study. Some declined to give any direction at all.
The only rule in some classrooms was that there were no rules.
Children were not designed to deal with such total freedom. Dewey
foresaw the problems and the criticisms that these classroom

situations would cause.

By 1938 even though his patience with over
zealous and underbright disciples seemed
limitless, Dewey felt it necessary to clarify his
position regarding new progressive methods. He
criticized the extremes in disregarding the
organization of subject matter in favor of active
experience. The belief that all genuine education
comes about through experience does not mean all
experiences are genuinely or equally educative.
Experience and educatiqB cannot be directly
equated to each other.

Dewey came from seven generations of farmers. "Could that
account for his sense of reality, sense of directness, immediacy,
and simplicity?"71 He was

. enormously sensitive, delicately
receptive, open, exposed to stimulation from
people and events; yet an inward laceration
inflicted upon him by the separations and
divisions of his New England heritage and culture
fostered in him an intense emotional craving for
unity. This unity of tensions generated by
surface incompatibility and diversity of
experience and emotional need, and79is genius are
what made him a great philosopher.

 

40

Parker and Dewey were intrepid warriors but they did not
completely understand their Opposition. "At times Parker faintly
realized that the existing system of economics threatened his
scheme of values."73 "Dewey underestimated the force of
aristocratic or Hamiltonian tradition in American life."74 Both
believed in education with the child and his experiences at the
center as the force to drive democracy.

Dewey's supporters held special conferences and gala events
for Dewey's seventieth birthday. He did not attend the
festivities in honor of his eightieth birthday. He changed his
status with Columbia by dropping the "in residence" from his
Professor Emeritus title. He continued to read, write, lecture,
and speak out on important issues of the day. For example, he
presided over the international hearings of Trotsky held at the
home of Diego Rivera in Mexico.

In 1946 Dewey married Roberta Lowitz Grant when he was
eighty-seven, and she was forty-two. They adopted two Belgian war
orphans.

In 1949 friends and loyal supporters celebrated Dewey's
ninetieth birthday. He attended with Roberta and the children,
and then he and Roberta traveled to Burlington, Vermont, for a
reunion. They toured the town and had dinner at the university.
Dewey enjoyed seeing his old friends and neighbors and being

honored by his alma mater.

 

 

41

Dewey had always been healthy but age was robbing his
resistance. He suffered from colds, flu, virus infections,
congested sore throat, and bronchitis. He broke his hip while
playing with his young adopted children, and he never fully
recovered nor regained his strength. That was in November of
1951, and he was ninety-two. In May 1952 he developed pneumonia.
On June 1, Dewey died. Roberta had sent the children to a

neighbor, but she was with him at the end.

1861

1862

1868

1872

1879

1884

1890

1891

1897

1899

1900

1902

1913

1914

1920

1922

1923

1924

1925

42

udol h Steiner

Born, Kraljevic, Austria

Moved to Pottschach, Austria

Moved to Neudorfl, Hungary

Attended secondary school, Wiener-Neustadt, Hungary

Moved to Vienna, Austria; attended Vienna Institute
of Technology

Resident tutor, editor Goethe's writings

Co-editor of Weimar Edition of Goethe's natural
science writings

Ph.D., University of Rostack, Germany

Editor, Magazin for die Literatur des in - und

Auslandes (Magazine for German and Foreign Literature)
Berlin, Germany

 

Married Frau Eunicke
Theosophic lecturer

General secretary, Germany section, Theosophical
Society

General secretary, Anthroposophical Society;
foundation stone laid for Goetheanum

Married Marie von Sievers

Established Waldorf School, Stuttgart, Germany;
Goetheanum opened, Dornach, Switzerland

Goetheanum destroyed by fire; life threatened
Re-founded Anthroposophical Society
Established class in Esoterics

Died, Dornach, Switzerland

 

 

43

Rudolf Steiner was born in 1861 in Kraljevic, Austria. "His
parents came from Lower Austria, and were German speaking,
belonging therefore to the ruling power in the area."75 His
father had once been a game warden but when Rudolf was born he was
employed by the Austrian Southern Railway. In 1862 he was
transferred to Moedling. A few months later he was promoted to
station master and moved to Pottschach, Austria. Even with
promotion he did not earn much money. Like Parker and Dewey,
Steiner fe financial burdens much of his life.

In 1868 the teiners moved to Neudorfl. Rudolf grew up in
small rural towns as had Parker and Dewey, and he loved nature as
did they. He had no actual farming background and influence, but
the family did have a vegetable garden in which Steiner worked and
harvested.

Steiner loved the natural beauty of his surroundings, but even
at an early age he was fascinated with the mechanical element of
life. Part of it must have been due to spending time in his

father's railroad stations. But it went beyond that. He wanted

 
  
 
 
 
   

to understan thoroughly how things worked.

     
 
 
   
 
   

I needed to understand how things worked from
tart to finish. -I spent as much time in the mill
3 they would allow. I studied with all my heart
he work of the miller. I fqgced a way for myself
nto the interior of nature.

 

Johann Steiner w for his son to learn to r d. When

 

they were in Pottschach, he sent Rudolf to the village school, but

the teacher was not a good teacher. Also, according to Rudolf,

44

the teacher's son was a scamp. Therefore, Rudolf reasoned that
anyone with such a son could not teach. In his Story of My Life,
Rudolf tells a story about this school. One day the scamp made a
mess with the ink. The scamp's mother blamed Rudolf. When
Steiner's father learned of this, he went to the school and
confronted the teacher. He told him that his son would never set
foot in that school again.

Johann decided he would teach his son to read and write, but
Rudolf merely imitated his father. He could see no reason to do
the things his father taught just for his own improvement. He had
become, he explained, rooted in all that formed the practical
life.77

Also about this time, Rudolf became aware of another world--a
spiritual world. He could sense or see beings and objects outside
the material world. He realized, too, that he could not talk
about this with the people with whom he had contact. "I was
filled with questions I had to carry around unanswered. Questions
about all possible sorts of things. This made me as a boy very
lonely."78

In 1868 the Steiners moved to Neudorf, Hungary. Here Steiner
entered the village school. He commented on his early schooling:
"It was simply impossible to do anything save let the mind fall
into dull reverie while the hands almost mechanically took care of
copying."79 Like Parker and Dewey, Steiner did not like the

monotony of his early schooling.

 

45

In those days the railway station served as a central meeting
place of the two notables. The priest and the doctor often met
there to converse with Johann Steiner. These men could see how
curious Rudolf was. In time Rudolf learned the principles of
astronomy from the village priest and the philosophy of Lessing,
Goethe, and Shiller from the doctor.80 In school his teacher
introduced him to geometry, music, and drawing. Geometry
fascinated Rudolf. He wrote,

. that one can live within one's mind in
the shaping of forms perceived only within
oneself, entirely without impression upon external
senses-~this gave me the deepest satisfaction. I
found in this solace for the unhappiness which my
unanswered questions had caused me. To be able to
lay hold upon something in spirit alone brought me
inner joy. I am sure I learned first in geometry
to experience this joy. The objects and
occurrences which senses perceive are in space.
But, just as this space is outside of man, so
there exists also within man a sort of soul-space
which is the arena of spiritual realities and
occurrences. Through geometry one is permitted to
know something which thglmind alone, through its
own power, experiences.

Steiner, despite not having many of his questions answered,
thrived on mathematics and drawing. His teacher at the village
school was so impressed by Steiner's drawings that he gave him a
good examination grade. Good examination grades made the
villagers happy because that spoke well of their school. But
Steiner had not learned to read and write very well, and he passed

over words when reading. His mind went immediately to

perceptions, concepts, and ideas.

46

I got no feeling from reading or spelling or
writing grammatically. In writing I fixed word
forms in my mind to sounds spoken in dialect. It
was through most arduous effort that I gagged the
facility for writing a literary language.

Steiner's father decided to send him to the Real-Schule
(Modern) rather than the Gymnasium (Classical) because he thought
his son might go into engineering. The son cared little which
school he attended. He had burning questions regarding life, the
world, and the soul. Nonetheless, in 1882 Steiner began his
secondary school training in Wiener-Neustadt.

It was during this period of his schooling that Steiner began
home study or self-teaching. He began with Kant. He purchased a
copy of The Critique of Pure Reason. His interest arose from his
spiritual life. "I must go to nature in order to win a standing
place in the spiritual world. I am striving to understand what
human reason might be able to achieve toward real insight into the
being of things."83 2%

Continuing his interest in math, he taught himself analytical
geometry, trigonometry, and differential and integral calculus.
He became a tutor to aid the family finances. This he enjoyed
because he learned the subject more thoroughly and objectively by
having to teach it. He had to learn the curriculum of the
Gymnasium after all in order to tutor his pupils. Steiner
commented that in school he

. learned in a dream, a trance, a half-
waking state. I was only awake to learning on my

own or from a benefactor such as the doctor. When
tutoring I had to vitalize my own knowledge. This

 

47

compelled me to concern myself with practical
pedagogy. I learned the differences of the
development of the human mind through my pupils.

Steiner also had responsibilities at home. He worked in the
garden harvesting fruit and vegetables. He did the grocery
shopping, and he enjoyed practical work.

At the Real-Schule Steiner's favorite teacher was the
chemistry instructor. He taught almost entirely by means of
experiments. He spoke very little. He let the natural processes
speak for themselves.85 On the other hand, his least favorite was
the history teacher. His lectures were strictly from the
textbook. Steiner could learn the material better on his own, so
he cut sections out of a textbook and hid Kant within the
covers.86 Math remained the "foundation of all his strivings
after knowledge. Through math one learns to understand the world.
In order to do this, one must evoke math out of the human mind."87

In 1879 the Steiner family moved to Vienna so that Rudolf
could attend the Vienna Institute of Technology. There was still
no one with whom Steiner dared discuss his awareness of a
spiritual world. There had been a meeting with a country
herbalist. This man had little schooling but did have a deep
understanding of nature and understood the spirit experience. He
and Steiner had discussed the spirit world. He also taught
Steiner the curative powers of plants. But discussions like that
were rare. ”At that time I had no one to whom I could have spoken

of these perceptions."88 At times this was very difficult because

 

48

as much as he wanted to discuss, he feared he would drive people
away. "I always had to slip outside of my own being and leap
across into another skin, as it were, when I was in company with
this friend."89 Years later Steiner would use this phrase again
in describing what formal education was doing to children .

"it makes them need to jump out of their skin."

Steiner never allowed his insight into the spiritual world to
disturb his study of science. He "hoped someday that a blending
of a natural science with his knowledge of the spirit would be
granted."90

Steiner had two professors who made an impression on him then
and in his future. He had great respect for Professor Reitlinger,
his physics professor. Reitlinger used a strong inductive method
of research in teaching, was a universal thinker, and discussed
the relation of general philosophical ideas with physics. He gave
Steiner a testimonial which helped to secure pupils for tutoring.

Schroer was Steiner's literature teacher. Schroer loved
Goethe and influenced Steiner's life long study of Goethe.
Steiner would later become an editor of Goethe's natural science
writing. Schroer had been the director of an evangelical school
in Vienna, and he wrote a book on teaching titled Questions on
Teaching-

Tutoring became Steiner's profession for a number of years
after he graduated. Schroer definitely influenced Steiner's

conception of education. Schroer "spoke against the mere

 

 

49

imparting of information and in favor of the evolution of the full
and entire human being."91 Steiner spent two hours in preparation
for a half hour lesson. He meant to get the material in a form
that would take the least time to present, cause the least strain
on the pupil, yet allow him to reach the highest capacity for
achievement.92 He set the same standards for his Walford teachers
40 years later.

As librarian of the Reading Room, Steiner wrote to prominent
authors begging for books. He "became acquainted with scientific,
artistic, culture-historical, and political literature of the
time."93 He made many friends at school. He had not gone public
with his spiritual beliefs, but people could see "he bélieved in
an invisible reality and that he had an innate instinct for seeing
all sides of a question."94 This ability caused him to be elected
and later impeached as president of the University Reading Club.
He was elected because he could clearly see all sides of an issue.
He lost popularity because, in seeing all sides, he could not
decided for any party.

After Steiner graduated he remained in Vienna. He became a
resident tutor and editor of Goethe's natural science writing. As
a tutor he was responsible for a young backward boy who could not
read, write, or concentrate. Steiner perceived the boy did have
the

. capability of intellectual development,
if his soul-life could be roused from the sleepy

detachment from his physical faculties in which it
was held. Here was a practical opportunity to

 

50

apply the theory of metamorphosis of the physical
organism by spirit activity. He established an
intimate soul-relationship with his young pupil,
and thergpy gradually changed his defective soul-
outlook.
After two years with Steiner as his tutor, the boy was able to
attend school. Steiner continued to tutor him through secondary
school, and later the boy went on to qualify as a doctor.

In the late 18803 Steiner experienced intense spiritual
concentration. He spent much time with writers, thinkers,
theologians, and actors."96 In 1888 he became the editor of
Deutsche Wochenscrift (The German Weekly). Steiner remained
non-partisan, so it was difficult to write the editorials. It
did, however, waken him up to politics.

Grandduchess Sophie of Saxony invited Steiner to join other
scholars on a project to edit the unpublished work of Goethe. In
1890 he moved to Weimar, Germany. It was during this time that
Steiner decided to obtain his doctorate. He could not do so in
Austria because he had attended a Real-Schule, not a Gymnasium.
But in Germany a student had only to find a professor who would
accept his dissertation and preside over his oral examination.
Steiner submitted his dissertation to Professor Stein of the
University of Rostock. Steiner said of his work Wahrhei und
Eisseassheft (W).

The task I set myself in my doctor's
dissertation was inner experience: understanding
man's consciousness with itself. For I saw that
man can understand what genuine reality is in the
outer world only when hg7has perceived genuine
reality within himself.

 

51

Professor Stein replied,

Your dissertation is not such as is required;
one can perceive from it that you have not
produced it under the guidance of a professor; but
what it contaigg makes it possible that I can very
gladly accept.

During the 18903 Steiner began to communicate his concepts
regarding the spiritual nature of the human being. He began to
lecture (two titles: ”Fancy as the Creatress of Culture" and "The
Possibility of a Monastic Conception of the World on the Basis of
a Real Knowledge of the Spiritual") and publish (one title:
"Against Ethics Uprooted from an All-World Reality"). These did
not receive a good response. In fact, two of his papers offended
people he respected, though he felt that was due to their mistaken
interpretation.99 And it was again a lonely time for him. "I
lived in a spiritual world, no one in my circle followed me
there."100 "I was deeply grieved when I was really uttering that
which had for me profoundest import, yet to my friend I was
talking of nothing. Such was my relationship with many
people."101 Thus, he ended his Weimar period at age 36.

In 1897 Steiner moved to Berlin and became editor of Magazin

u di e a ur es 1 --und slandes (Magazine for German and

Egreigg Literature). It published the "latest literacy

expressions of the intellectual life of the day."102 He also had

to work for the Freie Literarische Geselschaft (Free Literary
Society) in order to increase subscriptions. He wrote and

co-produced plays for the Free Dramatic Society, and he was

52

elected to the board of directors. As Steiner reported it, the
society's purpose was to produce "misunderstood" plays.103

Around 1900 the Eunike family, for whom Steiner had once been
a resident tutor, moved to Berlin. Steiner had been in "utter
misery living in a home of my own." He married Frau Eunicke but
did not write of this because "private relationships do not belong
to the public."104 There is as little known of Frau Eunicke,
Steiner's first wife, as of the first Mrs. Parker.

The magazine Steiner was editing did not make much money.
Finances were a "constant source of anxiety" as they were for
Parker and Dewey.105 Consequently, Steiner was pleased when the
executive committee of the Berlin Workers' School asked him to
teach history courses and practice in speaking. He was eager to
teach mature men and women. He warned the committee that he would
teach according to his own beliefs, one of which was that he had
to learn how his students thought in order to make himself
understood. He was a popular teacher among the students. It was
a time of social change, and the people were eager to hear about
the forces of history. When he tried to show the workers how to
be free, the leaders wanted him out. Their attitude was "we do
not wish freedom in the proletariat movement; we wish rational
compulsion."106

Also in 1900 Steiner began lecturing for the Theosophical

Society. Though he warned them that his lectures would be from

his perspective, he became a popular lecturer. In 1902 he became

 

53

general secretary of a German Theosophical Society. He met Marie
von Sievers, his future wife, on one lecture.

For the next 10 years Steiner lectured, published, and
traveled throughout Europe. He had never fully accepted the
beliefs of the Theosophists. He spoke and acted according to his
personal thinking. There were arguments and angry feelings at
times. Finally, in 1913 he broke completely from them and formed
the Anthroposophical Society. He moved to Switzerland and began
construction of the Goetheanum. This was to be a magnificent
structure which was to become the seat of learning for Steiner and
his followers. In 1914 he married Marie von Sievers.

After World War One Steiner returned to Germany. He gave
public lectures against scientific and political materialism.

This brought public rebuttals and criticism from some, but
approval from many including a Stuttgart factory owner, Emil Mott.
Mott feared a breakdown in the social and economic life in
Germany. He believed it could not be healed by changing
governments and substituting political systems. A fundamental
cultural renewal was called for, and this was only possible
through education. In 1919 he approached Steiner with a scheme to
offer education to the workers in his factory. Steiner agreed
provided he was given complete freedom. The factory workers were
pleased with not only what they were learning but also with the
prospect of a school for their children. Steiner agreed to
develop a system of education which combined spiritual

individuality and the importance of every human.107

54

The Waldorf School was unique. Steiner organized the
curriculum according to the development of the child. Nothing was
to be presented to him which "would make him want to jump out of
his skin." The teachers were selected for their excellence in
their fields. They were then trained in pedagogy by Steiner. The
teachers themselves ran the school. To promote cooperation rather
than competition, there were no examinations or grades. Steiner
also taught in many of the classrooms.

The concept of the Waldorf School spread throughout Germany to
Switzerland and to England. Hitler closed the German Waldorf
Schools on the grounds that the purpose of education was to
develop citizens for the state, not to develop citizens who could
think for themselves.108

Like Parker and Dewey, Steiner had many devoted followers and
a smaller number of antagonists. His life was threatened while on
a lecture tour; consequently, he left Germany. In 1922 the
Goetheanum was destroyed by arson, and his life was threatened
again. Steiner wrote The Story of My Life not by choice but as an
explanation and rebuttal of his critics. Even today his work
continues to so disconcert people that his followers maintain a
"conspiracy of silence in public awareness of Steiner and his
work."109

In 1924 Steiner became ill and was confined to bed, but he did

not stop working. He wrote weekly installments of letters to the

members of the Anthroposophical Society and segments of his book.

55

He continued to read as much as possible, but gradually, he

weakened.

Early on March 30, 1925, Marie Steiner, his wife, received a
message to return at once to Dornach. She set out immediately,
but she was too late to be with her husband before he died. Dr.
Wegman, Steiner's personal physician, asked him if he had a final
word for his people As Easton reported in Hegald of.a New Epoch,

Faithful to the last to his unwillingness to
impinge on the freedom of others, knowing that any
such last message would become a binding
injunction . . . he made no reply. A few moments
later, folding his hands across his breast, he
closed his eyes. Without any sign of even a
moment's struggle, he soon afterwards passed
peacefplby across the threshold into the spiritual

world.

56

Hughes Mearns

1875 Born, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1893 Graduated, Central High school, Philadelphia
1984 Attended Philadelphia School of Pedagogy
1902 Graduated (B.S.), Harvard; began teaching,

Philadelphia School of Pedagogy
1902-1908 Graduate school, University of Pennsylvania
1914 Director, Shady Hill Day School, Philadelphia

1917 Morale officer, judge advocate, educator,
psychopathologist, American Armed Forces

1920 Lincoln School, Columbia University, New York
1925 Associate Professor, New York University

1926-1946 Full professor and chairperson, Creative Education
Department, New York University

1932 Progressive Education Association Convention Address

1933 Music Supervisors' Eastern Conference; North Central
Conference Address

1946 Retired, New York University
l9__ Board of Directors of Plays and Players
19 Director, American Society for the Extension of

University Teaching

1965 Died, Bearsville, New York

Unlike Parker, Dewey, and Steiner, Hughes Mearns was not born
in a rural village but in the city of Philadelphia on September
28, 1875. But like Parker, Dewey, and Steiner, he was unhappy
with his early schooling. Mearns and his classmates were told

that bad spellers never earn any money. Yet they saw many of

 

57

their fellow students drop out of school and earn great sums of
money in that "great historic industrial expansion."111 Those who
remained were expected to memorize the history text which Mearns
called presumptuous ignorance .
We children learned the exact height in feet

of all the mountains of the world and the exact

population of American cities according to the

1880 census. The mountain tops are where they

were, but, alas, the inhabitants of cities have

moved about, thus killing my chance to shine in

polite conversation. That kind of knowledge went

out of style a hundfeg years or more before the

schools gave it up.
Despite his dislike of his schooling, Mearns graduated from
Central High School in Philadelphia in 1893.

In 1894 Mearns attended the Philadelphia School of Pedagogy.
From there he went to Harvard where he graduated with a B.S.
degree in 1902. Unlike Parker and Dewey who both chose teaching,
Mearns went into the field strictly for money to support his
desire to write for the stage. He began teaching at the
Philadelphia School of Pedagogy in 1902 and continued in the field
of teaching until he retired from New York University in 1946.
Forty-four years of successfully doing something he never intended
to do. He went to graduate school at the University of
Pennsylvania from 1902 to 1903 and worked with William James. The
doctorate of philosophy had been imported from Germany and was the
vogue at the time. Mearns and some of his peers determined to
make a place in education without the degree and with this

Professor James agreed.113 Mearns later remarked on the pomposity

 

58

of professorial titles, "Can you imagine two people alone in a
room calling each other professor?"

From 1914 to 1917 Mearns was the director of the Shady Hill
Day School in Philadelphia. There he experimented with the
creative processes of children. He learned how to make them
forget he was around. He kept records of their conversations. He
never asked questions and he never showed surprise. He came to
three conclusions: (a) children had amazingly acute powers of
observation, (b) children could be completely selfish and
merciless to each other, and (c) parents and teachers smother
children's individuality--the source of creative effort--by trying
to mold them.114

During World War One, Mearns served as a morale officer, a
judge advocate, an educator, and a psychopathologist. When he
returned he was offered the superintendency of a large school
district and a position at the new experimental Lincoln School at
Teachers College, Columbia University. Like Parker, he had the
choice of a prestigious educational position or the opportunity to
teach and he chose to teach. He accepted the later and spent five
successful years in the English Department at the Lincoln School.
There he continued his experiments in creativity. He taught in
the secondary school working with older students. He demanded
much but gave his students a generous amount of freedom to write
hat they felt and when they felt it. He developed an atmosphere
which allowed the students to feel their writing was important to

themselves and to others.

 

 

 

59

Mearns allowed his students to express themselves in writing
which was not automatically scrutinized for spelling and
grammatical errors. He encouraged them to encourage each other.
He refrained from negative criticism of their writing. However,
he did not praise poor writing. He worked with his students
building their personal attitudes and found that by doing so,
their writing improved. One day he was called upon to arbitrate a
problem regarding a student's work. The class had selected a
student's poem as worthy of publication. The author claimed the
writing was poor and actually a joke on the class. After much
earnest and free discussion on the poem in question, one student
accused the author of not even knowing when something was good.
The young author finally admitted that despite his joke, he had
worked hard on the poem and had revised it several times.

At the Lincoln School Mearns worked with Dr. P.W.L. Cox who
moved on to New York University He arranged to have Mearns join
him there. Mearns began as an associate professor in 1926. He
became a full professor and chair of the Creative Education
Department where he remained until his retirement in 1946. During
this time he wrote several books on creativity and a large number
of magazine and journal articles.

According to J.C. Duff, Mearns was of average height, a little
chunky, and meticulously well-groomed. He began speaking to his
classes before the general chatter ceased. Since his voice was so

quiet only those in front heard but it got immediate attention.

 

 

60

As a lecturer, he did not document everything by citing research
but by presenting examples of teaching and learning his students
could accept intuitively. In private he knew the literature very
well. He was friendly, gracious, and amused most of the time.
Unlike Parker, Dewey, and Steiner, he avoided school politics.115

In 1933 Mearns spoke to the sessions of the Music Supervisors‘
Eastern Conference. He was not without credentials. He had
always been interested in theatre and music. Years earlier he
wrote the popular quatrain, "As I was walking up the stair, I met
a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I
wish he'd go away." It became rather well known and many claimed
authorship. Mearns never criticized even some of his own students
who did so. Eventually, the truth was discovered and Mearns
received compensation.

Like Dewey, Mearns was quite family-oriented. He was very
close to his wife and daughter. He was seventy-one when he
retired from New York University. His greatest fear as a teacher
of the creative spirit was that "he would so stir his students
they couldn't calm down to exist in ordinary society."116

Mearns was on the Board of Directors of Plays and Players and
director of the American Society for the Extension of University
Teaching.

After retiring Mearns and his family moved to Bearsville, New

York. He was eighty-nine years old when he died on March 13,

1965. J. C. Duff admonished future researchers: "There will be

 

61

references to the books and articles Mearns wrote, but one may
hope the light and happy spirit characteristic of Bill Mearns will

not be traded for a mess of statistics ground out of electronic

"117
computers.

 

1884

1901

1903

1920

1921-1925

1925

1925-1928

1926-1928

1928

1929-1938

1930

1933

1935

1938-1939

1947-1949

1967

62

Laura Zirbes
Born, Buffalo, New York
Attended Cleveland Normal Training School
Elementary school teacher, Cleveland, Ohio
Attended Teachers College, Columbia University
Assistant Editor, Journal of Educational Psychology
Received B.S. degree, Teachers College

Lecturer, Teachers College; received A.M. and Ph.D.
degrees

Journal of Educational Research, Assistant Editor
Joined faculty, Ohio State University

Director, Ohio State Summer Demonstration School
Developed University Elementary School

Chairman, Committee on Education of Teachers,
Progressive Education Association

~Developed new curriculum for elementary education

Ohio State University

Held Summer Teacher Workshops in "Creativity in the
Classroom"

Chairman, Editorial Board, Childhood Education

Died, Columbus, Ohio

Laura Zirbes was born on April 26, 1884, in Buffalo, New York.

Very little is known about her childhood except that at some point

she moved to Cleveland, Ohio. In 1901 she entered the Cleveland

Normal Training School. In 1903, at the age of nineteen, she

became an elementary teacher. She had a difficult time at the

 

 

 

63

public school. Her creative and innovative methods were not well
accepted. The principal suggested she transfer to a private boys
school where he thought she would be more acceptable. She did so
and remained until 1919.

In 1920, the same year as Mearns, Zirbes went to Teachers
College, Columbia University. She took classes and conducted
research in reading. In 1925 she received the Bachelor of Science
degree. She remained at Columbia as a graduate student and
lecturer until 1928. She received Master of Arts and Doctor of
Phi1030phy degrees.

In 1928 Zirbes returned to Ohio. She began working with the
State Department of Education and joined the faculty of the Ohio
State University where she remained until she retired in 1954.

Zirbes was the director of the Ohio State Summer Demonstration
School from 1929 to 1938. Among many areas, she offered a special
three week training institute for nursery school teachers
unhampered by restrictive limitations imposed by standardized
requirements.118

Zirbes campaigned vigorously for the creation f a university
elementary school. She won. Zirbes and others from the
Department of Education established a kindergarten and an
elementary school in a private dwelling on Frambes Avenue in 1930.
She would like to have been the director, ”but local influentials
have their adversaries and she reluctantly settled for seeing that

many of her Columbus staff members were included on the staff."119

 

 

64

The school always had an enrollment problem: not enough students
during the depression and after that too many.120

Parker's Chicago Institute was first and temporarily housed in
a former bar. One student reported he could smell barley during
his lessons. Steiner's first Waldorf School opened in a renovated
restaurant, and another student remembered odors unusual for a
classroom. And Zirbes was in a private dwelling for two years
before the regular building was completed.

In 1935 Zirbes worked on the curriculum of he elementary
education courses. The students were to move from passive
reception by students to active involvement in their own
education. Zirbes believed that students and teachers must
continue to grow; adjust to different ages, needs, and problems;
to learn by experiment; to study resources; and to associate with
people who make the most of opportunities.121

In the summers of 1938 and 1939, she led workshops on creative
exploration. The participants were involved in group activity.
They developed materials for use in their own classrooms.

Zirbes developed the September Field Experience. This was for
prospective elementary teachers. They would work in their
hometown elementary schools before the university opened in the
fall.

Zirbes believed that education must move from

. stereotyped conformity to free
expression, from passive compliance to active

identification, imposed direction to cooperative
planning, extrinsic motivation to intrinsic values

 

 

 

65

and concerns, submissive acquiescence to
wholehearted involvement, restrictive domination
to responsible self-direction, stultifying
repression to spontaneity, and fixed habits and
skills to the cultivation of a flexiblg adaptive
response to life-related situations.

Zirbes criticized parents for solving educational problems the
easy way. If a school were not good enough many parents simply
moved to a better school district or sent their children to a
private school. Zirbes accused them of solving their problem as
parents at the expense of their role as citizens. She criticized
compulsory school attendance. It was "at best only a mobilizing
device, like the draft, which makes sure every eligible individual
did his part."123

Zirbes had a well-tempered, steely mind; yet she had great yet
child-like qualities. She was playful, yet she never did things
for a single value.124

Zirbes was interested in early childhood education. She asked
for parent education and social responsibility for pediatric care.
She did not understand why government and education seemed far
more concerned with the last part of childhood and little or
nothing about the first. She wanted periodic health examinations
and cited as an indicator of assessment coming far too late the
free Selective Service examination which discovered dietary
deficiencies fifteen or more years after the fact.125

Zirbes wrote and lectured on education throughout her career.

She was chairman of the editorial board of Childhood Education and

assistant editor of the Journal 9f Edgcational Psychology and the

66

Journal of Educational Research. She was active in nine

professional associations. She taught for fifty-one years. She
was eighty-three years old and had just published an article when
she died on June 9, 1967, in Columbus, Ohio.

Leland B. Jacobs, in his "Dedication to Laura Zirbes," wrote:

Compromise was not in the vocabulary. Willing
to stand up and be counted for a social or
educational viewpoint. Courageous in rebellions
against routinized, lock-step administration of
education. Denials of open and subtle forms of
caste and privilege. Supporter of teachers'
freedoms. Espousal of superior schooling for all
children. Often--and well aware of the possible
personal consequences and hurts--stood out against
the crowd, against the powerful individual or
commercial enterprise, against the current
socially or educationally respectablelpgsition.
What one values one must try to live.

 

 

67

501288

1Edward Krug, The Shaping of the American High School, 1880-
1920 (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 431.

2Richard Hofstadler, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R.
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956), 8.

3Frederick S. Breed, "Progressive Education," School and

SogTety, 37(1933):545.

4Clyde R. Miller, "Some Popular Appraisals of John Dewey,"

Teachers College Record, 31(1929):218.

5Jack Campbell, The Children's Crusader (New York: Teachers

College Press, 1967), 5.
6Campbell, 5.
7Campbell, 13.
8Campbell, 13.

9Campbell, 33.

10Campbell, 39-40.

11Wilbur S. Jackman, "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker," Journal

9f ghe Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education
Associagiph (l902):400.

12Merle Curti, The Social Ideas of American Educators

(Patterson, New Jersey: Pageant Books, Inc., 1959), 376.

13Campbell, 34.

1“Lelia Patridge, Notes on Talks on Teaching (New York: E.L.

Kellogg & Co., 1883), xiv.

15Harold Rugg and Ann Shumaker, The Child-Centered School (New

York: World Book Co., 1928), 11.

 

16Marion Foster Washburne, Erancis Waylapd Parkep; his Life
ahd EdhgggiohaT Refpzms (New York: E.L. Kellogg, 1900), 42.

17Washburne, 118.

18Washburne, 53-54.

19Flora J. Cooke, "Colonel Francis W. Parker and His Influence

upon Education," 0 res ve du a , l4(l937):538.

68

20Patridge, xv.

21Campbell, 70.

22Campbell, 72.

23Campbell, 77.

24Cooke, 586.

25Washburne, 49.

26Campbell, 90.

27Patridge, xvii.
28Campbell, 100.
29Patridge, xvii.

30Campbell, 106.

31Ossian Lang, "Francis Wayland Parker," The Forum,
34(1902):115.

32Campbell, 43.
33F.C. Fox, "A Personal Glimpse of Colonel Parker,"
Progressive Education, 9(1932):59.

34Curti, 375.

35Campbell, 55.

36Flora J. Cooke, "The Social Philosophy of Francis Wayland
Parker,” Progressive Education, l4(l937):630.

37Helen M. Hefferan, "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker," Chicago
Schoo s urnal, l8(l936):6.

38Patridge, xxi.

39Curti, 500.

40Horace Coon, Columbia; Colossus on the hudson (New York:
E.P. Dutton & Co., 1947), 178.

41George Dykhuizen, The e nd 0 hn Dewe
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973), 4.

 

 

69

42Dykhuizen, 6.

43Dykhuizen, 54.

44Dykhuizen, 10.

45Arthur Wirth, John Deweyhgs Educator (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1966), 7.

46Dykhuizen, 4.

47Dykhuizen, 34.

48Dykhuizen, 40.

49Wirth, ll.

SOWirth, 12.

51Wirth, l3.

52Wirth, 15.

53Coon, 178.

54Rugg, l.

55Wirth, 4.

 

56Robert L. McCaul, "Dewey's Chicago," The School Review
(Summer 1959), 277.

S7McCaul, 268.

58McCaul, 274.

59McCaul, 269.

60McCaul, 274.

61Curti, 507.

62McCaul, 277.

63McCaul, 273.

64Curti, 504.

65Patricia Graham, A History of the Progressive Education
Assgciatigh (New York: Teachers College Press, 1967), SO.

 

 

70

66Coon, 178.

67H.E. Bucholz, "Dewey Mocked by N.E.A.," Educational
Administpators and Superintendents, 18(1932):4l6.

68Graham, 15.

69Clyde R. Miller, "Some Popular Appraisals of John Dewey,"

Teachers College Record, 31(1929):216.

70Graham, 78.

71Miller, 211.

72McCaul, 278.

73Curti, 392.

74Curti, 539.

75Stuart Easton, Herald of a New Epoch (Spring Valley, NY:
The Anthroposophic Press, 1908), 13.

76Rudolf Steiner, The Story of My Life (London:
Anthroposophic Publishing Company, 1928), 7.

77Steiner, 6.

78Steiner, 10.

79Steiner, lO.

80A.D. Shepherd, A Scientist of the Invisible (1954;
Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1983), 30.

81Steiner, 11-12.

82Steiner, 18.

83Steiner, 23.

84Steiner, 28.

85Steiner, 27.

86Shepherd, 32.

87Steiner, 42.

88Steiner, 68.

 

71

89Steiner, 55.

90Steiner, 43.

91Steiner, 69.

92Steiner, 72.

93Steiner, 58.

94Shepherd, 36.

95Shepherd, 42.

96Steiner, 97.

97Steiner, 125.

98Steiner, 40.

99Steiner, 137.

100Steiner, 174.

101Steiner, 192.

102Shepherd, 55.

103Steiner, 255.

104Steiner, 270.

105Steiner, 270.

106Shepherd, 61.

107Shepherd, 76.

108Henry Barnes, "An Introduction to Waldorf Education,"

Teaghers College gecopd, 81(1980):325.
109John Davy, Ed., Work ArisTng (London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1975), 12.

110Easton, 362.

111Hughes Mearns, "Salvation by Information," The North

Ahegipah Review, 229(1930):65.

112Mearns, "Salvation," 67-69.

 

72

113John Carr Duff, "Hughes Mearns: Pioneer in Education," The

Clearing House, 40(1966):419.

114Current Biography (New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1940). 570-

115Duff, 420-421.

116Hughes Mearns, "Promoting Self-EXPIBSSion." World's Work,
53(1929):63.

117Duff, 421.

118Laura Zirbes, "Workshops in Elementary Education,"
EducationaT Eesearch Bulletin, 20(1941):l30-l37.

119William Van Til, My Way of Looking at It (Terre Haute, IN:
Lake Lure Press, 1983), 79.

120Herbert L. Coon, A Handbook for University School Parents

(Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University, 1954), 8.
121Leland B. Jacobs, "Dedication to Laura Zirbes," Childhood
Education, 44(1967):210.

122Laura Zirbes, "Experimenting, Interacting, Growing,"

Childhood Education, 44(1967):233.

123Laura Zirbes, "Priorities in Childhood Education,"

Progressive Education, 20(1943):103.

12L."Laura Zirbes--a Creative Person," Childhood Education,

44(1967):216.
125Laura Zirbes, "Inalienable Rights of Children," Childhood
Education, 21(1945):341-342.

126Jacobs, 210.

CHAPTER II

THE CHILD

Tptroduction

In Chapter II, I will discuss the attitudes of Francis
Parker, John Dewey, Rudolph Steiner, Hughes Mearns, and Laura
Zirbes toward children and their relation to education and to
life. The child was the center of the curricula proposed by these
educators. It was for and about the child that determined the
purpose of education. Though with different backgrounds and
procedural intentions, these five educators were determined,
clear, and critical in their statements regarding the treatment of
children. They directed most of their discussion toward the
schools, but they often addressed parents in both group discussion
and published articles. They believed that a child is a child and
should be approached and treated that way in a kind,
understanding, sympathetic, yet structured and disciplined manner.

This discussion is divided into five sections. They are (a)
The Definition of Childhood (What is a child? What should a child
be?); (b) Childhood Learning (How does a child learn? How does he
make sense out of what is presented to him/her?); (c) The

Treatment of Childhood (How should a child be treated? How should

73

74

teachers plan to treat children?); (d) Childhood Capabilities
(What is a child capable of doing? What is a child capable of
thinking? How much more could a child do with the proper kind of
stimulation?); and (e) The Role of Education and Society in
Childhood (What is education's responsibility to children? What
is society's responsibility to children? What is education's
responsibility to society? What is the child's responsibility?).

Each of the five educators under study concentrated on the
treatment of childhood, which accounts for roughly 40% of their
writing. There the similarity of concentration ended. Parker and
Dewey were more vocal about the role of education and society in
childhood. Steiner was more concerned with the definition of
childhood than any of the others. Four of the five leaned more
toward discussing childhood capabilities than childhood learning.
Zirbes was the exception.

Information is not available on Zirbes, but Parker, Dewey,
Steiner, and Mearns criticized the manner in which they were
educated. They had a respect and appreciation for the acquisition
of knowledge and were life-long learners. What they did not
appreciate was the rigidity, the strictness, the formality, the
dullness, the lack of integration and the lack of respect for the
individual as a thinking, feeling, individual, and they targeted
these methods for reform. Undoubtedly, this was a basis for at
least a part of their determination of both what and how children

should learn. They realized what it was like to desire knowledge

 

75

and yet to be both frustrated and bored by the method of
acquisition. Consequently, they intended to make learning

worthwhile in both substance and acquisition.

Definition of Childhood

Rugg and Schumaker in The:§hild-Cente§ed School reported
Mearns commenting on the lack of freedoms in the schools: "All
God's chillun got wings, until he remembered that all God's
chillun are not permitted to use them."1 Naturally, the five
educators under study had some varying degrees of differences in
their discussion of a definition of some of the characteristics of
childhood. However, they all agreed on what a child is not--and
that is a little adult. They chastised adults for demanding
adult-like behavior, adult-like standards, adult-like thinking
from children who are by nature a cornucopia of marvels but who
are also by nature children. Zirbes wrote that "little children
are not little men and women. Their drives and needs are not
discoverable by logical analysis of organized knowledge into
elements that are structured into logical sequences."2 Adults are
the analyzers of childhood but they do it from the wrong
perspective--that of an adult. Children do not see the
world--real or imagined--as adults see it.

Parker believed that "every child creates a world in which he
lives in his fancy and in this world of his imagination he lives

and moves and has his being."3 Mearns likened the child to a

 

 

76

creative spirit "dancing, rhythmic living, laughing, flashes of
mind, strength of control, swiftness, action, unwritten poems,
songs without words; it is life adding its invisible living cells
to more and abundant life."4 It is that spirit fantasy world of
childhood through which all adults have passed and have since
forgotten. Mearns wrote "we know next to nothing about youth.
Our memory is false memory, for it gives us almost nothing but
conventional adult pictures."S Mearns attempted to learn what he
could about children and childhood by taking his open curiosity to
their level. He became a keen and silent observer of children at
play, at work, and at rest. Eventually, he became a shadow in
terms of the attention the children paid to him. He learned that
children observed their world as well as he observed them and that
through their observations children were naturally creative. The
problem was that parents and teachers smothered this creative
spirit by trying to mold children to adult standards--into little
men and women.6

Parker and Steiner tended toward a more religious description
of children. Parker, referred to as the "devoted apostle of
childhood, saw in every little child the image of God. In the
center of civilization he saw a little child and wise and loving
care and nurture of that child would make all human interests
secure."7 Steiner believed that the child was a spiritual being
reincarnated in a physical body and that it was the teacher's

responsibility to liberate the spirit of the child for later

77

service to humanity.8 Dewey, Mearns, and Zirbes, while holding
private religious views, did employ such terms as "soul,"
"spirit,” and "three-fold nature." Dewey, Parker, and Steiner
spoke and wrote of the three-fold nature which should be focused
upon when dealing with children--that is, mind, soul, and body.

At the University of Chicago Laboratory School, Dewey's aim
was to utilize rather than suppress the four-fold impulses of the
child: (a) interest in conversation, (b) interest in inquiry, (c)
interest in construction, and (d) interest in artistic
expression.9 This was based on what he had determined to be the
five native impulses of children: social, constructive,
investigative, experimental, and expressive.10 Steiner believed
in an esoteric psychological concept of the child whereby he had
four levels to be reached: (a) the physical body, (b) the etheric
or bioplasmic energy, (c) the astral body, and (d) the ego.11 He
also believed that children have a natural inclination and "naive
delight in color, a love of dramatic portraiture that flows with
uncanny ease into expression."12

Steiner discovered that until children reached puberty (or
shortly before), their consciousness had a pictorial rather than
conceptual character. He used this discovery to direct the
curriculum and pedagogical methodology in his Waldorf Schools.
The study and pleasure of art was the integrative leveler that
pervaded the school lives of his pupils.

The child's whole being is called into play

by artistic education for art speaks to the
whole being, it profoundly engages the feelings

78

of the child. An artistic education develops
the capacity for inward picturing out of which
at a later age thought is born. Every art is
centered in a rhythmic element and rhythm is
natural so it least tires thelgearner and best
promotes healthy development.
Mearns likewise believed that drawing and writing are natural

urges of children.14 He observed that children naturally imitate
but that adults ignore this native gift and instead they drown
potential creativity with doggerel rhymes, set phrases, and adult
idioms. The little men and women should, as soon as possible,
speak and write like big men and women. "Imitation, however
excellent, is never art. Left to themselves, children speak
naturally in poem form without searching for a medium. Their
minds are wholly intent upon something real within them. Their
language is instinctive."15
While Steiner and Mearns realized the child artist, Parker
also felt that every child was a born worker.
. . there never was a lazy child in God's

busy world. Oh yes, you are lazy now; I

understand that, but that came after you were

educated. You want to work, to sing, to think,

to give play to beautiful imagination, to labor.

The boy or girl who never made mud pieslén the

street is fit for little in this world.
Parker believed all children should learn to draw. He described
art as a power and a love--the expression of thought through the
hands.17

Dewey agreed with Parker that children are not lazy. His

idea of interest-~engage the child's interest in what needs to be

79

learned--undermined the notion that children are by nature
perverse, lazy, and opposed to learning. Dewey maintained that
children are by nature children with interests which they will
actively pursue if left to themselves. He accused the rigid
restrictions of the schools for making children seem perverse and
lazy. He accused teachers of expecting their pupils to behave
like miniature adults and suggested that if teachers would
reconstruct their expectations, children would cease to be
oppositional and inattentive. Children were, in Dewey's belief,
interested, active, and curious.18

Steiner would have agreed. He said he himself was never
fully awake and functioning in full consciousness in schools. He
was extremely receptive to what he heard and read and was able to
pass exams with no problem. But he felt knowledge thus acquired
was not his own.19 Yet, as Dewey suggested, as a student Steiner
had many interests and hungrily pursued them on his own. Parker
had actually chastised certain of his teachers for not teaching
him properly. Mearns ridiculed some of the facts and figures his
teachers required him to memorize.

Because of Dewey's ideas of interest and Steiner's desire to
have students own the knowledge they acquired, they each developed
interest and activity levels which corresponded to stages of a
child's growth.

Dewey's stages were (1) ages 4-6, (2) ages 8 or 9-10 or 11,

(3) and ages l3-15. Steiner's stages were (1) birth-7 years or

 

 

80

until the teeth change, (2) 7-14 years or until the teeth change
to puberty, and (3) 14-21 years. In Dewey's Stage 1, the teacher
was to direct the personal and social interests of the child who
desired to explore his world with all sensory equipment. The
child had a strong need to express himself in motor and expressive
activities, in manipulation, investigation, and oral
communication. At this stage Dewey wanted children to play games,
listen to and tell stories, and take part in informal
conversations. This should lead the child toward inquiry and
experimentation. The children should work according to ability
not grade level, with older children tutoring younger children.
Since they didn't have to waste time with recitations (against
which Parker helped lead the battle), they could communicate about
their experiences which would lead to stimulating intellectual
interchange. The studies at this stage should be relevant to the
experiences of the child. Nature study, manual training, and
sewing were continuous with life outside the school. Formal
studies were grouped around and evolved from activities familiar
to the child. For example, number work grew out of measuring and
weighing in cooking or painting. By Stage 2, the students
developed a need for clearer, more long-range goals and mastery of
more complex skills. In Stage 3 students were able to deal with
and had an interest in specialized studies. Dewey's study of the
developmental stages of children was based on a scientific

evolutionary point of view. "As mankind was forced to develop

81

more specialized methods of thought and action to achieve desired
ends, so maturing children needed to increase powers by learning
more disciplined and refined skills."20

In Steiner's Stage 1, the child learns by imitation, never by
precept. From birth to three years, the child's awareness comes
from movement and sensual discovery. At three years the child
becomes a distinct individual and calls himself "1." He models his
play after adult patterns and is an incessant talker. He asks
many questions but doesn't listen to many answers. During Stage 2
the child becomes more thoughtful and reserved. He continues to
ask questions and now he listens to the answers. He gains a sense
of rhythm and music. He is still a dreamer. He is still an
imaginative rather than an abstract thinker incapable of
intellectual concepts. He is an instinctive artist delighting in
contrasts and perceiving beauty. By Stage 3 besides physical
changes, the child's thinking powers are strengthened. He is now
an abstract thinker and mental concepts which at an earlier stage
would have "chilled and repelled him" acquire real meaning.21

Steiner thought that children could be classified into the
four temperaments: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and
sanguine. Though he cautioned that most children have
characteristics from all four, still in a general, flexible way a
categorization could be made. Steiner advocated teacher awareness
of these characteristics so that measures could be taken to

develop the desirable ones and change the less desirable. Steiner

82

saw the choleric child as short and stocky with a bull-neck and a
rounded head rigid on his shoulders, extremely sturdy and
possessing untiring energy. He could dominate his companions like
a ring leader. If provoked he would burst like a volcano. His
outbursts could easily degenerate into fits of frenzy. He could
be one-sided, egotistical, and fanatic. Choleric children tended
to use much red in their paintings.

Steiner saw the melancholic child as tall, lanky, with a
small, elongated head and sloping shoulders. Every experience
made a deep impression on him and set him brooding. His
thoughtful nature led him to develop a rich and interesting inner
life, but he seemed too shy to disclose it. He played by himself
and read a great deal. He was gifted in music, poetry, and
painting. He used soft blues and violets in his art work. Though
different from the choleric, they could both be anti-social.

According to Steiner, the phlegmatic child was fat, dumpy,
and lazy. However, he was also extremely pleasant and thoroughly
good-natured. He preferred a nice restful green in his paintings.

The most normally proportioned child was the sanguine. He
had small, nimble hands and feet which were seldom still. Every
passing impression distracted his attention. He seemed unable to
concentrate, tiring perceptibly when called upon to do 30. Yet,
he was a lover of gaiety and was a bright spot in the classroom.
He delighted in color contrasts but yellow was his favorite. Any

predominant temperament may be softened by a mixture of the other

 

 

83

three. And a temperament may change through age, maturation,
and/or development.22 Though Steiner cautioned that most children
were a combination of these characteristics and that children
changed through age, maturity, and development, he and his
followers appear almost dogmatic regarding these characteristics

and their application for classroom methodology.

Childhood Learning

Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes would all agree
that children learn best by doing. Parker believed that education
was the fulfilling of God's design of changing being into
character.

A human being is latent energy, organic
under laws. Laws are translated into actions
and actions change latent energy into power.
All activity is doing. Thinking is doing. A
state of consciousness is observation. Symbols
and oral language arouse consciousness--this is
hearing and listening. Books contain symbols
that bring about a change in consciousness.
When a state of consciousness is held, that is
study. This holding constitutes the difference
between study and reading. Reading is thinking
by means of words. There is an intensity in the
holding of thought in study. When I study, I
do. Conscious mental activity leads to growth.
The responsibility of the teacher is to try to
bring out all-sided growth. Character is a
bundle of habits. A habit is a tendency to do
from repeated acts and each repetition is a
doing.

Steiner said, "A child will understand a subject better if he
first experiences it, rather than attempting to understand it

before having an experience with it."24 Dewey believed that

 

 

84

learning is effective only when truly assimilated and that growth
advances only by the reconstruction of experience.25 Zirbes wrote
that many concepts and attitudes are developed through sensory
experiences.26 Mearns agreed with the learning by doing theory.
He applied this theory to "good reading--good thinking which means
nothing unless it is done with the whole body."27 Parker believed
that in order for children to love beauty, they must try to create
it. They must "dramatize and act, sing, dance, cook, sew, model,
paint, and construct as well as read, write, and spell. This
leads their thinking to be vivid and true."28
The theory of learning by doing or learning through
experience was promoted by each of the five educators under study.
They did not suggest this is the one way to learn, but a better,
stronger, longer-lasting method. They believed new information
should be presented developmentally by building a relationship
between old and new experiences. Dewey suggested that subject
matter should be in
. . agreement with the child's changing

attitudes and abilities, and that it should be

linked with what was valuable in his past

experience to his present and his future. The

control gained by a child in one situation might

be carried on to the next to insure the

continuity of experience, the habit of

initiative, and the increasigg skill in the use

of the experimental method.

Children should be presented information in a developmental

manner; that is, whatever the current presentation, it should be

paving the way for the next. Dewey suggested pupils should have

 

 

 

 

 

85

"good beginning master tools of thought and methods of inquiry and
activity that will enable them to begin more specialized study
such as the systematic work in geography, chemistry, physics,
history, mathematics, and literature."30 Parker believed that
children are most interested in facts that are nearest their own
experience. So history could be taught through the lives of
people: how they lived; what their housing, food, and clothing
were like. In this way students could learn the reality of the
failures and successes of societies. Parker believed study of
ordinary people rather than the great and famous was more
important and more realistic. "It was the former that made the
latter possible."31

The five educators under study felt that the traditional
curriculum did not lend itself to learning through experience.
Zirbes realized that children need to learn flexibility and
adjustability but the "traditional school order and regimen force
children to be dependent and irresponsible."32 She believed that
history taught from a textbook has no relation to the real,
present world. And she complained that because students are given
no experience in their own creative drives, they develop no love
or appreciation of great art and literature which, in turn, drives
them to commercialized art and cheap literature.33

Parker felt that "teaching children to memorize page after

page of dry dates and empty generalizations is the best means of

inducing weakness and disgust in pupils."34 Dewey maintained

86

that a "child should never feel adult standards imposed. He
should develop his own standards out of habitual social behavior
which should be free from conscious competition or biased
criticism of others."35

In a traditional school room setting, Mearns found that there
is "thinking and group echoes."36 He noted that children learn
too early that a "sure way to become disliked is to express one's
real self."37

Steiner observed that children actually come to school eager
to learn and that it is a shame not to have them leave that way.38

Dewey and Parker worked out a moralistic attitude toward
thinking and learning. Through thinking and learning, children
should be concerned for and considerate of themselves as
individuals and themselves as members of a larger group. Dewey
determined that thinking is actually problem solving.
A child thinks he has a problem. The way he thinks is determined
by what he already knows, what he perceives as the problem, and
what goal he desires. According to Dewey the whole object of
living is growth. The child must go on facing and solving
problems. "Thinking ceases when all one's values become fixed and
there are no live, interesting, and new things to think about.
The learning process occurs within a context of concern and

challenge, and life takes on value as long as this continues as an

active process."39

 

 

87

Dewey believed only through hard and active individual
thinking and adjustments comes anything of educational
significance. The child must learn to face problems and
adjustments on his own. When facing a problem the child will
generally check an impulse allowing a period of reflection.

During reflection the new and immediate impulse should be examined
in connection with other impulses, habits, and experiences.
Dewey's morality is concerned with the child's reaction to the new
impulse. If balance is maintained and the child accepts and
reacts with his whole self, if he is unified rather than narrowed
or weakened, then his action and reaction are moral. Dewey used
the analogy of eating. "The man who eats to live is good for the
satisfaction of hunger is functional to the whole self and to
life. The man who lives to eat is bad because he is sacrificing
much of himself to one partial expression of himself."40

For Parker, true order was moral. The child must be given
freedom and learn individual responsibility for the good of the
group. Parker believed children are intrinsically moral and
"though they may come to school with homemade selfishness they
will soon learn that an altruistic motive is essential to self
interest."41

Parker believed that one way to achieve true order was
through the natural unification of subject matter. He opposed the

separation and isolation of subject matter because it frustrated

clear thinking. He believed the curriculum should be unified

88

"just as there is unity of action and expression in the child-~a
unity of mind, body, and soul."42

Parker and Dewey also felt that learning truly becomes alive
through expression. Dewey said that the "human aspect emerges
with the use of ideas in action and that ideas only occur with
language. Further, language is only possible where there is
social life with shared communication."43 He went on to discuss
the fact that children are born language less. "All distinctions
of things and qualities, together with the names we give them and
the uses to which we put them, must be worked out after we get
here. All that is human is learned."44

Parker made the analogy of knowledge expressed as knowledge
made nutritious. He saw no point to unexpressed knowledge
referring to it as stagnant, incomplete, and useless. His concern
was the amount of nutrition generated by children in schools. "It
is safe to say most children are starved in school for lack of
knowledge made nutritious by expression."45

Parker, Steiner, and Zirbes discussed the mental learning in
childhood in relation to the physical learning. Parker observed
that a child learns to walk and talk by simple practice without
any instruction. He noted that this process of learning was not
painful to the child or tiring to others; it was actually an
amusement to both.46 Steiner saw child development proceed in a

series of metamorphases: "The whole human being is completely

transformed with every step forward in his emergent

 

 

89
evolution."h7 Steiner believed that along with physical changes
at birth, the second dentition and puberty, psychic changes take
place that change the child's inner life. For example, during the
early primary grades the child is imitative and imaginative.
Between 10 and 11 years of age, the child's imaginative capacity
becomes abstract capacity. The child can form and understand
abstract concepts.

Steiner also observed a connection between finger-movement,
speech, and thinking. He suggested that possibly the nimble-
fingered child could articulate and think clearly and dexterously.
The clumsy-handed child might also be both clumsy-tongued and
-headed.48

Zirbes wrote,

All normal infants learn to turn, creep,

and walk. Nobody thinks of subjecting babies to

formal lessons in muscle flexing. She suggested

experience and assurance contribute to skill,

coordinating, and readiness. The more

challengipg the experience, the more mature the

response.
Zirbes did not discuss muscle coordination and a relation to
thinking skills, but she did believe that "vigorous, large muscle
activities are a prerequisite for later emphasis on finer
coordinations."50 The importance of learning through rather than
before experience pervaded the thinking of childhood, as defined
by these five educators. To them children were children, and that

state, not one of little adults, should be prized and utilized.

Their natural imaginations should be freed and

90

strengthened. This must, however, be done gradually, carefully,

and developmentally.

The Tpeatment of Childhood

Parker's treatment of childhood was toward the child, through
the senses, and with discipline. His theory of concentration was
that all effort center on the child.51 Subject matter becomes the

means by which the child learns to interpret the world. The

 

teacher's function is to help the child adjust to his environment.
Since children are social beings, they learn best by experience,

impressions, and expressions. They must learn to do their own

thinking in a flexible and changing environment.52

Parker envisioned the teacher as a scientist bringing all

other knowledge to bear on the central issue: the child. The
teacher must know each child perfectly in mind, body, and soul.53
This demanded the fullest measure of cooperation between the home
and the school.

Parker called for an

. emancipation of the child from the
domination of a superior, restraining will. The
freedom of the natural exercise of spontaneous
power meant for the teacher an opportunity to
study the growing mind of the child, to unite
and sympathize with the chigg's spirit, and to
dwell in the child's world.

Parker felt that the artistic and the physical elements were
an important part of the triune nature of the child.55 For

example, he believed that every child not only could but should

91

learn to draw. He believed there was power and love in thought
expressed through the hands. In 1889 he wrote, "There is no
training that will help a child be strong and healthy and good so
much as some useful employment in which he can spend his
energy."56 However, he was critical of the methods used to teach

art. In 1895 he called up the best authorities in educational

 

psychology to denounce

. . flat copying as flat, stale, and
unprofitable. It stultifies the mind. It is
far better for the child to have some motive for
work. He should feel what he does. When he
handles clay, a brush, or a pencil, he should be
struggling to realize apd to externalize an
image seen from within.

Parker wanted children to be happy but he never advocated
that they do what ever they liked, whenever they liked. He
promoted self control and maintained that without it there could
never been true freedom. He said children must learn to share but
that the system of rewarding for success and punishing for failure
was actually developing selfish people who were never satisfied
and used others for their own advancement.58 He wanted teachers
to create an atmosphere of altruism, freedom, and responsibility
but not by putting partisan ideas in their students. Above all
Parker wanted them to act and think for themselves. For example,
in Carrolltown where Parker taught in the 18503, when the children

saw a need for a library, they formed a committee and launched a

59
campaign.

92

Parker spent a number of years growing up on a farm after his
father died. Years later upon reflection, he realized that was a
good preparation for his career as a teacher, and that it was
especially conducive for elementary education. He realized that
on a farm a child is made responsible for something important and
he learns good work habits while surrounded by a simple
environment. He pointed out that study does not apply to book
learning only.

Parker must have taken that upbringing and influence with him
when he went to Carrolltown in 1859. His first assignment for his
pupils was to clear out the school grounds and to brighten up the
area. He wanted the children to learn cooperation and
responsibility and perhaps have fun while doing so. He taught
spelling and grammar as he was expected but he also worked to make
school the children's own town meeting.60

When Parker became superintendent in Quincy, Massachusetts,
he expected a great deal from the teachers. He asked them to
question their own teaching: What were they teaching? Why? Was
it working? Did they do enough for their students? Did they do
too much? Were they forcing their students to do things before
they were ready? Were they repressing students' need to express
themselves?

One of the problems Parker attacked was quantity versus
quality education. He named as the key to success in Quincy
"quality of intellection. Spontaneous activity through interest,

through apperception, apperception through natural correlation."61

93

Parker left no specific rules or directions for the treatment
of children. His desire was to have each individual, both student
and teacher, think and feel for himself and to realize himself and
his potentialities. Rather than quoting him, Parker would have
his followers face each new challenge and act on it using
judgments and intuition.

Dewey and Parker were in Chicago at the same time fighting
for similar changes in education, and there is much agreement in
their work. Dewey called the reform movement a revolution and
likened it to Copernicus' discovery and the shift of the center of
the universe from the earth to the sun. In School and Society and
Democracy and Edupation, he explained this change. The shift from
subject matter to the child involved four principles. The first
was the new focus of the attention of the teacher from subject
matter to the nature, needs, and growth of the child. The second
was the new definition of education as a process of experiencing.
Dewey concluded that if education is a process of experience, then
the schools must provide opportunities for children to learn by
doing, to learn by experience. In addition, the work of the
school ought to be judged by the growth of the child which can be
done by observing how well he meets new situations and the kinds
of new interests he develops. Dewey defined thinking as the
ability to draw on past experience, logic, and new information in
facing new problems, which he called forked road situations. He
wanted the schools to provide ways for students to learn how to

cope with challenging problems. The third principle is the

94

doctrine of interest and effort. Dewey believed that the best
learning occurs when the child identifies with that which is to be
learned. The curriculum must be internal to the learner. It
should not only be preparation for the future, but also for the
enjoyment of the moment. Finally, the fourth principle is that
the school is a social institution and as such part of the total
social process. Dewey's concern was to help children prepare for
their place in the industrial society. Beyond that, he called
education the agency for social reconstruction.62

Dewey believed that teachers and the curriculum are
responsible for determining the interests of the child and using
those natural interests to guide and promote the child's
education. He attacked subject matter organized to suit the logic
of adults. He said it should be allied to suit the logic of
children's natural interests. He argued that since children have
natural interests which motivate them, these should be utilized in
the schools. Teachers should study each child's history,
capacity, environment, tastes, and needs.

This is not to say that Dewey promoted pandering or
self-indulging. Using the child's natural interests as motivation
was to lead to a "systematic study of differentiated subject
matter."63 Dewey also realized that not all natural interests are
necessarily desirable. So he said that teachers should urge a
child in the direction of desirable interests. He believed that
in order for a child to move in the direction of what is

desirable, two conditions must hold: (a) the child must have

95

within his control some effective means of determining his
direction and (b) the child must have some notion of what is
desirable to guide his selection.64 It, therefore, is the
function of the school to "use the energies naturally arising from
the interests of the child to help him grow in desirable
directions."65

All of the educators in this study felt strongly about the
need to know well each individual student that they cite examples
of problems inherent in a system that does not know its children.
Parker described a partially blind and deaf boy who was made to
feel dull and stupid so "he covered himself, like a pachyderm,
with a skin of profound indifference."66 Dewey found girls who
were thought dull but were tested and discovered partially deaf.67
Steiner tutored a backward boy who could not read, write, or
concentrate. After two years of intense individualized effort,
the boy was able to attend school. Steiner tutored him through
secondary school, and, eventually, the boy went to medical school
and became a doctor. Mearns encountered a boy so insecure that he
purposely submitted a nonsense poem which the class took seriously
and loved. Mearns and the other students had to do a lot of
convincing before the child realized he had actually written a
good poem. Zirbes related a tale of a young first grader who knew
how to read but was not allowed to use a book in school because
she had not mastered the sounds and blends on the wall chart.

Since Dewey advocated the motivation of children based on

their individual interests, he was sometimes misunderstood in

96

terms of classroom discipline. He was not an advocate of the "let
them express themselves and give them complete and unrestrained
freedom of action and speech for only then they will grow"
philosophy.69

While he was an advocate of discipline, he was not in favor
of obtaining it through forcing a need for teacher approval or a
fear of failure. Dewey said it was not totally bad if a student
realizes that if he does not break the rules he will be considered
good and will be liked. The problem is when winning the teacher's
approval becomes a child's primary aim. Dewey also criticized
competition as a means of discipline. Since the children in a
class all do the same work, they are automatically pitted against
each other through comparison and rank. In these situations the
weak students lose the sense of their own abilities and the strong
students take pride not in their abilities but in the winning.70
For Dewey the best motivator and provider of automatic discipline
was through inquiry. Students should be stimulated to thoughtful
and carefully directed inquiry.

Finally, Dewey wanted all students to develop all of their
senses to the fullest. He suggested study begin with the use of
the hands, with involvement to gain experience. For example,
carefully planned courses of study can lead from cooking to the
study of chemistry; from sewing to history and geography; or from
carpentry to calculation. In Schools f0; Tghorrow, he wrote that
it is "as important for academically oriented college-bound

students to become acquainted with tools, materials, and

 

 

97

industrial realities as for students bound for labor in industry
to be exposed to science, history, and literature."71

Steiner's proposals for the treatment of childhood are
directed toward teachers and address the major issue: a
developmental curriculum for the whole child. The curriculum is
child centered (though Steiner does not use that phrase) and
attempts to develop the motoric, artistic, and academic skills
while fostering the uniqueness of each child.72

Steiner wanted to consider the whole child: spirit, soul,
and body. One of the best ways to engage the whole child is
through art which is both knowledge and play. Steiner felt that
facts are heightened and revealed by beauty. The major
requirement of his teachers was that they be artists and that
everything they do and present be in an artistic manner.73 The
teacher must "discover life and movement, color, magic, and warm
human interest in every phase of reality he offers his pupils. He
must be as sensitive as a musician to the tone of the class."74

As was mentioned earlier, Steiner believed that in general
children could be categorized by temperament. He suggested the
possibility that teachers might use the temperaments of the
children as a classroom strategy. For example, phlegmatic
children could be seated near the front of the room close to
teacher activity. Choleric children could be in the back of the
room where they might be the least disruptive to others.

Melancholics could be in the middle so that cross-room activities

can draw them out. The sanguine could sit along the wall; since

98

they seem to be the most normal, they may act as buffers where one
group touches another. The desired result of this sort of seating
chart would be a mirror effect. Hopefully, sitting with children
of the same temperament will allow them to see themselves and
perhaps begin to develop other sides of their nature. Also,
hot-tempered cholerics can fight among themselves with people who
fight back rather than hitting melancholics who will whine rather
than returning the blow.

Steiner also suggested observing the temperaments for group
discussions. It is safer to begin with a sanguine who will be
eager, interested, and aware of what's going on. Cholerics are
better behaved when they are active so one should be called
forward for demonstrating or solving a problem. By this time the.
melancholics will have been thinking about what is going on and
may be cajoled gently into making a comment or answering a
question. The phlegmatics sometimes need more than front row
seats to bring them from dream land. Sometimes dropping a book
awakens them. At other times the teacher should pretend dull
indifference toward them and the surprise and uncertainty may
catch their attention.

The worst reaction to a choleric outburst is any rage on the
part of the teacher. The angry child feeds on anger. It is
better to wait for a long, substantial, peaceful discussion.
Mearns had the same sensitivity toward the individual child's
feelings. He suggested a sure method for a confidential talk

between the teacher and student begin with both looking out the

99

window and banging their feet on the floor.75 Cholerics also
enjoy reading stories about strong, brave heroes while
melancholics would rather read about people who have many problems
but who face them with strength and character.

Steiner warned parents and teachers that they have
temperament characteristics and that these can have a detrimental
effect on children. For example, a choleric teacher can frighten,
a phlegmatic teacher can bore, a melancholic teacher can
suffocate, and the sanguine teacher can exhaust his students.7
Steiner tempered these as merely possibilities and certainly not
standard methods to be employed in any classroom. He believed it
more important that teachers come to know their students well.

The teacher has the responsibility to teach children in such
a way that they will like learning. "Waldorf children do not do
what they like, but they are so taught that they enjoy what they

do."77

Steiner wrote in A Modern Art of Education, "It simply
will not do to educate pupils in such a way that when they leave
school to enter life, they can only criticize the senselessness of
all they find there."78 Instead, the aim of Waldorf education is
to fit the student for life, to teach him how to know himself and
to have the confidence and the inspiration to pursue the quest for
knowledge, which is the only real business of man.79

Adults have a great responsibility in their relationships
with children. "Parents and teachers know very well that if they

shy away from debate, they are sunk, they forfeit respect.n80

100

Many adolescents have an uncanny nose for hypocrisy: one rule for

teenagers, one rule for adults. They have a great capacity to
respect integrity. They have a deep interest in entering into the
point of view of others and comparing it with their own.
Consequently, they are disappointed when adults won't allow it.
Steiner believed that a
. child who does not imitate thoroughly.

in his first seven years will not be able to

develop an adequate capacity for freedom as an

adult. The child who does not experience real

authority in his second seven years will not

develop an adequate capacity for equality as an

adult. And the child who does not experience

people in whom ideas live in ideals in

adolescence will not develop an adquite

capacity for fraternity as an adult.

Finally, Steiner advocated a developmental curriculum. He
was bothered by the apparent rush to age young people. He said a
child is not a small man or woman and should not be treated as
such: ". . . reasoned with, preached to, filled with intellectual
knowledge by adults and expected to grow up in the image of his
parents and teachers."82 Possibly this is because most adults
don't know any other way. They have forgotten what childhood is.
Harwood wrote in his The Way of a Chde; Ah Ihtroduction to the
Wopk of Epdolf Steinep that the "reason why we are in such a hurry
today to make children little intellectuals is perhaps that we
hardly conceive of any other form of consciousness."83
Instead, studies should develop with and support normal

growth. As the child changes, the curriculum should change. For

example, studies should begin with pictures and stories to

coincide with the child's imaginative, initiative period. It is

101

incorrect and uncomfortable to introduce abstract concepts
prematurely. This can turn the child cold and critical. He
becomes an old man before his time.84

Mearns' major concern in the area of childhood treatment was
the free and creative spirit of expression. In many ways he gave
more credit to children than to adults. In his book Creative

Youth, Mearns wrote "age has constantly belittled youth."85 He

 

observed that children have an intense, savage desire to tell the
truth. When they try, however, first adults laugh as if what the
children are saying is strange and comic; then, they reason
firmly. When that fails, they order the truth stopped.86 For
example, some mothers prefer their children socially proper rather
than truthful. He also observed parents overwhelming their
children with questions. "Where have you been, dearie? What did
you do, dearie? What did you have to eat, dearie? Such questions
make children rave. It is love like that that would make liars of
us all."87

Mearns wanted greater freedom of expression for children. He
believed that was essential for learning and growth. He
criticized adults for depriving children of valuable experiences
in self-expression. This deprivation stems from criticism.
Because most people fear judgment, especially artists and
children, an unwarranted or painful criticism can cause regression
or, at the least, slow growth. Of course, ultimately the child
must be shown the difference between his good and bad products,

but this comes after trust has been built between the writer and

102

his critic. The child can lose complete faith in his own ability
from‘disapproval.88

In Essative Epwer Mearns wrote of a student's paper: "It was
the clipped, colloquial idiom of youth; hot, prejudiced,
rebellious, ungrammatical, and impolite--it was beautifully fit to
convey genuine feeling." He mourned the fact that many teachers
would not have approved.89 Mearns did not advocate poor writing.
He encouraged more writing. In order to build a child's trust in
his own abilities, he had to have time in a totally permissive
atmosphere.90

Mearns did not suggest total chaos or a relaxation of all
rules for behavior or writing. But he believed that
self-confidence must be developed before force and criticism are
employed. Children used to give unquestioned obedience, Mearns
wrote in Barents Magazine, but no more. Still, deep down, they
are willing to do the decent thing and this must be cultivated.
Children welcome leadership and recognize an understanding and
non-tyranous leader. When it is necessary, adults must impose
their will. Weakness is actually harmful and insubordination is
often a symptom of a cause far remote from observable behavior.911
In an article entitled ”Educating the Whole Child," Mearns
commented that he knew that children were "wasteful, liars,
faithless, jealous, hateful, selfish, and silly,” but those
characteristics should be dealt with by cultivating

resourcefulness, independence, and self-control.92

103

Mearns believed parents and teachers need to know their
children very well. They need to understand the complexities of
how children grow. They also need to observe their children
closely when they are off guard at picnics, games, visits to
public places, and parties.

Like Parker, Dewey, and Steiner, Mearns believed that it is
important to expose children to multiple activities. He suggested
parents should want their children in the scouts as much as having
them receive good grades in school.

Mearns believed that free expression professionally guided
leads to physical and mental health growth and to receptivity to
learning. Serious consideration of creative ability brings the
child practical knowledge of the workings of his own mind.93 But
the creative spirit rarely develops because children are imitative
and are not given enough encouragement. As soon as a child begins
to speak, he attempts a language of literature. Of course, it is
his literature and it is unique. But adults constantly striving
for conventional literature either suppress or laugh at the
child.94

In QpesplyQTTgpph, the story of Mearns' experiments in
creativity at the Lincoln School, Teachers' College, Columbia
University, Mearns offered three principles of creative writing.
Poetic expression is a primal instinct. Once poetic insight is

obtained it is never lost. No matter how bad the writing is,

invite more. He ended his story with, "Poets have always been

104

free spirits; creative youth, therefore, never, never, never shall
be slaves--even to time."95

In class Mearns never demanded writing but he always got it
from every student--eventually. He said it was not enough to
discern a gift in a student but it was necessary to entice it out
over and over. The most timid child has something he has written,
and when the atmosphere is right he'll share it. Sometimes it is
a fellow student who discovers a poet.

Mearns did have all of his students writing poetry, and much
of it was published either in classroom publications or in
Creative Youth. He wasn't necessarily encouraging his students to
become poets or writers of other genres. He wanted them to think
of creativity and the arts as covering all aspects of life.

Zirbes was concerned also with all aspects of life in all
levels of childhood. Her treatment of childhood is divided into
three areas: early childhood, the developmental levels of
childhood, and the socialization of childhood. Zirbes was very
concerned about early childhood--the first six years. She felt
that while there was a tremendous amount of work to be done in the
schools, the neglect of early childhood was as serious a problem
because problems in early childhood cause social disorders later.

In "The Challenge of Children's Needs," she wrote that
psycho-biological research has shown there is profound
significance in the nature of early infancy. The proper guidance
can reduce anxiety, foster self-respect, develop self-direction,

improve social competence, and encourage fine inter-personal

105

relations.96 She believed that those responsible for later
guidance need more insight into the needs and problems of infancy
and early development. For example, warm human nature and
acceptance are prime essentials to basic security. An insecure
child withdraws when challenged. A regressive child shrinks or
cries when he meets a stranger. He lets others do what he should
do for himself. This behavior is caused by early forcing,
illness, fatigue, sense deprivation, excess babying, or
inconsistent guidance. She suggested this regressive behavior
could be overcome by providing the child with continuing of social
experiences designed to expand the child's outlook and deepen his
insights.97

Zirbes felt that everyone needs to achieve an increasing
measure of responsibility and self direction from dependent
infancy to childhood on to adolescence and through adulthood.
Learning must be meaningful, cumulative, flexible, and carry over
from one stage to another and from one situation to another.
Children should learn to be adaptable and flexible and not habit-
bound.

Zirbes worked against dependent and habitual behavior.
Knowledge by itself has no validity unless it is used. Students
must learn to use what they learn and to act for themselves. In
order for this to occur, teachers have to plan a gradual and
developmental withdrawal from their students. Teachers should
always play a guiding role but not an over-protective hovering

one. The problem that develops in an over-structured, rule-heavy

 

 

106

situation is that children actually become dependent on the rules.
They trust them too much and that is, according to Zirbes,
dangerous to feel safe simply because they are following the
rules.

In order to enhance independence and self-direction, teachers
need to learn as much as possible about the potentialities of each
child and then help him move toward his highest level of
achievement. And that is certainly the advocacy of the other
educators in this study: know each individual child as well as
possible and develop the course of study so that each child can
move toward his highest level of achievement. All of the
educators in this study recommended small classes as a practical
method of such developmental movement. Zirbes suggested the
teacher attempt to determine activities that would be interesting
and vital for all of the students, and then spend part of the time
studying them.98 Parker asked the teacher to become a scientist
and while observing take notes for later reference and comparison.
Mearns spent as much time as possible with students both in and
out of school. When he was observing he never spoke. Soon the
children overlooked his presence and behaved naturally. When
Steiner tutored the young boy who was unable even to attend school
he initially devoted much time to learn as much as possible about
the child: body, mind, and spirit.

Zirbes believed that the road to social maturity was paved
with experiences that challenge the social potentialities of the

child. These experiences must meet the needs of each level. If a

 

107

child misses the opportunity for self-help development and is
later challenged or new social relationships are initiated, he
will resort to regressive behavior. Proper social development
requires wise guidance within the essential social context
provided by the home, the school, the neighborhood and
community.99

Finally, in Zirbes' treatment of childhood, she dealt with
socialization. Zirbes published seven social findings she felt
influenced curriculum: (a) prejudices are learned and can be
unlearned; (b) rejection and lack of social acceptance are
conducive to anti-social behavior; (c) the emphasis on competitive
motivation favors the ablest student while adding to the failure
and frustration of the less able; (d) dynamic urges find
independent outlets when denied; (e) shy, withdrawn, insecure,
inhibited, non-expressive children generally develop more serious
cases of personality maladjustment; (f) the emotional immaturity
of many adults complicates the lives of their dependents and
associates; and (f) an unrelieved sense of failure, guilt, and
insignificance undermines mental health.100 Zirbes' connection
was that a developmental curriculum that knows each child and is
adjusted to meet his needs can prevent these findings. She saw
why these developments occurred and she fought for change and
forward adjustment to correct them. For example, she saw children

coloring and filling in, and she was reminded of the "twig

bending” and "mind molding" processes of stereotyping

 

108

personalities and shunting creative potentialities by training
which exacts conformity.101

Education should not be training; it should teach individual
choice, flexibility, and adjustment. Children are too frequently
controlled by habit because it is easier. Instead, children need
warm human nature, social acceptance, self-respect, and
self-confidence.

Zirbes published a number of admonitions in the Journal of
Childhood Education. She wrote that it was not enough to fix
blame, pass moral judgment, administer punishment, and restore or
maintain peace. Parents and teachers must go further and
understand everything possible about each child. For example,
Carl was late for school one day and was made to go before the
attendance officer. This badly shamed Carl. Now his mother
doesn't understand why he is ready for school so early and why he
speaks about bad dreams.102

Zirbes suggested that teachers become the understanding
guides who involve students in experiences that will widen their
outlook, enrich meanings, channel energies, and develop their
potential. They should establish conditions that favor the
personal well-being and social welfare of the students. Teachers
must deal constructively with prejudice, egotism, maladjustment,
and anti-social aggression.103 They ought to challenge students
to try new ideas rather than accept others. Students can be lead

to consider alternatives, to move freely instead of being habit

bound, engage in exploration, select creative actions, and

109

integrate their ideas into a form of communication. All of this
should be done through intrinsic motivation.104

Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes all felt that
children should be happy and they should be loved. They should be
treated humanely and with sympathy. They should be treated as
what they are: children with the present and the future in mind.
They should be encouraged to communicate who, what, and where they

are so that the teacher can understand the foundation in order to

build upon it.

Childhood Capabilities

Mearns was able to observe children not only through their
daily activities but also through the private, intimate means of
personal, reflective, creative writing. As was mentioned
previously, Mearns never forced his students to write and yet,
given time, they all always did. Over time, Mearns developed
certain positive ideas and attitudes toward the capabilities of
children. These can be divided into three categories: general
reactions to the capabilities of children, the creative
capabilities, and the expressive capabilities of children. In
general, Mearns had faith in children and in their ability to
care, to learn, and to create. He wrote that he had "faith in the
native desire of childhood to learn."105 By the same token he

cautioned that children can lose faith in their own ability from

disapproving social pressure.

110

Mearns believed that children are inherently tolerant and
appreciative of themselves and others regardless of differences.
Zirbes maintained that prejudice is learned and can be unlearned.
But again Mearns cautioned that "unless nurtured and exercised,
the good in us dies early."106 Mearns took a close look at
successful children and observed four key approaches to that
success: (a) it was something they enjoyed, (b) it was something
easily done, (c) in the beginning it was something everyone else
thought was silly, or (d) no one recognized it was something worth
being done.107 Adults can learn, he suggested, from children. By
four or five, children know how to think, learn, appreciate,
construct; be decent, resourceful, and persistent. Adults are
guilt of stepping in too soon because, according to adult
standards, children look awkward, ugly, or rough.

On the creative capabilities of children, Mearns admitted
that few children are geniuses but all children possess certain
gifts that with the proper guidance and circumstances become their
own special talents. Mearns believed that each chid did have
something special within him and that it was the responsibility of
adults to allow it or help it come out and develop. He wrote, "In
a conversation with a remedial student I felt the pulse of
something living within him that will not be denied."108 Mearns
warned that this ability must be evoked and developed before it is
too late. A child artist is actually any child who produces

something out of his own life, experiences, and interests. Mearns

found that the child artists also excelled in other areas of the

111

three R3 and also in leadership, initiative, and resourcefulness.
In spite of this and especially in the initial stages, parents and
teachers would do well to remember that most children are fearful
of showing a uniqueness or special endowment.

Mearns believed that expression in all forms is an important
instrument of personality growth. Among the various modes,
writing is very personal and very powerful. In Creative Power
Mearns wrote that "children's art at its best is always a
confession. It admits one to the privacy of the child's world, to
his personal thinking and feeling. A child's hunger for
expression is always a revelation of deep and urgent needs."109
It is for this reason that teachers must be gentle.

Students can learn the creative spirit. They may not ever be
poets but they can possess the spirit of poetry. Children seem to
have an instinct for the right word, for compact expression, for
deft placing of words and phrases in emphatic positions. They
appear to have a feeling for an irregular rhythmic pulsation of
ancient speech.110

As has been previously reported, Mearns knew a young boy in a
writing class at the Lincoln School who purposefully submitted a
bad poem for peer review. The other students liked it very much.
But they were all tricked to believe his nonsense poem was good.
He had submitted a dumb poem and they had liked it, so he had a
private laugh. Eventually the boy admitted what he had done. The

students were angry at him but they did not change their review of

his poem. And he would not or could not admit it could be

112

anything but nonsense because that is what he had intended and
that is all the time and effort he had allowed. Mearns was
invited to the class and explained that sometimes the best
creative effort comes when the writer does not try too hard or in
what is thought of as a creative way. Also, he explained that
many people do not recognize their own good work. Mearns told
this story in an article entitled "The Demons of Inhibition."111

Mearns also knew that those demons can be sent away by
developing the right climate for encouragement and caring. He
never ceased to be surprised and pleased by the number of students
who wrote privately or how they read their poetry aloud without
fear of criticism or by how much they seemed to learn about
themselves.

As Mearns worked toward the dismissal of demons, Zirbes' main
focus was on values. In the situations of growth through choice,
Zirbes suggested that a decision made between two alternatives
based on weighing values leads to more complicated value judgments
which should lead to more mature concerns for human rights and

democratic obligations.112

In her Guidelines to Deveidpnenssi Teaching published through
the Teaching Aids Laboratory at The Ohio State University, Zirbes
offered a list of values- oriented goals for children. Children
should learn to (a) make considered choices, (b) arrive at
intelligent decisions, (c) formulate testable inferences, (d) use
values as criteria in planning, (e) use values as a basis of

evaluation, (f) put assumptions to a test of action, (g) engage in

113

non-argumentative discussions with a view to coming to some common
ground, (h) outgrow prejudices, (i) arrive at responsible
commitments voluntarily, (j) pursue worthy aspirations, (k) find a
sound basis for trust, (1) become increasingly responsive to
intrinsic motives, (m) weigh relative values, (n) appraise their
own efforts fairly, (o) be fair in judgments of others, (p)
outgrow childish preconceptions, and (q) achieve social
maturity.113

Self-realization is a developmental process. The child uses
his experiences and vicarious experiences to grow and to mature.
For example, children have an amazing ability to play games with
almost anything--tin cans, stones, sticks, etc. They invent roles
complete with gestures, actions, and dialogue for the imaginary
situation. They learn about themselves through their imagination
and creativity. But children who never have the opportunity for
free, stimulating play lack the zest and balance necessary to
desire to achieve, mature, and grow. Rather than attempting

value-oriented choices intrinsically, they will require extrinsic

motivation which could, in turn, perpetuate the problem. In her

book Epups so Qpeative Tssshing, Zirbes noted, ”One lives up to
114

one's own self image."

Steiner was more concerned with what the child should and
should not do given his capabilities. In his early work, Goethe's
anceppisn pi the deid, Steiner wrote, "In the sphere of
knowledge there are two streams today: the decadent stream which

everyone admires, and other stream which contains the most fertile

114
seeds for the future and which everyone avoids."115 Steiner
wished to help lead people toward the fertile seeds of the future.
One way was to study the development of the child most carefully
so that his capabilities at each level are taken into account.
For example, when a child begins school he is not capable of
abstract thought. He cannot separate himself enough from the
world in order to do so. In Steiner's schools children begin with
pictures and stories told and read to them. The child becomes a
part of the picture and the story, hence, his imaginative stage.
The child can be taught to read and write but in doing so he would
be asked to use forces that are not ready to be used.

Because the child is also in an imitative stage, he can,
however, learn to speak--not read-~a foreign language. Children
can learn very well what they are capable of learning--when they
are ready for that learning. Steiner predicted problems for
children who were forced to learn before the proper time--both
mental and physical problems.

Finally, Steiner observed that children work harder at
discovery and play than any adult works on any project. He
determined that child's play comes from spontaneous, inner
impulses, while adult's work comes from the needs of society. The
difference in motivation, then, may account for the different
levels of dedication.

Parker and Dewey discussed the capability of childhood in
three major areas: growth, values (like Zirbes), and the need for

a recognition of the developmental stages (as Steiner did). They

 

115

didn't describe the creativity and expressiveness of children as
intimately as Mearns though their concerns are clearly as strong
and as caring as all those previously reported.

Parker raised the developmental issue with a question: "What
must be done to work out this child with life and soul? When is
the mind ready?" He warned that failure would surely result if
things are done at the wrong time. Parker believed that asking
for the best always pointed toward better and that no effort
should be wasted. He said the saddest thing in education is lost
opportunity.116

Parker also felt that developmentally the reaction of the
child toward his environment is very important. The child grows
when he discovers that he can control his environment with his own
hands and mind, and that at the same time he is dependent upon
nature. The child continues to grow as he continues to develop
this interdependence.

In 1885, in an article entitled "Application of Child Study
in the School,” Parker wrote that energy diffused very slowly from
the brain and the spinal cord through the torso and the limbs to
the extremities. This could be observed by the broad, curved
movements of a child while walking, running, or moving his arms
and hands. He suggested that deformity in a child's body could be
induced by either early forcing or the manner in which a pen or
pencil is held in writing or drawing. He believed there was much

to be learned about the relation between a child's mind and his

body, especially in the areas of fatigue, interest, and attention.

 

116

This could cause the teacher to balance work with play or physical
exercise.117

Dewey was especially concerned with the driving force of the
interests of children. He believed that interests come from
needs, needs which are organic, social, and intellectual.
Interests and needs are natural, in the sense that every
individual experiences them. In order to control them, the child
has to learn gradually how to reorganize his environment, how to
choose between desirable and undesirable interests, and how to
respond to the pressure of his interests. But Dewey believed the
child cannot be responsible for the interests themselves.118 This
is a developmental responsibility. For example, as a child grows,
he may have a new interest that requires skills beyond those he
has already acquired. In order to satisfy the new interest, he
needs to acquire a new skill--one which may have bored him before.
Dewey felt that though the child's experience is partial and
fragmentary, it is not different from the human race which through
development culminated in creating fields of knowledge and
disciplined tools of thought.119 In general, Parker, Dewey,
Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes would concur that children are
probably capable of more than they are asked and require less
rigidity, rote learning, and imposed structure. Yet as has been
mentioned and will be repeated, their students were not

necessarily let do as they wished; rather, they were led to enjoy

what they did. These five educators were concerned about the

 

117

detrimental effects of some more traditional schools regarding the

stages of growth and values in each child.

The Eole of Education and Society in Childhood

Parker was a proponent of employing education as a means
toward democracy, human growth, and the continual betterment of
the community. Dewey believed that school is life, not a
preparation for life. Further, school should concern itself with
community welfare and democracy. Steiner wanted the schools and
society to prepare children to live now and in the future. The
parents of his first Waldorf students wanted a better life for
their children--one less culturally deprived. Mearns' major focus
was on the protection of childhood. Zirbes asked the schools and
society to promote literacy and decision making.

Parker was a believer in both the importance of each citizen
and in democracy not only as a system of government, but also as a
way of life. He felt democracy had not been fully realized at
that time, so he wanted the schools to be an environment where
children and youth grow up naturally in the ways of democracy. In
order to prepare for a democratic way of life, Dewey wanted
children educated for leadership and obedience, with skills of
administration and self direction, along with the capacity to
assume responsibility and obligations in industrial, business, and
practical life. In fact, Dewey warned that democracy would be a
farce unless individuals are trained to think for themselves, to
judge independently, to be critical, to be able to detect subtle

propaganda and the motives that inspire it.120

 

118

Both Parker and Dewey believed that one role of the school
and society is the strengthening of morals. Morality led to
concern of the community. Parker said that the way to educate
human beings is to set them to work for others. He said morality
is thinking and seeking what can be done for others and that
ethics is putting it into place. The child is not in school for a
certain quantity of knowledge but to learn how to live and how to
put his life into his community.121

Dewey said the chief moral habit is interest in the community
and that in order to be personally fulfilled, the individual must
be a participating member of the community, not an isolated
individual. In order to do that, he would agree that the schools
must help prepare the individual. But Dewey felt, as did Steiner,
that schools should be a preparation for the present and not
solely for the future. Dewey said that school is life not a
preparation for it. Steiner asked what children are living while
they are being prepared for life.

The answer led Mearns to argue for the preservation of
childhood. Steiner wanted education to prepare children to
experience each level of development. Mearns warned specifically
against both education and society rushing children into little
adulthood. He wrote that without the love of childhood "the world
would lose one of the great forces that keeps it from destruction
by utter selfishness."122

Zirbes agreed with Parker and Dewey that education is a

vehicle through which democratic concerns can reach every child or

 

119

prospective citizen. Further, education must, at the least, make
literacy accessible to every child, but go beyond that making
every child hungry for more knowledge. Zirbes called for greater
cooperation between adults and children, between teachers and
students. The basic democratic principle is that people who are
to be influenced by a decision should be consulted in making that
decision. Therefore, schools and society should prepare children

to be capable of taking part in that process.

Bostscript

Childhood is a unique, developmental, imitative, imaginative,
energetic, enthusiastic period of human deve10pment not to be
confused with any of the stages of adulthood. The educators here
studied dealt more with what children could do rather than what
they should do. They concentrated on how children can learn, how
children should be treated in order to maximize learning, and if
so treated of what children are capable. They did give general
warnings about possible deterrents to learning and capabilities
given incorrect treatment of children.

A consensus seemed to appear that the best treatment which
allowed the highest capabilities and offered the most substantial
learning was an in-depth knowledge of the individual child
followed by suitable arrangements and adjustments. This was never
intended to mean (or to be interpreted as) total freedom, total
permissiveness, total chaos, or lack of substantive learning.

Waldorf children, for example, do not do what they like; they

 

120

learn to like what they do. Mearns and Zirbes always involved
students in curriculum planning; Parker made his schools miniature
town meetings, but they (the teachers) were always at the helm,
offering responsibility to the children but maintaining the
necessary control and direction.

Parker and Dewey were the champions of children, but their
demands were never lowered. They always demanded and wanted the
best for their students and for all students. Wanting the best
meant that the children grew, developed, and learned as much as
possible. The children also learned that they must continue to
1earn--that the whole point to living was learning, developing,
growing.

All five of these educators, as teachers, administrators, and
teacher educators, demanded as much as could be extracted from
teachers. Since they worked hard and the teachers worked hard,
they believed the children then accrued a debt, not necessarily to
their teachers, but to society. Education's role was to better
its students. Students who gained knowledge, understanding, and
values could return something to society.

The transfer then might or should be an improvement in
society. As Dewey said, democracy would be a farce if its members
could not think independently, judge critically, and differentiate
subtle propaganda techniques. Hitler closed Steiner's Waldorf
Schools in Germany. He said that German children are not to be
taught to think independently; they are to be taught to work for
the state. But these educators did not want some children to

think; they wanted all children to participate.

 

121

Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes revered children
and childhood spiritually and pragmatically. They wanted children
to learn the most they could in the easiest way and in the most

comfortable surroundings.

 

122

Notes

1Harold Rugg and Ann Schumaker, The Child-Centered School
(New York: World Book Company, 1928), 204.

2Laura Zirbes, Guide nes to Developmental Teaching
(Columbus: The Teaching Aids Laboratory of The Ohio State
University, 1959), 41.

3Francis W. Parker, ”The Child," Journal of the Proceedings
and Addresses gt the National Education Association (1897):480.

4Hughes Mearns, Cteative Power (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
and Company, Inc., 1930), 251.

5Mearns, CreativgiPower, 234.

 

6Current Biography (New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1940),
570.

7E.E. White, "Remarks on W.S. Jackman," Journal of the
Proceed n s and ddresses of the ationa Education Association
(1902):405.

8Earl J. Ogletree, "The Waldorf Schools: An Artistic

Approach to Education," Journal 9f Suggestive-Accelerative
Learning and Ieathing, 5:2:(Summer, l980):2.

9Edwin E. Slosson, ”John Dewey: Teacher of Teachers," Ihg
Independent 89 (March 29, 1917):542.

10K.C. Mayhew and A.C. Edwards, The Dewey School (New York:
Appleton-Century Company, 1936), 40.

11Earl J. Ogletree, Waldor cho 15' A Child-Centered S stem
(Document, 1975, ED 178 188).

12Marjorie Spock, Ieathing as a Lively Art (Hudson, NY:
Anthroposophic Press, 1985, 1980), 24.
13Spock, 59.

14Mearns, Qteative nggz, 47.

15Hughes Mearns, "Promoting Self-Expression," Wotlg's Work,
S8:(1929):62.
16
Parker, "The Child,” 481.

17Parker, "The Child," 482.

 

123

18James J. Jordan, "Interest, Choice, and Desirability," The

School gevlew (Summer, l959):l74.

19Stewart C. Easton, Rudolf Steiner; Herald of a New Epoch
(Spring Valley, NY: the Anthroposophic Press, 1980), 26.

20Arthur G. Wirth, John Dewey as Educator (New York: John

Wiley and Sons, 1966), 105.

21Spock, 8-12.

22Spock, 116-119.

23Francis W. Parker, "Discussion of the 'Meaning of the Maxim

We Learn by Doing,'" Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of
the National Education Association (1887):381.

24Ogletree, "Waldorf Schools."

ZSRUgg o 149 .

26Laura Zirbes, Focus on Values in Elementary Education (New

York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1960), 96.

27Hughes Mearns, Creative Youth (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
and Company, 1925), 88.

28Flora J. Cooke, "Colonel Francis W. Parker and His
Influence upon Education," Progressive Education 14(1937):582.

29Mayhew, 20.

3oWirth, 109.

31Lelia Patridge, Ihe Quincy Method (New York: E.L. Kellogg,

1889), 146.

32Laura Zirbes, "The Emotional Climate of Schools,"

Educatlohal Methods l4(l935):l73.

33Zirbes, "Emotional Climate,” 173.

34Patridge, 146.
35Mayhew, 20.

36Hughes Mearns, "What Do You Think?" Scholastic Magazine
(April 17, l937):5.

 

124

7Mearns, Creative Power, 47.

38Spock, 17.

39Lawrence W. Kimpton, "Dewey and Progressive Education," The

School ggview (Summer, 1959):126.

40Wirth, 245.

41Thomas Wakefield Goodspeed, A History of the University of
Chicago (Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1916), 131.

42Goodspeed, 131.

43Wirth, 243.

44Ernest C. Moore, "John Dewey's Contribution to Educational

Theory," School and Society 31(January 11, l930):42.

45Francis W. Parker, "Art in Everything," The Journal of the

Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association
(l900):512.

46Charles F. Adams, Jr., "The New Departure in the Common
Schools of Quincy and Other Papers on Educational Topics" (Boston,

1879), reported in The Elementary School Joutnal 35(March
l935):501.

47Spock, 86.
48Spock, 34.
49

Laura Zirbes, "Why Guidance," Shildhood Education
25(1949):200.

50Laura Zirbes, "The Emotional Implications f School
Practices and Tasks," The Educational Record 16(1935):177.

51Marion Foster Washburne et al., Francis Wayland Parker:

His Life ahd Educatighal Refgrm Wotk (New York: E.L. Kellogg,
1900), 130.

2Jesse H. Newlon, ”Democracy and Education in Our Time,"

Progressive Egugation 14(1937):7.
53Francis W. Parker, "Work of the Illinois Society for Child

Study," Journal of thg Etoceedings and Addresses of the National
Educatigh Assgtiation (l896):845.

 

125

54Jack Campbell, The Childten's Crusader (New York:
Teachers' College Press, 1967), 41.

55"The Silver Anniversary of the Quincy Movement," The School
Journal (March 24, 1900):6.

56Francis W. Parker, "The Child," The Journal of the

Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association
(1889):482.

57Francis W. Parker, "A Discussion of John Clarke's 'The
Place of Art in General Education,'" Ihe Journal of the
Proceed n s d ddresses e a onal ucation Association

(1895):850.

58F.C. Fox, "A Personal Glimpse of Colonel Parker,"
Progressive Education IX(January l932):381-382.

59

Wakefield, 16.
60Wakefield, 13.
61Campbell, 1.

62Jesse H. Newlon, ”John Dewey's Influence in the Schools,"

Teachets Cnllege Record 31(December l929):224-227.

63Arthur G. Wirth, John Deweyhgs Educator (New York: John
Wiley and Sons), 116.

64Jordan, 179.
65Ibid.

66Francis W. Parker, "Application of Child Study in the

School," of the ro dd esses 0 National
Education Agsgtiation (1885):426.
67

Wirth, 195.

68A.D. Shepherd, A Sgigntist nfi the Invisible (1954,
Edinburgh; Floris Books, 1983), 30.

69Lawrence A. Kimpton, ”Dewey and Progressive Education," The

Sthgol ggvigw (Summer, 1959):127.

7oKimpton, 127.

71John and Evelyn Dewey, Sthnglg 9f Iomottgw (New York: E.P.
Dutton, 1915), 181.

 

126

72Ogletree, 81.

73Spock, 41.

74Spock, 59.

75Hughes Mearns, Creative power (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
and Company, 1930), 25.

76Spock, 116-124.

 

77Ogletree, 14.

78Spock, 131.

79Howard, 343.

80John Davy (Ed.), Work Arising (London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1975), 353.

81Rudolf Steiner, A Modern Art of Education (London: Rudolf
Steiner Press, 1972), 125.

82Easton, 259.

83A. Cecil Harwood, The Wgy of a Child: An Introduction to

the Work of Rudolf Steiner for Children (London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1967), 144.

84Spock, 87.

85Hughes Mearns, Creative Youth (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
and Company, 1925), 117.

86Hughes Mearns, "Creative Education," The Parents' Magazine
(January l931):11.

87Hughes Mearns, ”Love That Fails," The Enrents' Magazine
(November l934):78.

8Mearns, ”Creative Education," 42.

89Mearns, Steative Powet, 20.

90Hughes Mearns, "Trust in Their Own Ability," Childhood
Education 28(1951):154.

91Hughes Mearns, "Education Isn't What It Used to Be," The

Parents' nagnzing (September 1936):42.

 

127

92Hughes Mearns, "Educating the Whole Child," The North
American Review 230(1930):701.

93Hughes Mearns, "The Demon of Inhibition," Clearinghouse
4(1930):349.

94Mearns, Steative Power, 71.

951b1d., 117.

96Laura Zirbes, "The Challenge of Children's Needs,"

Childhood Education 25(1949):417.

97Laura Zirbes, "Toward Social Maturity," Childhood Education
24(1947):108.

98Herbert L. Coon, A Handbook for University School Parents
(Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University, 1954),
12.

99Zirbes, "Toward Social Maturity," 107.

100Laura Zirbes, "Gaps in Curriculum Research," Education
Leadership 7(1949):189.

101Laura Zirbes, "Experimenting, Interacting, Growing,"

Childhood Edutation 44(1967):24.

102Laura Zirbes, "Children Need Understanding," ChilthQQ
Education 25(1949):338.

103Laura Zirbes, ”Why Guidance," thlgh22Q_§Q2£é£122
25(1949):201.

104Laura Zirbes, "Creative Teaching for Creative Thinking and

Living," Edutation Leadership l4(1947):20.

105Hughes Mearns, "Salvation by Information," Ihg North
Ametitan Rgview 229(1939):66.

106Hughes Mearns, "Trust in Their Own Ability," thldhood
Sgntation 28(1951):156.

107Mearns, Stentive Epwet, 180.
Mearns, gtgntivg Eowgt, 121.
Mearns, thative Ppwgt, 88, 127.

108
109

110Mearns, "Creative Education," 43.

 

128
111
Mearns, "Demon of Inhibition," 347-348.
112Zirbes, "Why Guidance," 198.
113

Laura Zirbes, Gnidelines to Developmental Teaching
(Columbus: The Teaching Aids Laboratory, The Ohio State
University, 1959), 42.

111‘Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Creative Teaching (New York: G.P.
Putnam & Sons, 1959), 92.

115Easton, 48.

116Flora J. Cooke, ”The Social Philosophy of Francis W.
Parker," ro ressive Education l4(1937):381.

17Francis W. Parker, "Application of Child Study in the

School," The Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the
National Education Association (1985):425.

118Jordan, 117.
llgWirth, 60.
120

Francis W. Parker, "Discussion of the Relationship of
Froebel and Herbart," The Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses

of the National Education Association (1985):549.

121John Dewey, "Some Aspects of Modern Education," School and

Society 34(October 31, 1931):584.

122Mearns, "Love That Fails," l7.

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

LANGUAGE/LITERACY

Introduction

In 1949, Zirbes wrote about one of the most influential
curriculum issues of that time: recurrent failures in beginning
reading.1 Seventy-five years earlier, Charles Adams discovered
that while the students of Quincy could read the words of the
examination pages for which they had prepared, they seemed to have
no real understanding of what they had read. The acquisition of
language was a keen concern of the educators in this study. It is
of interest, therefore, to compare the attitudes and
recommendations over the nearly 100 year span of their educational
eras of the five educators in this study.

Zirbes suggested that educators should re-examine the current
reading programs for nine reasons: (a) information learned
through recent studies of children's growth and development (which
Parker, Dewey, and Steiner did not have); (b) new insight in the
reading process; (c) the large juvenile reading public; (d) the
ease and inexpense of purchasing children's books; (e) the

increase in the number of libraries; (f) the new methods now known

129

 

130

about the teaching of reading; (g) the belief that all classes
should, in a sense, teach reading; (h) adult education that had
led parents to accepting a more modern approach; and (i) education
in general that had led to a more intelligent and informed
citizenry.2

Zirbes proposed a program of purposeful reading. Children
would have rich and varied experiences through their reading.
They would develop strong motives toward permanent interests in
reading. Every reading experience they had should be significant
and contribute to a wholeness of learning. Zirbes was opposed to
formal instruction based on extrinsic motivation which inevitably
lead to stress on deferred values and reduced reading
satisfactions.3

Like Zirbes in the 19305 and 19405, in 1895 Francis Parker
spoke out against directing attention to mere forms of expression
and making children practice these forms without the faintest idea
of their meaning. He opposed the exercise of the motor centers of
the brain without relation to the thought centers--a process he
said Dr. John Dewey called "mind disintegration." Parker proposed
a method of skill building that would bring about the unity of the
actions of the mind and body. This was to be done by having all
exercises connected to the image or concept to be expressed or
revealed. The exercises or drills were to be a part of and lead
directly to the desired outcome. The child's motivation was to be
built on intrinsic and educative thought. For example, pupils

could be led to study nature, geography, or history through

 

131

artistic expression followed and maintained by a unity of all
expressions.

For Dewey the study of language was not simply logical
expression of thought. It was a social instrument, a device for
communication, a tool used by one person in order to share his
feelings and thoughts with others. Dewey opposed the study of
language as a means of merely transferring information or a means
for showing off what had been learned. In his "Pedagogic Creed,"
he said, "If education is life and all of life has scientific,
artistic, cultural, and language-communication aspects, then
progress will not come in a succession of studies, but in the
development of new attitudes toward and in experience."6

Language must be purposeful for Zirbes, whole for Parker,
social for Dewey. For Mearns, language spoke through the heart.
He made language beautiful and intelligible through the thrilling
use of the spoken word. He believed there were at least two
aspects necessary in all learning: creativity and incorporation.
So he read to his students and talked about implications and
hidden meanings and shadings of inflections and emphases that were
made to color facts, events, and descriptions. He said he began
with what he had: "ignorant, underdeveloped, immature adolescents
uninterested in fine writing." Gradually, he developed their
interest. They began to read to each other. Slowly, the
conviction dawned on them that they, too, could be critical.

They, too, could form their own judgments of writing. In 1928

Rugg and Shumaker reported in The Shild Centeteg School that

 

132

before the end of eighth grade, true, independent thinking about
literary worth was taking place.7

Parker and Steiner wrote about a triune nature of man: mind,
body, and spirit. Mearns wrote also in favor of "self expression
through painting, construction, and the language arts as effective
instruments in developing superior personalities." For example,
when a child composed in free fashion in language or color, the
mind, body, and spirit coordinated as an energizing unit. This
made that poem or painting the chief desirable thing. Therefore,
many school tasks took on increased or special worth to the
composer. Tasks such as reading, listening, research, measuring,
attending to numbers, script writing, examining color
combinations, selecting words, constructing in wood, metal, and
cardboard, and telling stories made sense as important and
necessary steps to growth. Mearns witnessed "incredible child

growth through writing such as Mabel Mountsier's Singing Youth,

Clair T. Eyve's Willingly to Schoal, and Dorothy Baruch's Blimps

and Such.8

Mearns was not such an idealist that he did not realize the

forces that worked against inspiration of the creative spirit. In

his book Qteative Youth, he wrote

. in spite of our striving, lack of progress
envelops us like a pestilence. If only our
children would get themselves born into proper
homes and stay there in between school sessions,
we might be able to offer a feeble guarantee to
show results. And if only they would practice
what we preach.

 

133

Despite his slightly cynical remarks, Mearns continued to
pursue the literacy goal as did each of the five educators in this
study. Chapter III is divided into four sections: Theory of
Language and Literacy; Learning of Language and Literacy: Natural
and Developmental; Methodology of Language and Literacy and Don'ts
in Dealing with Language and Literacy. The five educators under
study addressed these categories with differing degrees of
emphasis. Parker was concerned about all but seemed to emphasize
learning, methodology, and don'ts. Overall, Dewey did not
concentrate on language and literacy to the degree that the others
did. His emphasis, though, was in learning along with a
discussion of literature in relation to the mechanics of language
and literacy. Steiner's main focus was also on learning. Mearns'
interest was on the natural, experiential, interest-directed
aspect of learning language and literacy with an emphasis, of
course, on writing. Finally, while Zirbes concentrated on
learning, she also divided her focus between the dos and don'ts of

methodology.

ear 0 n ua e a d era
According to Parker, language and literacy developed through
association, observation, and repetition. Ideas initially become
related through the spoken word as it was connected to objects and
actions. If an object was presented or an action performed as a
word or words are spoken, the ideas produced were associated in

one act in the mind. Parker called this the ”mysterious mental

 

- — - *— ——"—.—---e-—-'_ M' .c,»

134

law of association."10 Under this law, words and later idioms and
sentences represented ideas. After a certain number of
repetitions, the word automatically recalled the idea. The
repetitions were enhanced by some kind of stimulus or mental
excitement that came either from within or without of the mind.
Parker found the greater the stimulus, an elephant for example,
the more effective the act of learning an idea and developing the
ability for recollection. The "mysterious mental law" might,
however, have governed behavior more than learning.

In the late 18005 in the Quincy Schools, Parker lectured and
discussed his theory that all activity, including thinking, was
doing. Observation of an object in a state of consciousness was
doing. Each repetition of an observation was doing. But
repetition was not enough. The state of consciousness had to be
aroused. This could be done with symbols and oral language. 80
by the age of five years, children had acquired ideas in their
relations, had associated spoken words with these ideas, and had
associated idioms with thoughts or related ideas.11

Next, it was time to transfer the learning of the spoken word
to the learning of the written word ". . . so that the child may
get thought through the eye as he has done through the ear."12
According to Parker, the process of learning to read was to
consist of learning to use the written word precisely as he used
the spoken word. As he has learned the vocabulary of spoken

language, he must learn the vocabulary of written language. The

mental stimulation necessary to arouse the state of consciousness

 

— - . _.. 4“... 1*- .

135

could come from the symbols found in books. To Parker, reading
was thinking by means of words. Thinking was the mind's mode of
action and action properly directed and motivated was good because
it led to growth. And it was the teacher's job to bring out
all-sided growth.

Parker differentiated between reading and study. While
reading was thinking, study demanded an intensity of thought which
was clearer and more compete. It was this intenseness that gave
strength and led to growth.

In her major work Spnta to Creative Teaahing, Zirbes discussed
how reading was related to child development. She explained that
if a child pursued an interest in animals, for example, by
reading, he would undoubtedly see that he could learn about other
things through reading. Consequently, the child would develop new
interests. 0n the other hand, the child would not develop new
interests without the initial interest.

Zirbes said that learning was the natural, normal integration
of (a) a familiar experience; (b) familiar, spontaneous speech
patterns; (c) new ways of using language to satisfy social
interaction to strengthen associations; (d) dramatic play; and (e)
free, original creative expressions.13 The creative teacher's
responsibility was to relate aspects of communication as
functional adjustments that challenged on-going experiences and
strengthened associations that tied in with earlier, more familiar
language use so that there were sources of insight and inference

that encourage effort.14 In other words, as the child was

 

136

learning, the teacher reinforced both the learning and the child
by presenting information and experiences that were based on or
were similar to that which the child already knew or had
experienced. Learning then became a stimulation of new
information along with the satisfaction of familiar information.

Zirbes believed that the combination of the interaction of
language in doing, talking, cueing, playing out, picturing, and
catching on resulted in, related to, and was conducive to vital
creative language. She felt that learning language was based on
development and experience. Children should share first hand
experiences with others. Language was learned through sharing or
communicating experiences. She believed that language art was the
creative use of language for conveying, gathering, and expressing
meanings derived in first hand shared experiences. While both
Parker and Zirbes seemed to approach language acquisition with
association, at least Zirbes' was more inclined to base the
approach on past and on-going experiences of the children. Parker
seemed to ignore the social aspect and seemed to come close to
drilling the children in their object association.

As students continue to experience and share the meanings of
their experience, the level of their language developed. It was
important, Zirbes said, that at the beginning, before the child
could write, that the child's own language be used when he
dictated a story of an experience. But gradually the child's
language skills would improve not as much through mechanics as

through creativity and intrinsic motivation. As he became more

. , .
., 4...!” ._

 

137

interested in his communication of his experiences with others and
compared his with others, a finer coordination of his language
abilities would develop.

According to Zirbes, initial learning was through the senses
followed by association, all of which should have been facilitated
by insightful guidance. The creative teacher should have
discovered, reinforced, and strengthened each child's on-going
associations. The key here was association--the connection
between one thing and another, between one idea and another,
between one experience and another. Isolating anything, take
words for example, from context made it harder to identify.

Zirbes said a child learned to read in a similar fashion to
the way he learned to use a fork. It was not necessary to have
many skills. She began with the manual skills and the neural
development stage he had reached. What was necessary was that the
child had an awareness of forks and what they were for by his
association with people who used them. Similarly, the child knew
about reading and what books were for by associating with people
who read. Next, the child must have wanted to identify with
people who use forks, he must have wanted food, and the fork must
have been at hand.

The same, of course, held true for reading. The child must
have identified with people who read and have seen himself as one
of them. He must have been hungry for the information contained
in books and the books must have been at hand. Then the taste of

the satisfaction of getting meaning from print should have

 

——’*— . A m 2% 4'1.- wvv....~_-_3-.3- -

138

encouraged him to try to obtain more. At this beginning stage,
the immediate concern should not have been with the acquisition of
skills, but the acquisition of meaning from print without having
to wait for someone to read it. The child appreciated encouraging
guidance and cueing but not domineering assumption of the task of
retrieving meaning from print. In other words, the child liked
help but needed and wanted to do this on his own. The whole
motivation upon which the struggle was built was in acquiring the
ability to read independently.

This independent acquisition was to be developed in experience
stages not by unrelated skills drills. Zirbes believed that
language would develop creatively in the course of vital
experience rather than mechanical, piecemeal learning which was
neither creative nor developmental. She felt that learning began
with a curiosity and if that curiosity was directed, channeled,
and inspired, learning continued. She wrote, "We do not follow
children's interests, we build their interests. We develop
interests in reading, and reading develops new interests.

Learning and guidance are creatively developmental."15 Neither
Parker nor Zirbes, actually none of the five, offered any clear
and concrete explanation of a theory of language acquisition, at
least not in their published work. Parker and Zirbes wrote a
great deal about interest and association in the realm of literacy
but seemed to neglect what was behind or upon what interest and

association were based. Something seemed to be missing from their

 

 

139

discussions; and the question is, was it there at all? or were

they holding back?

The Learning of Language and Literacy

This section on The Learning of Language and Literacy will be
sub-divided into two areas: (a) Natural, Experiential, Interest;
and (b) Developmental. As was noted in the introduction of
Chapter III, all of the educators under study concentrated on the
topic of "Learning." Parker and Mearns seemed most intent on the
"Natural, Experiential, Interest" aspects. Dewey appeared evenly
divided among the two. Steiner and Zirbes were far more outspoken

on Developmental aspects.

Natural, Expetiential, lnterest

Parker believed that children should learn to read as they
learned to talk, under the immediate spur of trying to find out
something they wanted to know, as in silent reading, or in trying
to explain something they wanted to tell and someone wanted to
hear, as in oral reading. Parker felt that reading should be the
means of growth and development rather than the dead process of
word getting. He said every avenue to the child's soul should be
kept open and in use and that all modes of expression had
differing and vital relations to his growth and all around
development.16

In 1879 Charles Adams explained Parker's Quincy methods in an

article entitled, "The New Departure in the Common Schools of

 

140

Quincy and Other Papers on Educational Topics." He wrote that the
simple, comprehensible processes of nature were to be observed in
teaching and learning. For example, children learned to read,
write, and cipher as they learned to swim, skate, and play ball.
Reading and writing were the basis for the new system in Quincy.
These were acquired only through practice. The practice was not
isolated drill; it was natural and connected. Under the old
system, for example, everything was taught separately: reading,
writing, spelling, grammar, arithmetic, geography, and history.17
Under the new system, reading and writing were learned through
the natural demands of the study of geography, science, and
history. The need for written expression was stressed in almost
every lesson. In fact, since Parker believed that various types
of expression developed the whole being, he felt that art should
be considered an important element of learning. He once suggested
that, "If all modes of expression were continually used to
intensify thought, every child would acquire, in varying degrees,
satisfaction, proficiency in modeling, drawing, and painting."18
At Quincy Parker instituted the word method which meant that
in the teaching of reading a whole word or idea was stressed
rather than meaningless parts. This, he believed, was a more
natural way to teach reading based on the child's experience and
interest. Parker abolished both the ABCs and technical grammar in
the early grades. Children would learn whole words rather than
parts as they learned to speak, and they could learn the grammar

later after they had developed a proficiency in speaking and

 

141

writing. Students would learn the grammar when they developed the
need and interest for such technicalities. The rules of grammar
were replaced by exercises and drill in constructing sentences,
letter writing, and short compositions. All of the writing of the
children was designed to describe activities that were real and
meaningful to their own experience. Words of their own vocabulary
were stressed. The spelling of their own words and then new words
was taught through the exercise of writing. Correct spelling was
developed by the acquisition of mental pictures of the whole word
and what it represented.19

Parker instituted these methods which became known as the
Quincy Methods, and he explained them to teachers at a summer
institute on Martha's Vineyard. As previously reported, the first
summer his audience was quite sparse, but a year later teachers
and administrators from all over the United States and Nova Scotia
came to hear about the Quincy Methods. Parker began with an
explanation of how a child learned to talk. First, the child
acquired ideas from the external world by means of his senses.
Next, he developed thoughts-~that is, he came to realize these
ideas in relation to him, his fellow students, and the world
around him. Third, he associated the spoken word with these
ideas. Next, he associated the idioms and forms of sentences in
Order to express his thoughts. Finally, he learned to utter these
words and idioms in order to express his thoughts. Then,
according to Parker, the child learned to read by associating

ideas with spoken words he had practiced talking for five to six

142

years with written words. Parker noted sadly how schools ignore
the natural voice of the child and worked on correcting it in such
a worthless and painful manner. He said the emphasis, inflection,
and melody of most children's voices could rarely be improved.
Unfortunately, the beauty and strength of what the child had
already gained was entirely ignored, and a new and very painful
process of oral expression was initiated.20 Parker was vehemently
opposed to recitation and reading in place. He believed they were
both purposeless in an educative sense and harmful in a
psychological and sociological way. "What is the use of oral
reading? The thought of the reading may or may not be in the
child's mind, his half-groaning utterances never reveal the
fact."21

Parker believed that the spoken word was acquired by repeated
acts of association but that the number of the repetitions
depended on the stimulus of the act. Therefore, the fundamental
rule for teaching a child to read was the most direct route of the
acts of associations of words with their appropriate ideas. The
best way was the actual association just as he learned to speak
and hear. There was no stimulus, at least not a positive
stimulus, in the printed word to the child. Actually, it repelled
the child rather than attracted him. He desired to read
independently, but that desire became dimmed when overwhelmed by
too many unknown printed words. Hence, Parker's opposition to

even beginning textbooks until true readiness was established.

 

143

Instead, Parker presented a favorite object to the child and
the printed word. The child's consciousness was filled with
interest for the object but left just enough room for the new
form-~the printed word. "On the other hand," Parker said, "try to
fill the child's mind with the word itself and you'll fill his
soul with disgust."22 Since the spoken word was learned as a
whole and it was more complex and more difficult to learn the
written word, it, too, was learned as a whole. Between two and
five objects were worked with until the child actively associated
the new printed words and the ideas without the actual object.
This was based on both the interest and the experience of the
child. The child held the object and wrote its name. He sketched
it on the board. He saw pictures of the object. He had
conversations with the teacher and told stories about the object
and his experience with it.

The major hurdle in learning to read, according to Parker, was
the first few words. A major hindrance in jumping the hurdle was
any attempt to analyze or synthesize those first few words. The
major help was the stimulus or excitement of the act of
association. "The vividness of the idea and the mental picture in
the consciousness of the child, along with the appropriate word,
determines the result."23

Parker placed much of the responsibility for the stimulation
of the acts of association on the teacher. It seemed to him that
the "great duty of the teachers of this age is first to know all

the great things that have been discovered by teachers and the

144

thinkers of the past and reconcile them into a science of
teaching."24 His science of teaching was not the rote
memorization but a natural methodology based on the experience and
interest of the child. For example, in teaching a child to read,
the first words to be used should be selected from those oral
words the child already knew. Parker believed the idea must
always be acquired before the word could be. He maintained that
. education may be said to consist, first, of

enlarging the range of ideas and, second, relating

these ideas in various ways. The value of words

depends wholly on the value of the idea they

recall. Selecting vocabulary should be slowly and

thoroughly taught so that repetitions of a word

entirely suffice 5g put the word within automatic

use of the child.

Parker believed that it was far more important to teach 20
words well than 200 imperfectly. The first thing was to begin
with the favorite words of the child. The next step was to
arrange the words in phonic order with short (vowel) sounds first.
This intensified the law of analogy upon which the phonic method
was founded. However, the phonic order should not be followed at
the expense of the interest of the child. The first words should
be the names of common objects such as fan, cap, hat, mat, rat,
but, bag, rag, flag, hen, egg, nest, bell, fish, dish, pig,
rabbit, ship, dog, doll, top, fox, box, cup, tub, mug, jug, nut.
Also the words introduced should be words that will be found in
the first reader or book the child will read. Parker felt,

however, that no first reader extant furnished enough repetition

for a thorough learning of words.

 

145

Another method Parker advocated was the small group approach.
After the vocabulary was carefully selected and the teacher chose
15-20 objects, the pupils were divided in groups of five to six
according to mental strength. Parker said to begin with the
brightest group, but not to tell them they were. Here Parker
reminded the teachers that it was important for the pupils to feel
at home in the classroom and to trust the teacher. He realized
that children learned easier, faster, and better in such an
atmosphere. To continue, the teacher held up an object and wrote

the word on the board. Then he said, "Bring me a ,"

 

while pointing to the board. Next, he showed a new object and
wrote its name on the board. The teacher followed this plan for
10-15 words. While Parker advocated child interest and denounced
mandated rote drill, some of his methods seem remarkably
automated. Perhaps this could be attributed to his military
training or the way in which he had been taught or an indication
of the dominance of the times in which he taught despite his
innovative practices.

Next, following Parker's belief in acts of repetitious
association, he had the teacher hold up an object and the pupil
pointed to the word on the board. Then the teacher pointed to the
word on the board and the pupils picked up the object. Finally,
the pupils pointed and read the word without the object. He felt
the word-object recognition should be repeated until the children

knew them well, but he also realized that the children's interest

 

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII---'_______________F_ r —**“‘A“fl=fl-=E>~

146

and, therefore, attention could be held only so long at each task,
and he cautioned teachers to be sensitive to this problem. So
Parker, on the one hand, was sensitive to children's attention and
interest spans, but, on the other, seemed to be continuing the
drill work under a new name.

Dewey was interested in language and literacy from the social
point as a communication device for the exchange and discussion of
information rather than a mere transmitter of acquired facts. He
also opposed the traditional rote memorization methods which
brought results such as Adams discovered in Quincy. He said that
the "universal diffusion of cheap reading material and the
democratization of literacy meant that there could be no more
exclusive attention to mere book knowledge. Children must acquire
the capacity for self direction, leadership, and independent
judgment."26 Dewey believed that oral communication was the first
goal. The children talked about themselves, their projects, and
their activities. Rather than formal training and drill, they
were coached informally in diction, enunciation, and projection.
Dewey felt that inhibitions would be eradicated by frequent
opportunity. The children were given the opportunity and
encouraged to discuss their feelings and their experiences with
the other children and their teachers all through the school day.

Dewey did not promote the formal study of reading and writing
as early in the child's schooling as did Parker. He suggested,
rather, the formal study begin when the child had to have these

skills to get on with his learning, possibly at age eight or nine.

 

147

He believed that the child had his own interests and questions.
If the school provided for sensory-motor pursuits and a range of
exploratory activities, the child would have no difficulty taking
an interest in reading, writing, and numbers. For example, at the
laboratory school at the University of Chicago, the Deweys
provided many opportunities for group activities and projects that
promoted the children's interest in learning. For example, in the
classroom, the children engaged in creative play and explored the
various mediums of expression, they raised questions, they engaged
in simple dramatic reenactments, they communicated their ideas in
stories and discussions, and they extended their experiences
through planned excursions. The learning would gradually
necessitate reading, writing, or mathematical skills.27
Mearn's feelings about the learning of language and literacy
were strongest in the area of the Natural, the Experiential, and
the Interest of the child. He believed children had their own
natural, rhythmic, and poetic speech pattern which should, if
properly developed, transfer to their writing. Further, he felt
that children formed the substance of what they wanted to say
through their existence and their experiences. Mearns said the
idea came first, then the form.
In Qreative Power, Mearns wrote that
. we must be the thing we read before we can

appreciate it or have others appreciate our

reading of it . . . . No man can write until he

knows what he is writing about and has lived it

until it becomes a part of him.

He believed that children had and developed a native language

which had more quality than many adults realized. He saw a

 

148

natural poetic quality that surfaced and was often quickly stifled
by well-meaning adults who tried to make well-meaning little
adults. Actually, Mearns saw self-expression as a means of
growth. Every one has something to say, he thought, and they
should not only be allowed but encouraged to express themselves
naturally. Though, as he wrote in Creative Touch, "poetry, an
outward expression of instinctive insight, must be summoned from
the vast deep of our mysterious selves; therefore, it cannot even
by summoned, it can only be permitted."29

Still, Mearns called the natural writing of children an
"important phase of the emergence of the creative life." He said
such writing has "rhythmic cadence, a sense for the right word,
and an uncanny right placing for just the intended emphasis." He

went on to describe the "signs of the authentic language of youth:

the freshness of phrase and idea; the nimble mastery of words and

30

rhyme; and the music of poetic speech.
Fifty years after Charles Quincy Adams published his

explanation and discussion of Parker's Quincy Methods, Zirbes
published her belief in purposeful reading. There were many
similarities which was interesting, considering the time in
between the publications. Zirbes had been trained in a normal
school and had experience teaching in two schools prior to her
studies at Teachers' College, Columbia, where she received her
doctorate in education. Both educators warned about the negative
results of incorrect early reading instruction. Parker commented

on the length of time needed to undue the wrong. Zirbes wrote the

 

149

"adult non-reader was an educational product and a social
problem."31 They both believed that this result was unnecessary
and detrimental. Zirbes suggested that if it were necessary to
choose between the consideration of abilities and purposes, the
choice should be for purposes. She wrote that
. abilities are bound to grow when purposeful

reading is practiced, whereas a disintegration of

desirable attitudes is a common accompaniment to

an over-emphasis on abilities especially when it

is not related to intrinsic motivation. A list of

reading objectives is not a list of reader's

purposes.
She suggested, in fact, that remedial readers were often the
result of teaching which failed to consider the significance of
the pupils' attitudes. It was the primary emphasis on skills at
the beginning that caused problems with both the effort and the
attitude of the learner.

Instead, Zirbes suggested in the same article published in
1929, that students responded to reading stimuli that were like
those that occurred naturally in life. She believed that a series
of four to five such activities were likely to exhibit far more
balance and variety than an artificial series of formal training
lessons which covered the same period of time.

In 1940 Zirbes published "What Is a Modern Reading Program?"
in which she listed seven steps and stages. The first was that
reading was an integral phase or aspect of total language
development; therefore, it was necessary to begin at the child's

level, not a set level. She suggested that the teacher use the

oral language and experience of the child to tell his story which

 

150

was then written down, probably by the teacher. Zirbes believed
that the child's intelligence apprehended and identified the oral
account with the actual experience and with the written account.
The child needed to see the process as a whole not as separate
letters or phonograms. His recognition of sight words was a phase
of his development. He realized that his experience and his
communication converted to recorded language and back to oral
language. The motivation developed from within because it was his
story.

Second, reading was always a matter of meaning, not word drill
and word recognition without contextual meaning. According to
Zirbes, drill without context delayed the process of learning to
read and subordinated contextual thinking and meaning in favor of
mechanics. She elaborated:

. contextual recurrence aids in the functional
acquisition of a working nucleus of sight
vocabulary. Through contextual use, derivations,
words with similar endings, synonyms, and antonyms
may be used to set off a process of accurate
visual discrimination and provide a variation
which expends learning rather than deadens it as
repetition does.

The third factor in the modern reading process was the
reader's purpose and immediate desire to discover. Zirbes wanted
the teacher to take the responsibility for providing materials and
guidance which would energize and engage the reader while at the
same time providing materials that were appropriate to the

differing levels of reading ability. Her fourth point reinforced

the third. Zirbes believed that children learned to read by

 

151

reading and that good and bad habits were established during the
process. Her recommendation was that the teacher provide good,
easy materials, not readers pre-determined for grade levels. The
latter caused the poor readers nothing but frustration, and
coordinating instruction only made it worse. Zirbes followed that
success breeds improved thinking, so she encouraged teachers to
provide opportunities for it as often as possible. One suggestion
for avoiding frustration and failure was to totally avoid the oral
reading situation whereby each child, in turn around the room,
read aloud. All of the educators in this study were against it.

Fifth, Zirbes observed that reading abilities were related to
the use, the purpose of reading. Reading and purpose called for
specific adaptations that must eventually be sensed by the reader.
She noted that, of course, some reading was more difficult than
another and the reader must learn to determine how to deal with
the level of difficulty. She gave examples of two extremes, Tha
Saturday Evening Post and John Dewey, and she quipped that some
people deal with the second level of difficulty by not reading
Dewey. The sixth point in the program was that breadth and
variety in reading led to the enrichment of and an abiding
attitude toward reading. Zirbes maintained that modern reading
programs had to utilize the availability of good reading material
to supplement the readers. Book collections and libraries were
becoming more available and acceptable. Here, though, she called
for guidance regarding book selection in the direction of

developing ”broader tasks and maturing interests." She said that

 

152

provision for individual interests and needs was extremely
important to offset mass instruction and common reading
requirements. The seventh and final point was the contribution of
a modern reading program to the "deve10pment of personalities and
the further free and discriminating use of reading in life. The
stages of individual reading development of the students served as
indicators of appropriate materials and guidance needed for the
child's further development as a reader.34

The five educators in this study agreed that reading ability
was a complex composite of many abilities. Parker and Zirbes
concurred that reading could be learned in a natural manner such
as swimming, skating, walking or using a fork. They also believed
that learning to read should be based on the experience and
interest of the child. Parker developed his word association
method on childhood experiences and interests, but it somehow also
had to fit into the first reader the children were to use. Also,
his word association methodology seemed somewhat akin to a drill.
The Deweys based their early language learning on group experience
within and without the classroom. Steiner remained somewhat
silent on this particular aspect. Mearns discussed how interest
and experience should be allowed to flow into the writing of
children. Finally, Zirbes suggested a seven point modern reading
program based on purpose and accessibility of reading material

distributed under the watchful guidance of the teacher.

153

Develppnental

Parker believed in developmental steps as a part of the
learning process. Further, he felt a lack of knowledge and
understanding of the capabilities of each level was actually
detrimental to the learning process. Patridge, in her 1889 report
of Parker's Quincy Methods, quoted him as saying,

When teachers fully comprehended that

education is the generation of power, they will

know better how to adapt the steps of progress to

the mind's ability. Haste makes terrible waste

when it consists in taxing a child's strength in

undue degree.
It was the haste and waste that Parker was trying to change. His
new methods recognized the need for individuality rather than
uniformity. He found that slow children accelerated with
attention to their individual needs at their current levels rather
than the uniform approach which caused them to flounder rather
than go forward. He discovered that timid children were
stimulated by kindness and a homelike atmosphere in the classroom.
Of Parker's innovations, Goodspeed wrote in 1916, ". . . children
with defective minds were treated as physicians treated chronic
diseases. Their weak powers were constantly strengthened by
special activities."36

Parker, apparently was not completely Opposed to a phonics
approach or aspect in a reading program. In fact, he advocated
phonics after many whole words were known. He said that the

separate parts of a written word could be associated with separate

articulate sounds, so that difficulties in acts of association

 

154

would become less and less. This was so that new words could be
pronounced and known at sight. Parker cautioned against over use
of phonics to the point where children could skillfully pronounce
a word without knowing the word or its meaning. He believed that
a word was only known when it recalled its appropriate idea. As
the child pronounced the word, he must have the idea behind the
word in order to make meaning; otherwise, there was no
understanding.

Parker established a systematic, developmental approach to a
phonics methodology. First, the teacher trained the child to
recognize words when they were pronounced slowly. Next, the
teacher trained the child to pronounce the words himself slowly by
imitating the teachers' voice. After a few words were taught, the
teacher gave each articulate sound as she made the character that
represented it. Finally, the child began to pronounce slowly
without suggestions from the teacher the words she wrote on the
board. Exercises of this type were incorporated into the total
reading program.

Parker also advocated a sentence approach to beginning reading
development. He began with a simple sentence like, "This is a
fan." The procedure was to change gradually all of the words in

the sentence. For example, he changed this to that and placed the

 

fan or whatever object was being used at a little distance. He

changed 1;th to here. fliers. was. £11m. we]: . Next. the

teacher changed to exclamatory sentences such as, "Oh, what a

pretty fan!" As more words were learned, the teacher wrote

 

155

direction on the board and had the children read them silently and
comply--such as "stand up" and "sit down." Finally, the teacher
wrote a little story on the board and drew sections of an
illustrative picture to arouse the curiosity of the children.
Parker believed that the object, word, sentence, script, and
phonic methods all together though not equally formed one true
method of teaching reading. Each was used in its own time and
place and proper proportion to arouse and strengthen all the
faculties of the mind, not just one.37

Dewey believed that there were parallels between the way
learning developed and the evolution of civilized experience. In
the case of mathematics, for example, the hunter had to count his
game and the herder had to count his flocks. They had to measure
territory. They had to keep track of the changes of the seasons
and the movements of the sun and moon. Dewey felt that each child
had four impulses on which to build: (a) expressive, (b)
constructive, (c) investigative, and (d) social.38 The child had
a need to express himself in activity and to share the results of
the activity. Dewey realized that the best time to teach the
child the skills of communication was when he was in the greatest
need. Dewey, therefore, did not begin school with reading and
writing. He began with the first two impulses: the expressive
and the constructive. Using the occupations at the center,
children worked on projects and activities that would gradually
but ultimately lead them to need and desire reading, writing, and

mathematical skills. While reading and writing were not

 

156

advocated, language was never ignored. The children were
informally helped in diction, enunciation, and projection. The
activities in which the children were engaged were those of
creative play, construction, exploration, questioning, field
trips, simple dramatic reenactments and communication, and
discussion of ideas in stories.

Steiner's curriculum was designed to follow the development of
civilization. The organization was in relation to the development
of the individual. Consequently, the children learned to write
before they learned to read. Then they learned to read what they
had written. Steiner wanted each child to experience, whenever
possible, what he was learning. For example, students wrote and
illustrated special notebooks in lieu of textbooks. In them they
wrote examples of what they had learned rather than received
teacher/textbook prepared worksheets. They dramatized their plays
and the classics. These experiences were designed to help the_
student understand the subject better by actually experiencing it
prior to understanding it.39

In the Waldorf kindergarten and first grade, language studies
were a part of all studies. They played too basic a role to be
isolated. Students heard and told stories, fairy tales, songs,
and letters during the main block lesson. They hear poetic
recitations in the morning assembly. Spoken words formed the core
of all their language experience. In second grade they moved from

fairy tales to fables and legends, as they moved from their

imaginative stage to their imitative. The legends gave them

 

157

impressions of people striving after high ideals. They also began
to need realistic stories as they became more aware of the world
around them. They began to learn the difference between doing
words, naming words, and describing words.

In third grade they heard, read, and wrote stories and poems
from the Bible. This was their first actual introduction to
history which they re-told and illustrated in their notebooks. In
fourth grade they read the Irish, Icelandic, and Scandanavian
sagas. They wrote experience narratives. At this time, about
nine years of age, the children felt some degree of isolation from
the world. Steiner thought that some ways to bridge the distance
between the child and his world was through letter writing. The
letter writing developed formal communication between the child
and others.40

By the age of 10, the child was developing a strong sense of
personality, so it was important to teach him to respect others.
The Greek epics and legends were read and discussed. In written
and oral work the emphasis was the difference between the child's
opinion and experiences and those of others.

Steiner organized his curriculum on what he believed to be the
developmental needs of children. While his teachings gave a great
deal of individual attention and care to each child, this school
was far more structured than any of those with which the other
educators under study were associated. Steiner felt it was the
purpose of the Waldorf schools to teach the children to be

independent and sensitive. He realized that children had to

 

158

experience certain things as children in order to be capable as
adults to impart purpose and direction in their lives.41 Still,
while learning independence and sensitivity, the children had to
learn and perform under rather rigid standards. While there
seemed to be no question that the Waldorf curriculum was
substantially thought out, it also seemed inflexible. Once
Steiner had made these curricular determinations, it seemed as if
the children, then, had to fit the mold.

Since much of Mearns' teaching was with high school students,
he did not emphasize the initial language study. He did believe,
however, that children would have no difficulty with literature if
they were given the chance to develop their own native gifts in
language. Also, he drew the conclusion that his poets at the
Lincoln School were a serious illustration that higher grades of
artistic achievements were possible than commonly permitted in
schools.42 Mearns would like to have attempted his creativity
experiment in the public schools, but he never got the
opportunity. He strongly believed that students were capable of
far more in terms of a creative aspect of their writing. This was
reinforced when teachers from all over the country wrote to him
describing the delightful and unexpected results they received
after they tried some of Mearns techniques and suggestions.

Mearns was a proponent of careful and conscientious development of
a child's capabilities.
Zirbes described the development of language/literacy skills

in terms of both the child and civilization. Zirbes observed

159

children informally and functionally using their eyes and ears to
connect speech patterns with direct experiences. She saw that
children seemed to learn vocal responses by intuition. They
seemed to develop a pattern as they listened to those around them
and as they began to play their part. As they communicated their
needs and expressed satisfaction when those needs were met, they
entered a two—way process of communication. Thus far in the
child's development, Zirbes observed no need or use for writing.
In fact, in the development of civilization, writing evolved
through the primal urge to record human experience and preserve
the stories of man's adventures.43

In her major work urs to Craative Teaching, Zirbes discussed
the influence of cultural values in relation to the invention of
the human language. She wrote that what led to actual speech had
been previously formed and influenced by the group and their
surroundings. Primitive marks and signs, patterned drum beats and
smoke signals, calls and grunts, cries and tone patterns,
gestures, rituals, incantations, and dance movements all led to
speech. This was followed by the development of the visual symbol
system: pictorial and graphic records and communications in
ideograms. Since these had to be decoded and there was a limited
number of scribes and scholars capable of doing so, the
development of an alphabet--a reduced number of symbols which
stood for sounds rather than ideas--was inevitable. Zirbes went
on to note that the processes of writing and copying by hand had

to be transcended before reading and writing could be widely used.

 

160

The human need for communication forced the development of
literacy from the invention of type set by hand to the printing
process, duplication, the telephone, telegraphy, the radio and
television, distribution of books, libraries, and home delivery of
newspapers and magazines.44

Zirbes made a seven-point case for developmental teaching
based not only on the development of human civilization but also
upon the development of the child. First, she asked, "How do
babies learn to turn over?” Second, "How do babies learn to
suck?" Third, she closely observed the development from hunching,
creeping, and toddling to walking without formal instruction. She
realized that parents and others could encourage the child, but in
the end what was required was individual concentration and effort.
Fourth, "How does experience play a part in the process of the
birth cry to babbling to speech?" Fifth, Zirbes observed that
young children used modifiers long before they learned anything
about parts of speech. Sixth, since it seemed apparent that some
things were learned without being taught, we should discover how
they yere learned. Seventh, "What would the difference in outcome
or process be between a child who learns to eat for himself by
eating with his family at meal times and a child who learns by
verbal instruction on how to eat properly?"45 Zirbes strongly
believed that very early in the child's development learning and
influence on future learning were constantly taking place. She
spoke out and wrote often and persuasively about the importance of

early childhood development. She warned that as a society, we

161

wait until it was too late. She often cited as an example the
army testing in World War 1. Both learning and physical
disabilities were discovered that Zirbes said should have been
noted and corrected years before. She wrote in "Priorities in
Childhood Education" that the ”whole matter of early language
development was so contingent on social conditioning and
susceptible wise guidance that every toddler should have its
benefits."46

Developmentally, Zirbes said, most children were aware of and
used reading before they were taught to read. And too soon, the
negative effects of poor reading skills were felt. For example,
first graders found many uses for reading throughout their homes
and communities. Second and third graders valued reference
material before they were formally introduced. According to
Zirbes, reading in school should begin when children read what
they dictated to their teacher about their trips, their science
experiments, their pets and so on. This reading occurred long
before the use of books. Books should be introduced individually
or in small groups when the teacher determined they could be used
successfully. The key here was teacher-determination of success.
For too soon, inferiority feelings developed about reading ability
which was damaging to self-respect.

By developmental learning, Parker seemed to mean degree of
difficulty and number of items to be learned. He continued to
maintain that everything to be learned should appeal to the

child's interests. Dewey's concept of developmental learning was

 

162

based on the social needs of growing and maturing children. He
began with what he presumed to be of most interest to the children
and built on that as their need to know and accomplish more grew.
Steiner made the determination of the developmental
stages--imaginative to imitative--and saw that the curriculum
followed suit.. Children moved from fairy tales to fables and
legends and gradually to a degree of realism. Mearns was
concerned with the development and maturity of each child and the
effect such growth would have on the child's work. Zirbes was
interested in finding a way to connect early childhood development
with educational techniques. She seemed to realize that there was
much to be learned about development and how children learn before

they were formally instructed.

The Methodology of Language and Literacy

In general, two words aptly describe the methodology of the
five educators in this study: experience and stories. All five
advocated and made use of the experiences of the children and
stories told and re-told in the teaching of reading. Since they
believed that a good place to begin was with what interested the
child, they asked the children to tell stories about their own
experiences. These became short, beginning stories which the
teacher wrote down. The children learned to read their own
stories based on their experiences and made up with their own
words. The other re-occurring motif in their methodological

beliefs was methodical, substantial lessons. They were convinced

 

163

if reading were taught very well at the beginning regardless of
the time it took or the actual number of words and rules learned,
it would not continue to haunt teachers and children for so long.

Mearns described a good teacher as one who asked for pictured
and dramatic expanding of an abstract statement or a summary of
the child's own experience. He suggested that an amateur
(teacher) treated reading as a substitute for reading. This way
reading became detached and mechanical and the reader became bored
and disinterested. Also, in Creative Youth, he wrote that "higher
appreciation follows dramatization."47 In his classrooms at the
Lincoln School, his students enjoyed both high drama and
substantial appreciation of their own work and that of others.

In Steiner's Waldorf Schools, the teachers told stories and
then episodes of the story were illustrated by a series of
pictures on the board which the children then copied into their
notebooks. Children were encouraged to select with care the
colors they used in copying from the teachers' drawings. Color
was an important element in Waldorf lessons as art was throughout
the lessons in Parker's school. Both men realized the importance
of integrating art in the curriculum. The class then composed a
sentence or verse to accompany each picture. This they also
copied into their notebooks. They attempted to develop a poetic
sense through careful and determined word choice. The result was
that children had little difficulty reading their own sentences
that were written with such care and they learned the words and

48
the sentence structure without conscious effort. Support for

 

164

story use was also rather substantial. They provided "material
for verbal and written recapitulation, practice in speaking
clearly, remembering, expressing coherently, recreating a
particular turn of a phrase, and enriching vocabulary."49

Parker was a proponent of the slow start as a way to ensure a
strong one. He didn't want the children to read carelessly or to
guess at the words. But he did want them to desire to learn new
words and to love reading. This was another reason why he
preferred beginning slowly with no pressure on the learners.
Parker said that phonics work, in the form of slow pronunciation,
could begin early but sounds were not associated with letters at
first. Separate sounds were practiced until the child said them
correctly and easily. As new words were introduced, the teacher
used them in many different and short sentences. He suggested
teachers change just one word so that children could be successful
readers every time. It was important that the children always
realized the idea behind the words. The teacher did not go on
until every child had grasped that. Of course, very interesting
or exciting ideas were more easily grasped and remembered.

The teacher pronounced the words very slowly and the children
imitated the teacher's pronunciation. Then the children slowly
pronounced any words they knew, but the teacher corrected any
mispronunciations and the children repeated the words until they
were correct. Parker allowed the teachers to use the sounds from
a good sound chart, such as Monroe or Appleton's, but he preferred

they did not use the chart with the children. He suggested they

 

165

practice these preliminary exercises beginning with the easiest
and lasting between five and ten minutes a session.

When the students were ready, they began reading very easy
books. Parker preferred having several first readers--"they are
very cheap and you can induce your committee to buy them providing
you do good work”50-oso that if thepchild stumbled over a
difficult sentence, he switched to another easy reader. Parker
called it immense economy in going slowly at first. He believed
that if the primary work were done properly, there would be no
need to teach reading as reading after the fourth year.

Parker said there were basically two types of reading
exercises: reading new words on the board and reading new
material. But the child was not to read aloud until he had the
idea of the sentence. If he had a long sentence, he was to read
to understand the thought, close the book, and express the thought
aloud. By the second year of reading instruction, the child
should read a whole story and write one, two, and three things he
remembered from it. Or he wrote several sentences on slips of
paper about the story and arranged them in correct order and then
copied them on his slates. (Just about the only time Parker got
into trouble in Quincy was when he ordered beautiful new slates
for the children. The parents raised a ruckus because they didn't
want to pay for them. It was one of the few times he backed
down.)

Parker wanted reading and composition taught together. The

teacher dictated a story and the children wrote the story and read

 

166

what they wrote and read what their fellow students had written.
In dictating Parker admonished the teacher to use his best voice
but to read the sentence only once. He wanted the children to
learn to listen as well as to read and write.

Parker warned the teachers that children came to school amazed
and fearful of the strange new surroundings. Children had enough
difficulty becoming accustomed to all that was around them to say
nothing of all the learning that was expected. Teachers began the
work immediately, but slowly and cautiously. Children were
encouraged to use their own language and to talk freely at first.
Corrections were done by using the mistake in other sentences and
with practice and with patience. "A mean teacher," Parker warned,
"will ruin everything."51

Both Parker writing in 1889 and Zirbes in 1959 expressed a
strong preference toward personal experience as a beginning to
reading. Neither began with a book. Instead, both began with the
ideas of the children. Zirbes promoted the use of oral language
accounts of a group's experience recorded by the teacher in large,
clear manuscript form on the board or on a large sheet of paper
placed where it could be seen and referred to. Then the teacher
guided the group in observing whole sentences or lines in the
story until they became associated with the part of the experience
to which they referred. Next, the children either dramatized or
illustrated parts of the experience and associated sentences or
lines from the written story. Gradually, the sentences and lines

were associated with the visual clues. Then phrases or striking

 

167

or recurring words began to be associated with what they convey.
The children realize that lines began at the left, and they look
for ideas by moving their eyes along left to right and back to the
next lower line. Thus, the concept of reading was learned before
letters, syllables, and words were recognized as elements in the
process. Zirbes believed this approach developed visual
coordination; but since it involved no forced attention, it caused
no pressure or strain.

After this basic concept was developed by experience reading,
the children were ready for very easy, simple books with good
pictures that took the place of first-hand experience in
suggesting what the lines told. Zirbes agreed with Parker's
belief that the emphasis should be on meanings and ideas rather
than on sounds or word recognition. Like Parker, Zirbes also
found a place for phonics work, but that was later, after the
quest for meaning had been well launched. She also maintained
that this process of obtaining meaning from print should result in
quite a "stock of words seen in so many contexts and in so many
settings, they should be easily recognized in any context."52

Zirbes used the phrase "extensive reading" to explain that
"wherever children can read, they need to have a chance to read to
learn, to read to find out--and to enjoy it."53 She gave several
examples of extensive reading experiences. In a first grade the
social studies curriculum covered the home and the neighborhood.

The teacher read a number of beautifully illustrated books about

family life and neighborhood activities. They talked about how

168

theirs compared to the books. The books were then made available
along with very easy books on the same topics. The children read
them to each other and took them home to discuss them with their

parents and brothers and sisters.

A third grade class went for a neighborhood walk and became
interested in how houses were built and the variety of materials
used. They returned to their classroom and generated a list of
questions they would like answered. They visited a lumber yard
and a brick kiln. One of the student's fathers was a builder, so
he came to class to help answer some of the questions. The
teacher then provided a wide variety of easy reading and well
illustrated books on homes in other times and other lands. The
students made picture books of their own with illustrations of
different houses and explanations about each one. Finally, they
entertained several other classes with an exhibit on homes.

Zirbes reported on a fourth grade that decided to take up a
study of pioneers in the Midwest. The idea was sparked by a
discussion of Indian names of rivers, counties, towns, and cities.
They moved from a field trip, seeing a movie, much reading, to the
presentation of an original pioneer play in which the passing of
the Indians and the prevalence of Indian names contributed to the
plot.54

These examples were of classes that did not use a textbook to
cover the material. Zirbes also gave several examples of classes
that used extensive reading to enliven and embellish textbooks

that were used. One sixth grade class commented on a sentence in

.—..~..o

 

169

their geography text, "There are many national parks and national
forests." The children wanted to know more than that, so they
gathered tourist folders and booklets, maps, National Geographic
and Holiday magazines, and government pamphlets. They ended their
study by making a large map of the United States with the
locations of many of the national parks and forests.55

Between 1919 and 1929, Zirbes surveyed educators and developed
an inventory of reading activities which she and many leading
educators of the times deemed helpful and appropriate. It was
entitled "Inventory of Reading Activities of a Progressive Program
Compiled from Recommendations of Representative Progressive
Leadership." It covered first through sixth grade in four
categories: (a) activities based on content units more than one
paragraph in length; (b) activities based on unrelated paragraphs
or sentences; (c) activities based chiefly on phrases, words, or
phonic elements; and (d) activities involving the use of the table
of contents, index, etc. These lists grew longer as the grades
grew higher. There was a wide variety of activities that teachers
could adapt for use in their classrooms. Many of the activities
were acceptably progressive. In the first category, "Activities
based on content units more than one paragraph in length," for
example, she listed dramatizing rhymes, drawing pictures to
illustrate an experience, reproducing a story read silently,
reading to get material for projects, reading meaning from
pictures, inventing titles, retelling famous stories, reading

between lines and interpreting in terms of past experiences,

 

170

dramatizing for grade assembly, and guessing what may happen next
in a story. For category two, ”Activities based on unrelated
paragraphs or sentences," she listed following directions written
on blackboard, pantomiming sentences read silently, rearranging
lines of a rhyme, visualizing situations in arithmetic problems,
reading to be able to direct games, paraphrasing, and pantomiming
sentences and directions read silently. In category three,
"Activities based chiefly on phrases, words, or phonic elements,"
suggestions included making and using signs in correlation with
building projects, printing signs with price and sign markers, and
talking about words occurring in geography content. In the final
category, "Activities involving the use of the table of contents,
index, etc.," Zirbes listed using table of contents to find
reading matter in books, using marginal headings to locate
factors, and using the local library to find material. These were
examples of activities that seemed appropriate to the progressive
thoughts expressed in this study. These are methods Parker,
Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns would have suggested. They appear to
provide and or cause appropriate learning without the weights of
textbook, drill, or rote memorization.

But there were a number of activities on this list that seemed
to be from a more rigid, less flexible, more classroom, less real
world orientation. For example, in category one, taking tests on
silent reading, reading silently under time pressure, making tests
(This researcher is amazed Zirbes would include or condone

anything to do with tests as she believed tests to be extrinsic

 

171

motivators, and she was a strong proponent of intrinsic motivation
as a key to current and life-long learning), selecting appropriate
topical headings for paragraphs, finding central thought in
limited time, memorizing material read, and taking standard oral
reading tests. Category two followed a phonic approach which
Parker, Dewey, and Zirbes seemed to indicate would follow later in
a reading program, yet she included activities such as analyzing
long words into syllables, listing words according to phonetic
rules or groups, and interpreting the pronunciation of words
through the use of diacritical marks. She concluded this
inventory by stating that ". . . if reading ability was truly a
complex composite of many specific abilities, as investigations
lead us to conclude, if we learn by doing, then a well balanced
variety of reading activities will result in a wide range of
abilities."56 By well-balanced, she seemed to mean both
experience-based, developmental- and teacher-centered,
rules-orientated. When discussing specific classroom techniques,
Zirbes, Parker, and others tend to mention techniques and
activities that do not actually fit the totally child-centered
approach they offered in more general and/or theoretical
statements.

Both Zirbes and Parker discussed remediation. They felt, of
course, that if reading were taught properly to begin with, there
should be no need but realistically they realized this could never
be. As Parker explained his principles and methods of teaching

beginning reading, he suspected that those in the audience were

 

172

questioning what should be done with the children who have been
taught by an incorrect method. He suggested that even two to
three weeks of incorrect teaching would scar the mind of the child
forever. His definition of a wrong method was a thoughtless
prescription of alphabet, phonic, phonetic, and word recognition
drill. He described these readers as ”those who struggle with
each particular word in a painful way, and drawl out the sentences
as if there were no beautiful pictures behind them. Who have been
led through a dreary waste of empty words in a harsh, unnatural
manner."57 He charged that elocutionists "reap a rich harvest
from the bad teaching in primary schools."58 He described the
change in children's voices from natural, easy pleasant tones to
harsh, unnatural utterances. Zirbes described what she observed
to be the results of incorrect methods of teaching reading:
speech disorders, dislike of school, aversion to reading, feelings
of inferiority, and anxiety--all side effects to be avoided.59
Both Parker and Zirbes advocated certain methods of reading
instruction which they believed promoted the maximum success in
student achievement, but they realized that remediation would be
necessary for a variety of reasons. Zirbes said that it was not
enough to treat the symptoms; it was necessary to treat the
fundamental causes. She favored a look at the possibility of a
common causal factor-~a direct relationship between certain common
remedial problems and certain prevalent teaching or training
procedures and curricular expectations which would seem to call

for a curricular adjustment. She and other educators of her time

173

had advanced from Parker's era to the consideration that a
relationship could exist among the resulting problems, the
teaching methods, and the students.

Parker suggested having the students begin with the easiest
possible, interesting, and dramatic reading. He would abandon
oral reading for a while and lead the children to see the idea,
the thought behind the words. That was the key: leading pupils
to get the thought or mentally seeing the picture. The teacher
was to ask the child many questions to direct him toward the
thought behind the words. For example,

Five little peas in a pod; they were green and the

pod was green, so they thought all the world was

green, and that was the way it should be.
Questions

1. Where were the peas?

2. How many peas were there?

3. What color were the peas?

4. What color was the pod?

5. Becausgothey were green, what did they
think?

These questions may have led some of the children to see the idea
or the thought behind the words, but they probably did not play
upon the child's experience or interest.

Zirbes also suggested using materials that reduced or
prevented frustration and failure. She said that mere segregation
of poor learners along with more drill work was of no aid. She

wanted students properly diagnosed and individually treated. She

174

said smaller classes for beginning readers was actually a
long-range economy. She also advocated continued research of the
learning process for the improvement of the conditions and
outcomes of learning. For example, tension and coercive measures
increased reading problems, close eye work involved inordinate
demands on immature muscles, and eye strain led to stress. If
these conditions existed, they should have been altered or
adjusted. Tension, stress, and strain should have been lowered,
avoided, or removed from schooling. Zirbes and Parker, with the
greatest amount of time between them, shared several beginning
reading techniques though there was an observable change in
Zirbes' stance toward both children and instruction. Parker,
Mearns, and Zirbes advocated lessons based on the experiences of
the children. All of the educators used stories--a wide variety
of short, interesting stories--to grasp the interest of the
children. Through the stories they learned new words, phrases,
and the ideas behind the sentences. Zirbes was the proponent for
further study of child development along with small classes so
that the teacher could observe closely any relation between
teaching techniques and activities and results. Steiner's
teachers used fairy tales and fables for beginning storytelling
and reading rather than child dictated stories, but the children
did copy them into their notebooks and illustrate them. Mearns
advocated both. The key was that the students were interested and

that they should learn easier and faster.

175

Dewey and Steiner suggested literature study begin with fairy
tales, folk tales, fables, and mythology. Parker agreed and
called mythology the beginnings of anthropology, history, science,
religion, and art.61 Parker, Dewey, and Steiner included the
Bible in the early part of the literature segment of their
curricula. Parker approached teaching the Bible as any piece of
literature. For example, he used The Gospel of Mark to show
students purpose, relationships, and comparisons.62

Dewey differed from the other educators in this study in that
he saw literature as a social institution only rather than an
in-depth reflection of the unconscious fears, anxieties, and
guilts--"the personal encounters with the 'dark night of the
soul."‘63 He viewed it as a reflection of society's past in order
to maintain continuity and keep the society on track. Rather than
reflecting on the depths of man's experience, Dewey preferred to
search for ways to improve society. He would teach literature
through history and science. Therefore, mythology would be taught
through ancient Greek history. In fact, whenever possible in both
Steiner and Dewey's curriculum, literature would be integrated.
For example, when students studied Caesar's Commentaries in Latin,
they would also read Shakespeare's Sulina Qaesar.

Mearns and Zirbes were concerned with the quality of the
literature children read. Mearns was pleased that the Lincoln
School had "made poetry one of the manly sports." He said the

library "helped to take poetry out of the classroom and save it

176

from the drying and freezing process which goes by the name of
education."64

Mearns wanted children to learn to judge for themselves rather
than simply accept specifics pointed out as what the experts say.
"Remember," he wrote in Qtaative Youth, ”the critics hated hath
Tinn."65 He said books should be viewed as passports to regions
of equals and betters. He wanted students to be able to see the
differences in the quality of literature--good, tasteful
literature.

Zirbes questioned, "Was there something wrong about a culture
which finds more fault with schools and the teaching of reading
than with the conscienceless exploitation of childhood and youth
by producers, purveyors, and promoters of inane and pervasive
comics, mystery stories, movies, and broadcasts?" She said,
"Shoddy commercialism needs to be curbed--much more than modern

instruction in reading needs criticism."66

Don'ts in LanguageZLitataty Learning

Throughout the writing and speaking Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
Mearns, and Zirbes did on the subject of literacy, they seemed in
agreement on what they were against. Some were of a specific
nature: "Don't use a spelling book on top of all the words
learned in history, geography, arithmetic, and natural science."
Some were of a more general nature: "Don't accept that words have
some mysterious power." Overall, they warned against superficial

learning which they actually wouldn't call learning at

177

all--perhaps superficial fact finding followed by fact forgetting.

None of them actually published a separate list of what not to do,

yet there were these admonishments spaced throughout their

articles and books.

Don't

accept that words have some mysterious power

believe that memorizing rules and definitions and
acquiring a mass of disconnected facts will produce useful
learning

use books that are second hand, artificial, and
aristocratic

over-emphasize correct emphasis and inflection. This
destroys the child's natural, beautiful power of
expression which was full of melody and harmony

give the thought before the child was able to get it on

his own

train children to imitate anyone's voice

force memorization of word parts before the whole word was
known

place too much emphasis on punctuation in early

instruction

178

associate the written word with the spoken word without
the idea of the word

teach emphasis, inflection, and pauses by imitation

use a spelling book on top of all the words learned in

history, geography, arithmetic, and natural science

teach grammar until it was absolutely necessary

neglect to supply pure and interesting literature for this
leads children to read trashy literature which was an
unwholesome and vicious tendency

encourage copying. Push students to collect from their
own experiences

emphasize form over ideas

allow children to write badly copied, hackneyed phrasing

and silly platitudes

suggest what should be written

wait for inspiration

encourage imitation

use traditional school-selected literature because it was
strictly from the point of what an adult thinks was proper
teach doggerel rhymes and set phrases

allow a bookish emphasis on word recognition

179

-- allow an isolation from the functional development of oral

language in and through group experience

-- use McGuffey-type readers

-- apply too much pressure during early reading instruction

-- list words in isolation-~maybe don't do anything in
isolation

-- allow the oral reading rate of students to set the pace
for the class

-- make rules, categories, systematic lessons, or lists

-- expect spell down tests to carry over in writing

-- memorize history facts

-- teach the elements first, the hows next, and then expect

to see the sense in it.

This list of what it was better not to do spans 100 years of
educational experiences. The message seemed to have remained on a
cogent target: the student and what he really knew not what he
superficially regurgitated. These teachers wanted the students to
have the idea rather than be handed information. They wanted to
begin learning and to base learning on the interests and
experiences of the child. The essential mechanical elements
necessary to progress should come when necessary. Their views
seemed to be dependent upon the eventual evolution of the child.
They placed great faith in the development of the child from

within rather than from external causes such as teacher-selected

180

textbooks and activities and language rules. Steiner's curriculum
was mandated, but done so supposedly with the child's
developmental level and growth potential in mind. But in many
ways all of their curricula were ultimately mandated. These
teachers were more aware of and concerned with the sensitivity of

their responsibility.

Summary

Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes based their reading
instruction on the experiences of children. In teaching
individual words, phrases, sentences, or short stories, their
approach was either to ask their students to make up their own
stories or to use stories that should appeal to the developmental
level of the students. Their major complaint about instruction
was that while drill work, memorization, out-of-context work, and
oral reading possibly developed good pronunciation of words and
phrases, it did not necessarily lead to comprehension or
understanding. The five educators under study believed that
children learned much at home prior to entering school and that
that should be the knowledge base upon which more knowledge would
be built. In some sense they were patterning their beliefs of
literacy instruction and development upon their own early
experiences in learning to read, but not necessarily having done
so in school. Their goal was not only a literate society, but one

obtained in a less painful manner.

181

Parker seemed to be deeply concerned that children realized
and understood the idea behind the word they learned. He strove
to have that permeate reading instruction despite the many drills
and busy work assignments he also advocated. Dewey saw all forms
of language as social instruments for use in communication;
therefore, when the individual was ready to communicate, he would
also be ready to learn the language. Steiner believed language
should be learned through experience and in an integrative manner.
Children should learn to read what they had written, and all
language instruction should permeate the entire curriculum.
Mearns felt and observed that children could come to appreciate
the beauty of language developmentally. Zirbes, armed with what
had been learned and developed regarding reading and reading
instruction, proposed new methods and attitudes based on
purposeful reading. Every reading experience was to have been
significant to have led to a wholeness of learning.

Collectively, they believed that language learning had to be
meaningful to the whole child. Despite certain practices, they
may have permitted or promoted, they were against isolated drill
and memorization.. To them, there was little point to
pronunciation without meaning or to practice without
interrelatedness. They wanted to instill in children the desire
for continual learning, and they had to commence with a strong

language background.

182

tes

1Laura Zirbes, "Gaps in Curriculum Research," Education
Leadership, 28(1952):l90.

2Laura Zirbes, "What is a Modern Reading Program?" Education
Methods 20(1949):151.

3Laura Zirbes, "Purposeful Reading," Education Research
Bulletin 8(1929):104.

4F.W. Parker, "Discussion of John Clarke's 'The Place of Art

in General Education,'" Soutnal of the Proceedings and Addresses
of the National Education Aasotiation (1895):849.

5F.W. Parker, "Discussion of John Clarke's 'The Place of Art

in General Education,'" 849.

6John Dewey, "My Pedagogic Creed," The Journal of the

Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association
(1935):15.

7Harold Rugg and Ann Shumaker, The Child-Centered School (New
York: World Book Co., l928):251.

8Hughes Mearns, "Language Artists in the Primary Grades,"
Childhood Education 12(1963):l80.

9Hughes Mearns, Creative Tnuth (New York: Doubleday, Doran, &
Co., 1925):120.

10Lelia Patridge, The Quincy hethods (New York: E.L. Kellogg
& Co., 1889):330.

11Patridge, 30.

12Ibid.

13Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Craative Teaching (New York: G.P.
Putnam's Sons, l960):134.

14Ibid.

151bid., 169.

16Jesse H. Newlon, "Democracy & Education in Our Time,"

Progressiva Educatipn 14(1937):7.

183

17Charles F. Adams, Jr., "The New Departure in the Common

School of Quincy & Other Papers on Educational Topics," Boston
1879 report in The Elementaty School Joutnal 35(1935):503.

18Helen M. Hefferan, "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker," Chicago

Schools Sputnal l8(l936):8.

19Thomas Wakefield Goodspeed, A History of the University of
Chicago (Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, l916):48, 81.

20Patridge, 28.

21Ibid.
221bid., 32.
23Ibid., 35.
241bid., 54.
ZSIbid.

26

Merle Curtis, The Social Ideas of American Eduaators (New
Jersey: Pageant Books, Inc., 1959):523.

27Arthur G. Wirth, John Dewey as Educator (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., l966):l62, 163.

 

28Hughes Mearns, Creative Power (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Co., Inc., l930):203, 268.

29Mearns, Cteative Xnnth, 28.

30Hughes Mearns, "The Authentic Language of Childhood,"
Progressive Education 6(1929):292.

31Zirbes, "Purposeful Reading,” 97.

32Ibid.

33Zirbes, "What Is a Modern Reading Program?" 154.

3“1b1d., 155.

35Patridge, 82.

36Goodspeed, 82.

37Patridge, 53.

184

38Francis W. Parker, "The Report of the Committee of Ten-~Its

Use for the Improvement of Teachers Now at Work in the Schools,"

Jou nal o o eedi 5 nd A dresses of t e National Education
Asaociation (1894):339.
39

Earl J. Ogletree, Waldorf Schools: A Child-Centered System
(Document, 1975, ED 178 188).

40Marjorie Spock, Taaching as a Lively Att (Hudson, New York:
The Anthroposophic Press, l985):67.

41Henry Barnes, "An Introduction to Waldorf Education,"

Teachers Spllage Eecotd 81(1980):325.

42Mearns, Cteative Youth, 117.

43Zirbes, Spurs to Creative Teaching, 138.
aalbid., p. 126.
45

Laura Zirbes, Focus on Values in Elementary Education (New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, l960):21.

46Laura Zirbes, "Priorities in Childhood Education,"

Progressive Education 20(1943):104.

47Mearns, Creative Ppwer, 203.
“aspock, 26.

theorge Rist and Peter Schneider, Integrating Vocational and
General Education; A Eudolf Steiner School, 45.

SOPatridge, 66.

51

Ibid., 80.
52Zirbes, Sputs to Creative Teaching, 162.
531bid., 176.
5“1b1d., 181.
55Laura Zirbes, Co a v t d e5 0 u ent r ctice in

Reading (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, l928):l6-23.

56Ibid., 23.

 

185

57Lelia Patridge (reported), Parker, Francis W., Notes on

Talks on Teaching (New York: E.L. Kellogg & Co., 1883.
(Authorized facsimile by micro-xerography by University

Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967):67.
58

Ibid., 67.
59

Zirbes, Sputs to Cteative Teaching, 135.
6OPatridge, Notes on Talks on Teaching, 68.
61

F.C. Fox, "A Personal Glimpse of Colonel Parker,"
Progressive education 9(1932):382.
62Goodspeed, 54.

63Wirth, 279.

64Mearns, Creativa Youth, 105.

651b1d.

66Zirbes, Spura to Creative Teaching, 316.

CHAPTER IV
ACADEMIC AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

In this chapter I will discuss the views of Francis Parker,
John Dewey, Rudolf Steiner, Hughes Mearns, and Laura Zirbes on
three categories of academic discipline: basic, mental, and
integrative. I will then show their attitudes toward school
discipline. Dewey was the most prolific of the five on the
subject of academic and school discipline, writing roughly double
the amount of the others. Parker wrote the least but was not
without opinion in both areas. 0f the five subtopics, the one of
most interest was integrative aspects of academic discipline which
is not surprising. Parker, Mearns, and Zirbes seemed more
concerned with school discipline, while Dewey and Steiner
concentrated on academic discipline.

To the five educators in this study, academic and school
discipline was a category which encompassed not only what to
teach, but also how and why. They discussed basic academic
discipline--that is, what education is all about-~the purpose and
procedure; mental academic discipline-- what humans are capable of
learning and doing and how to advance the furthest with each

individual; and the integrative approach--how everything fits

186

187

together and why that is better than specialization, separation,
and categorization. Throughout the discussion of academic
discipline, they explored ways to provide the best motivational
circumstances possible to evoke appropriate actions conducive to
learning. Here, too, as in Chapter 111, they discussed or rather
warned against what they considered to be ill-advised approaches.
Mearns was extremely interested in providing motivation and
pleasant and conducive surroundings for students in order to help
them learn and to help them want to learn. He devoted half of his
writings to this issue. Yet he only entered the teaching
profession--in the beginning-~in order to earn enough money to

survive financially in the theatre.

Academia Discipline

BALE

To Dewey the very basis of academic discipline was growth:
physical, intellectual, and moral. All of the educators in this
study combined the three as equally important, emphasizing the
necessity for physical education as part of the academic and
school curriculum. Dewey said that the aims of academic
discipline were centered on the development of the individuality
of the child. He suggested that the chief criterion of evaluating
those aims was "does the education produce a constant tendency
toward growth? Does it draw out potential capacities of the
children?"1 For Dewey if education produced no growth, if it were

either stagnant or regressive, then it was less than useless.

188

Dewey was a proponent of inquiry and problem solving as a

means toward both growth and education. He believed that every
emphasis on problem solving in or out of the classroom
incorporated the use of both skills and knowledge which had been
learned. Beyond that he saw problem solving as a process which
continually transformed those acquired habits more effectively.
He called it "more effective adjustiveness." Zirbes called it
"forward adjustment." The basis of learning did not stop with
transmittal and acceptance of information. It continued with
performance and improvement.

Dewey was fortunate during his early years at the University
of Chicago that both the university and the city were interested
in pedagogical theory and practice and that they were concerned
about the improvement of the public schools. President Harper and
many of the faculty (and Harper had managed to entice some of the
nation's best) were actively pursuing the upgrading of the
teaching profession. Consequently, this interest gave Dewey
access to the schools' faculties and teachers' associations. That
kind f audience inspired and stimulated his work. Because of this
stimulation, Dewey studied the developmental capabilities of
children. He found that he didn't quite agree with that ontogeny
recapitulated phylogeny (the stages of the development of the
individual roughly correspond to the stages through which the
human race evolved). Dewey preferred to study the child rather

than study the epoch and then transfer the results to the child.

189

Mayhew reported in The Qeway Sthpol that through his studies Dewey
discovered three growth stages along with transitions. Stage One
was from four-to-six-year olds. Stage Two was the nine- and
ten-year olds followed by a transition period of the eleven- and
twelve-year olds. The third stage of growth was from thirteen to
fifteen years of age. Once Dewey discovered a learning pattern he
determined the kinds of things that should be taught at the
different levels.

Groups One and Two (the four-to-five year olds) were mainly
occupied with the household occupations. Mayhew reported in Tha
Dewey School, for example, the daily program of these first two
groups was beginning at 9:00 a.m. with handwork followed by songs
and stories and then marching and games such as Follow the Leader.
After a snack they had dramatic play and rhymes. Through the
study of the occupations the children learned that "orderly
self-direction is essential for group work."2 Dewey believed that
much could be learned through a study of the occupations:
household such as sewing, cooking, and cleaning; and social such
as farming, woodwork, and shop work, though these were to be
studied within the confines of the classroom rather than, for
example, on a farm or in a home.

Group Three (the six-year olds) studied end products via their
sources as origins. They progressed from mimic to consideration
of others; they traced food to their sources and finished carvings

to their original forms or states. Through this kind of study the

190

why and the how began to stir. Their daily activities included
spinning, weaving, cooking, shop-work, modeling, dramatic plays,
conversations, story telling, and discussions. These activities
were fundamental and typical, but they were related to and
recapitulated similar previous actions. Each activity was
enriching and enlarging toward more and more definite purposes and
plans which were all conscious of the social relations.3 For
example, group four studied progress through invention and
discovery. They studied how primitive man and his occupations led
to geology, chemistry, physics, biology, and geography. Dewey's
plan for developmental group learning was to move from the most
simplistic and home-like to the more complex and worldly. This
group learning, however, appeared to be more teacher-directed than
Mearns' who followed by allowing students a strong degree of input
on curriculum.

Dewey was more interested in the experience of the group
learning than the subject matter. His primary concern was with
subject matter as a "special mode of personal experiénce, rather
than with it as a body of wrought out facts and scientifically
related principles."4 For example, in ”The Psychological Aspect
of a School Curriculum," he wrote:

Geography is not only a set of facts and
principles which may be classified and discussed
by themselves, it is also a way in which some
actual individual feels and thinks about the
world. It must be the latter before it can be the
former. Only when an individual has passed
through a certain amount of experience which he

vitally realized on his own account is he prepared
to take an objective and logical point of view,

191

capable of standing off and analyzing the facts
and principles involved.

To Dewey the subject matter in textbooks was the logically
organized end products of inquiry. This, in itself, was fine but
it cheated the students of insights into the process of inquiry
that went before it. For example, geology may be taught by giving
a list of materials containing the so-called right answers. But
geologists may have been inspired to create their science by an
inquiry regarding fish fossils on the rocks of a mountain.

So, according to Dewey, teachers had to be students of both
their subject matter and their pupils. They had to know both so
well that they were able to show the children the process of
inquiry that may have inspired and been followed in order to
develop the knowledge within the subject area. Children saw not
only the end product but the cause of the question at the
beginning and the process that led to the final knowledge.
Ideally, students experienced at least a part of that process so
that they were led to "share a sense of the discovery of the
creators of the knowledge."6 The teacher's goal was to present
material and activities in such a way that the abstract meanings
of knowledge actually became a functioning part of the child's
experience. In this way the child saw the end product and
understood the process of inquiry which lead to that product.
This, according to Dewey, led to greater understanding of the

knowledge deemed necessary to impart.

192

Another suggestion Dewey had for teachers was to know the
subject matter so well--"must be abundant to the point of overflow
so that his mind can be free to observe student reaction."7 Dewey
felt that if the teacher did not have to worry about what to say
so that it came naturally, then he could concentrate on his
students' reactions-~"bodily expressions of the mental condition:
puzzlement, boredom, mastery, dawn of an idea, feigned attention,
tendency to show off or to dominate the discussion because of
egotism."8 Then the teacher could take appropriate action to
re-direct attention to the appropriate place.

Steiner believed not only that the teachers must be extremely
well versed in the subject matter-~in the hiring of teachers for
his first Waldorf School in Stuttgart, Germany he preferred
artisans to credentialed teachers--but also that they plan to
devote three hours preparation for each half hour of a lesson. He
believed that if the teacher were so well prepared, then he could
teach in three to four lessons what might, under different
circumstances, take half a year. Parker, too, believed in
demanding preparation for each lesson. He would spend the entire
evening and half the night preparing for the lessons of the
following day. These educators believed (and practiced that
belief) that an extremely well-prepared teacher was essential to
the teaching (and the delivery) of the system.

Finally, on the basis of academic discipline, Dewey spoke out

on cultural aristocratic education versus industrial education.

193

To Dewey, "intelligence is activity; it is a verb, not a noun.

The test of its presence is doing, not having."9 Education should
be in and of "discerning of relationships and using continuities
in anticipation of outcomes. It should assist one to work by aims
thoughtfully extracted from surrounding conditions in order to
order those conditions. A good life is constant improvement, not
repetition."10 Dewey believed that good schools should teach and
encourage students to learn eagerly and constantly.

Dewey criticized what he called cultural or aristocratic
education which he said survived because people were led to
believe that pure knowledge was more important than applied
knowledge. He complained that this pure or cultural knowledge
makes "one feel superior to fellows through possession of an
observer's knowledge which they (their fellows) do not possess;
though we have not been trained to do anything with it save
contemplate our own superiority."11 Dewey returned to the purpose
of American education which was, according to him, to promote
social and cultural democracy. He wanted education to further the
knowledge and control of the individual. He wanted the schools to
bring "intellectual culture within the reach of the masses to help
break the feudally inherited barriers separating the vast majority

who toil with their hands from the few who enjoy the more creative

activities of the mind and spirit."12 In Demgttacy ang Education,

Dewey wrote that education should be organized so that children

are doing something--”natural active tendencies shall be fully

194

enlisted"--and that that something requires "observation, the
acquisition of information, and the use of a constructive
imagination."13 Dewey believed this was necessary to improve
social conditions.

The improvement of social conditions was the same reason that
Emil Mott decided education was necessary first for his factory
workers, then for the children of his factory workers and beyond.
He approached Rudolf Steiner because Steiner's educational
phi1050phy seemed to provide an appropriate avenue. Steiner, like
Dewey, believed that manual work was an important aspect of
education. Foremost, Steiner felt that "our highest endeavor must
be to develop free human beings who are able of themselves to
impart purpose and direction to their lives."14 This was what
drove the Nazis to close the Waldorf Schools in Germany. The
government said that the purpose of education was to develop
citizens for the state, not to develop individuals who could think
for themselves.

The basis of academic discipline in the Waldorf Schools was
that which united the movement. It was the "education itself
which is a unique blend of the individual, the local atmosphere,
and what is universally human."15 While the curriculum followed
the development of the civilization of mankind, Steiner organized
it in relation to the development of the individual. He did not
dwell on the stages of civilization as Dewey had warned against.

Nor did Steiner approve of the concept of "the more the better,

195

the faster the better."16 The curriculum was not individualized
and self-pacing but a careful selection considered appropriate to
the stage of the development of the child but only after the
ground work had been laid to fit the experience of the imagination
of the child. In Steiner's plan, the child progressed from level
to level. The teacher helped him to progress. He did not
necessarily wait until he arrived.

As Mearns wrote "at the proper time authorities come in but
always after experience has made authorities understandable."17
Both Mearns and Steiner would agree there was not much gained from
a totally permissive, unstructured schooling. They never
advocated that though they were sometimes criticized for it.
Mearns defined the basis of academic discipline--the minimum
essentials-—a5 attitudes and skills. To him it was the
responsibility of the teacher to develop and to provide the proper
atmosphere in which both those essentials should grow. For
example, he wrote that "creative activity comes from a pulsing
stream of inconsequential thoughts and feelings."18 The teacher
had to be able to realize and understand the difference between
the beginnings of creativity and aimless meanderings. The teacher
had to make the children believe everyday occurrences were alive,
dramatic, and interesting. Also, the teacher had to help the
student to become aware of the difference between his real self

and his superimposed self. Mearns once warned students to defer

and keep silent with most elders. He urged diplomacy in

196

expressing views that differed from those that prevailed. He was
not opposed to personal view point; he opposed folly and worthless
martyrdom. He wanted students to study themselves and find out
what was best for them. He was realistic in his awareness that
all authoritarian figures did not approach the subject from his
point of view.

Despite his cautions, Mearns wrote in Steative Eowet that it
was a ”rare rebel who refuses to give up his gift of seeing,
thinking, and feeling as a child."19 Consequently, he offered
more cautions and suggestions--this time in a different direction.
He said that shame and coercion worked against creativity.
Teachers had to teach children to be inventive rather than
imitative so that they could progress, see, and solve their own
problems. They needed to learn how and to learn to want to work
together, but the struggle for achievement hardened people and
brought out the worst in them. He quipped, "The World War I was
won in composition and penmanship drills of the public schools of
yesteryear. Courage? For training in courage there is nothing
like it."20 Mearns believed that taste was a matter of normal
growth and that it could not be changed without danger--certainly
to one, perhaps to both parties. He referred to Lowell, president
of Harvard, who said that children needed to learn resourcefulness
more than knowledge. They needed to learn to recognize problems
before they could begin to solve them. Mearns supported his

suggestions and cautions with two examples: (a) "progressive

197
children have a better understanding of how to use facts,"21 and
(b) "students who are low in 'school facts' know more about
equally important things of the world than their instructors."22
From what Mearns wrote, he was more inclined toward a
student-centered curriculum than was Steiner. Both purported to
want what was best for the student, but the difference seemed to
be that Steiner made the determination and then proceeded to have
it taught in a humane, student-centered manner while Mearns
appeared to allow and encourage students to develop their own
resourcefulness.

Zirbes was also interested in the promotion of independence
and responsibility. She suggested one way to promote these traits
would be to provide "legitimate social service outlets which would
challenge and dignify adolescence."23 All five educators in this
study thought through the individual classroom and school to
society beyond. To them education in general and academic
discipline in particular was not only in aid of the child but of
society as a whole. Zirbes believed as did Dewey that scientific
inquiry could be incorporated as a basis for academic studies
which could lead to creative and imaginative feeling and forming,
again both in and out of the classroom. This followed the lines
of Lowell's notion that children need to be resourceful first. An

inquiry method could help children to realize the problem exists

and lead them toward a solution.

198

If teachers followed an inquiry method, they would discover
that creative teaching could not be reduced to a pattern or
formula, to specific know how or set methods. This may have
accounted for the fact that none of the five educators in this
study left any specific plan to be followed in the classroom. As
has been pointed out, they put the child first and therefore
academic and school discipline required alterations from class to
class. In Guidelines to Developmental Teaching, Zirbes wrote that
instruction could fail unless it entered into conceptual behavior.
Teachers had to know the children so that they could work to bring
the idea behind that which was to be taught to them. Zirbes
offered a caution of her own, "There is an urgency because unmet
needs of young children complicate later growth, living, and
learning."24 For example, Zirbes felt that for children who
deviated widely from central tendencies in endowment and
achievement--for the gifted and the underachiever--traditional,
structured, or rigid educational methods did not work. For these
children a creative education was essential. The basis for
academic discipline was set and, according to the five educators
under study, essential. On this topic they seemed more intense,
almost a pleading voice for the child. I will now discuss their
understanding of the mind of the child upon which they built the

structure of their schools.

199

M
Parker promoted the object method of teaching reading because
he believed in the "cultivation of the perceptive faculties before
the exercising of reasoning powers."25 To Parker the learner had
to understand the idea behind the object, the printed word, or the
lesson in order for any of it to make any lasting sense.
Consequently, Parker would have his teachers ask these questions
daily:
What particular mental power is developed by
this study? What for oral spelling? Is it good
for the imagination? Does it enable the child to
pass into the unknown? What does it do for the
child's perception? Reason? Logic? What has
multiplication table to do with mental growth?
Even if the teachers did not literally ask these questions daily,
at least they had them in mind as they planned their lessons and
as they taught. Parker thought that the classroom was one good
place where mind met mind. He encouraged interaction among
students. Though many of today's teachers would disagree, Parker
felt a "class of fifty was none too large. Forty-nine pupils help
one--one helps forty-nine."27
Also Parker was a firm believer of the sound body/sound mind
school. In 1895 he wrote in an article entitled "The New
Department," "All physical training should be concentrated on a
healthy, strong, active brain, which means a sound body. The
results of physical training should be looked for in the skill of

28

thought-expression.” All five educators under study believed in

combining physical and mental activity. Parker would have taken

200

his pupils to the farm to learn, but he settled for the school
yard and surrounding lands. Dewey and Zirbes had their pupils up
and about, in and out of different classrooms all day. Steiner's
students built and fashioned articles of wood, clay, and other
materials, kept gardens, took part in physical education classes,
and practiced eurythmy, a unique combination of poetry and body
movement.

To Dewey, thinking was a combination of what was done and its
consequences. So learning had to be connected to activity. Dewey
connected activity to morals. He argued against the separation of
learning from action because it "cuts off the inner disposition
and motive--the conscious personal factor--from deeds as if they
were purely physical and outer."29 Dewey wanted learning to be
accompanied by continuous activities or occupations. He
transformed the school into a miniature community where pupils
participated in social activities typical both in school
activities and community actions. For Dewey the preparation of
the individual to serve himself and society was paramount. He
called for an end to the old order of education: "no more ancient
versus modern language, scientific versus humanistic." He said
"education should affect equally the disposition and the power of
the individual and his social callings."3o In order to accomplish
this, Dewey used inquiry. This was his own riding method of
education. Inquiry was primary; it came before the nature of what

was known and the nature of the knower. As Lowell said, "See the

201

problem then discover how to solve it." Dewey explained why it
was difficult to implement inquiry as a method of education and
way of life. ”In inquiry, theory and practice, the universal and
the particular are drawn together. Social inquiry is a threat to
all who think they have a stake in the going social order exactly
as it is."31

The methods Dewey fought against promoted memorization, drill,
and the separation of learning from activity. He said these
approaches promoted negative attitudes toward learning and they
were wasteful. The child's mind was dulled by premature,
unrelated drill. Time was wasted on format techniques which were
important but prevented a more positive introduction into subject
matter. He said 60-80% of time in elementary school was drill
work--which was meaningless and ineffective--while the time should
have been used to introduce more substantial intellectual content.
He wanted lessons to harmonize capacity (growth of mind) and
experience. Then teachers could determine the effectiveness of
these lessons by observing whether they lead the children to
resolution. That is, through the process of inquiry did they see
the problem and ultimately set out to solve it?

Though his wording differed, Steiner wanted the same sense of
direction imparted to his students. He said, "Our highest
endeavor must be to develop free human beings who are able of

32

themselves to impart purpose and direction to their lives."

Steiner agreed with Parker and Dewey that conceptual knowledge was

202

obtained by sense observation. Throughout the curriculum of the
Waldorf Schools, he encouraged the stimulation and use of the five
senses. For example, he emphasized the importance of color in
many areas of lessons, not only in art lessons. Both discussion
and use of color were carried on throughout the day. But Steiner
also believed in a knowledge that was experienced inwardly,
independent of the senses. He believed he had this knowledge from
his youth, but he rarely spoke of it for fear of misunderstanding
or ridicule. In his autobiography, The Story of My Life, he
wrote,
My sense assures me of the reality of what is

observed so long as I observe it. Not so when I

unite myself through ideal spiritual knowledge

with beings or events of the spiritual world.

Here there enters into the single perception, the

direct experience of the status of the thing of

which I am aware continuing beyond the duration of

the observation. For instance, if one experiences

the human ego as the inner being most

fundamentally one's own, then one knows in the

perceiving experience that his ego was before the

life in the physical body and will be after this.

What one experiences thus in the ego reveals this

directly, just as the rose revggls its redness in

the art of our becoming aware.
Steiner did not literally or objectively or obviously include or
impose his spiritualism in the Waldorf curriculum; nonetheless,
its influence must have permeated his thinking and its design.

To Mearns intelligence was the ability to face facts and to

recognize distinctions. He wanted his students to "create their

own philosophy, to make their own psychology which would lead them

to a world of awe, wonder, delight, and patient observation of the

203

behavior of others and of themselves."34 If this were done
carefully, students would become aware of their secret
disagreement with the general opinion of those around them. This
would be the creative self at work. Of course, Mearns warned to
let it out carefully. The curriculum of the school had to be
student centered (the child first, the subject second) so that the
child would begin to believe in his potentialities. He would be
encouraged in his crude attempts at his dormant creative arts.
Then with the help of the teacher and his fellow students, he
would slowly raise his standards and become more skillful. For
example, Mearns wanted his students to become able critics of
their own work which should then lead to self-improvement and
progress. He wrote,
I do not want students to be concerned with

the textbook evaluation of worthies but how to

judge the worth of the worthies themselves.

Certainly, we know rulers and conquerors are

overrated and many classics in literary and

graphic arts are kept alive solely by artificial

pedagogic respiration.
Mearns wanted his students to be able to see the problem. He did
not want their minds cluttered with the remembered facts, popular
prejudices, and exam data but with meaning. Without it, he
warned, they become unhealthy, unthinking animals. In describing
students who had been encouraged to find and free their own
creativity, he wrote, ”Their minds had been freed; they were,
consequently, clearer than their more learned elders of the air of

the petty prejudice of taste."36

204

Zirbes continued Mearns' campaign against strict classroom
controls on students' behavior and on their thinking. She wrote
that there was a need to question the

. assumption that continuities of
associations with hard taskmasters, autocratic
disciplinarians, and coldly efficient devotees of
regimentation, repression, and routine are good
for children and youth. This negates interactions
among peer groups in a free society. Those who
put a high faith in such disciplines do no§7trust
themselves to live with youth more freely.

In her article "Clear the Way for Learning," she compiled lists of
conditions which promoted and stultified learning (see next page).
Zirbes concluded that certain methodologies and classroom

beliefs such as teacher-imposed control and repression combined
with rote, isolated drill work, though practiced in many
classrooms, actually blocked learning while student involvement in

student-directed inquiry followed by observation and

experimentation actually promoted learning.

Integrative

In order to best reach the mind of the child with the basis of
academic discipline, Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes
all favored an integrated curriculum and opposed separations and
divisions of the contents of the disciplines. Parker's theory of
concentration unified content into a central subject which
conformed to the unity found in nature and was central to the
child's experience. Parker explained that since the child's

education had actually begun long before he entered school, the

CONDITIONS

BLOCK LEARNING
anxiety
immaturity
physical factors
individual idiosyncrasies
mental confusion

deprivations of meager
social background

lack of interest
meaningless rote work
isolated learning
abstractions and
generalizations at
beginning

separate skill from use

instructional materials too
programmed

extrinsic incentive and
pressure

imposed control

1
repression

FAVOR LEARNING
security
confidence
life relatedness

active vivid sense
experience

attitude-insight-skill work
together

consideration of learners'
needs

inquiry
observation
experimentation
inference

spontaneity

206

curriculum should be built on what the child had already begun to
learn. The central subject should focus on the natural
environment of the child. The motivation, then, should be
inherent because of the child's natural curiosity about the world
around him. So, in pursuit of this interest, inorganic sciences
should be studied with the organic sciences since life sciences
were dependent upon them. The study of life sciences could be
followed from botany to zoology. The study of man, anthropology,
was based on the complexities of social relationships which was
called ethnology. The study of man's spiritual struggles along
with the evolution of chemistry, physics, and physiology was
called history, but they were all taught as an organic,
inseparable, interdependent unit. Nature had no separate
classifications; therefore, its study could not be done in
isolated segments. The central subject was also united through
the study of form and number which were found in everything in
nature. There was also unity in the method of learning which was
knowledge acquired through the senses.

Parker believed that the processes of mental and physical
1earning--the modes of attention and expression--should be
developed simultaneously with the central subject. He said one
mode can't be taught without the other. For example, reading
(attention) and writing (expression) should be taught in
coordination with the central subject. Actually, Parker saw this

integrative curriculum as an economical use of school time. He

207

said that "geography without history or art for art's sake is like
analysis gone to seed. Such isolation of subjects was the method
aristocrats used to keep the people from thinking."39

What Parker was doing was reversing the textbook form of the
quest for knowledge which was to proceed from rules and
definitions to problems. When he wanted his students to find
answers to questions about the earth, he took them out to see it.
The children made sketches and mud models of what they saw; and,
since the landscapes and sea of Quincy contained most forms of
land and water, the "imaginary constructs of the unseen world were
better learned through physical surroundings than through the
unconnected mass of statistics and facts found in geography
books."40

Parker said that less emphasis should be placed on the
military and political events in the study of history and more on
social relationships. Students should realize and understand the
prejudice, bigotry, and dogmatism. Students should learn to see
the problem. Parker said that history was, at best, a partial
record of mankind. It had to be supplemented with ethnology,
anthropology, archeology, philosophy, myths, nature studies, and,
of course--Parker's favorite--geography. He could even relate
psychology to science by having the pupils examine a sheep's
brain. Parker would have taught everything from a farm if he

could. He also managed t teach geography and reading

comprehension techniques such as purpose, relationships, and

208

comparisons by using the Bible. In May 1869 he lectured at the
Sabbath School. He read verses from the Bible and then asked
members of the audience to close their books and tell him what
facts stuck out in their memories. Then he asked about the
positions of Jerusalem and Jericho, the purpose of Jesus' journey,
and a comparison of the blind man Bartimaeus and sinners blinded
with wickedness.

Parker believed that if lessons consisted of logical premises,
sequences, and conclusions, then the thought should evolve
logically in a pupil's mind. If that was so, his oral and written
expression should be as well. Parker wanted students to be
trained into the "highest art of composition" but that, too, was
integrative. Students should write often about the subjects they
were studying. For example, in geography there were many
descriptions to be written: hills, valleys, plains, coastlines,
rivers, and springs. For natural science pupils described trees,
plants, flowers, vegetation, and animals.’ In history there were
fascinating stories to relate. Parker complained that the
"cutting lash of tradition turns the grand study of history into
dry, stupid, rote learning of pages, numbers, dates, and
meaningless generalizations."h1

Within his integrative curriculum, Parker's favorite was the
study--not in textbooks--of geography. To Parker geography was
the study of the stage (the earth) and the actors (the people).

The

209

. first work of geography is to build into
the mind by means of imagination the stage. To
teach by the map alone which does not take the
student beyond representation of that which is
represented is manifestly wrong. Instead, the
first steps in geography should give the child the
means to imagine that which he cannot see. Begin
with the forms around you. Take the children out
into the fields and valleys. Return to the school
room. Let them describe orally what they have
seen. Mold it and draw it. Describe it in
writing. Teach distance by actual measurement--
boundaries by fences, drainage by gutter and the
flow of water after a rain. Find springs and
discover how water comes out of the ground. Have
pupils bring in different kinds of earth: gravel,
sand, clay, loam. This will provide practice in
the three great means 82 expression: concrete,
drawing, and language.

In all, Parker deplored the fact that isolated drill in
traditional American schools demanded such a large proportion of
time.

Like Parker, Dewey deplored the fact that areas of study were
taught as isolated bodies of fact. He said that while teachers
often evaluate the product (the pupil), they did not do so to
their criteria or their procedures. Teachers did not stop and
analyze why and how often enough or at all. Also like Parker,
Dewey felt that the more the separation and isolation of content,
the more elitist the curriculum became. In opposition to that,
Dewey and his wife instituted what they called the occupations
into the curriculum. Dewey experimented using them as a basis for
integrative learning based on the "epistemological thesis that
human intellectual life developed in relation to the needs and

opportunities for action."43 He began with the basic occupations

210

for human survival: gardening, cooking, textile work, and
carpentry. In 1902 in an article entitled "Interpretation of the
Savage Mind,” Dewey wrote, ”Occupations determine the fundamental
modes of activity and hence control the formations and use of
habits. 'Apperceptive masses' and associational traits of
necessity conform to the dominant activities. The occupations
determine the chief modes of satisfaction, the standards of
success and failure."44

Dewey rationalized the inclusion of the occupations in his
curriculum in his lecture for the first course in pedagogy. He
said the occupations afforded children the opportunity to relate
learning activities of the school with experience outside and to
be involved in activities with which they were already familiar.
The occupations represented the "fundamental process and
instruments by which society has made itself what it is in the
subordination of nature to human ends--basic activities that dealt
with universal human needs such as food, shelter, and clothing."45
These practices allowed children to utilize natural instincts or
impulses: constructive, investigative, experimental, social, and
expressive. For example, they begin with simple and basic
physical coordination and move on to technical skills with tools.
Also the children enjoy sharing and communicating their

experiences.

In Sghool and Sptiaty, Dewey wrote,

211

The fundamental point in the psychology of an
occupation is that it maintains a balance between
the intellectual and the practical phases of
experience. As an occupation it is active or
motor; it finds expression through the physical
organs: the eyes, hands, etc. But it also
involves continual observation of materials and
continued planning and reflection in order that
the practical or executive side may be
successfully carried on. It differs from a trade
because its end is in the growth that comes from
the continual interplay of ideas and their 46
embodiment in action, not in external utility.

Dewey maintained a continuum from this first stage of study
through the more advanced stages. He continued with the motor-
expressive activities and added new materials so that the pupils
could understand and feel the conditions they were studying. For
example, rather than study history chronologically, Dewey had the
children study units that showed the intellectual and technical
advances that developed as man took control of his environment--a
unit on the exploration of Chicago. They studied the scientific
aspects of the colonists' making soap and candles, spinning wheels
and looms. These historical aspects were introduced in the first
stage so that the children could realize and understand what
causes societies to become what they become. Then, their
questions--Where does it come from? Where does it go? How does
it work?--lead to more and more advanced study.

The six-year olds: food, fibers, wood, metal as part of
cooking, sewing, and carpentry from raw
material to finished product
farming, weaving, mining, lumbering;

analysis of each role played in preparing
materials for use

212

The seven-year olds: history of evolutionary development of
civilization--investigate occupations from
simple origins to present complex state

imagine how to face hostile environment
without civilized conveniences

innovations and inventions developed in
prehistoric times
The eight-year olds: migration, exploration, discovery

phoenicians (traders rather than farmers or
hunters)

origins of letters and numbers

enhancement reading, writing, mathematical
skills

great explorers--Prince Henry the
Navigator, Magellan, Marco Polo, Columbus
The nine/ten-

year olds: exploration and conquest of America

strategic geographical location of Chicago
and consequences in lives of inhabitants

role of fur trade

Whenever possible the mode of these lessons was play--an
active, constructive involvement with materials. Dewey had
adopted the principle of indirect learning. "Attention is not
upon the idea of learning, but upon the accomplishing of a real
and intrinsic purpose. Much energy is expended and the child is
intent upon the project at hand with no conscious effort or

42

attention." Two additional points about this course of study

are that the faculty made a serious effort to coordinate studies

213

through the integration of, for example, history and science. The
other is that Dewey did not like or use textbooks. He did use
biographies, but he feared they left too individual a conception
of history. ”We need also to know how the social forces were at
work and expressing themselves through these individuals."48
Steiner also encouraged faculty cohesiveness and discouraged
textbook use. Much of the philosophy of Steiner's academic
discipline coincided with both Parker and Dewey. They were in
favor of active participation by the students in their learning
and opposed to rote drill work and memorization of facts in
isolation. They also placed student learning on developmental
levels of increasing complexity. Of course, there were areas of
difference and areas Steiner emphasized. Color, for example,
played an important role in the Waldorf curriculum. Steiner was a
student of Goethe and in Goethe's study of color which he called
Deeds of Light. Goethe saw color as movement, gesture, and a
dynamic element. Steiner believed that children experience color
in a dynamic way, so it should be a part of their classroom
experience. In their early paintings the children emphasize color
rather than object resemblances. He found that children in early
grades are free of adult fears toward drawing and painting. It
must be a learned rather than natural fear. Steiner had the
children draw not just with their hands and eyes but with their
whole bodies. They moved on lines drawn on the floor in order to
feel the difference between the flow of curves and the rigidity of

straight lines.

214

The main block lesson which ran about two hours each morning
concentrated on stories and drawing to begin and moved on to
numbers and nature study, but both were studied in story form
whenever possible. In social studies, again through stories,
legends, and poems, the children learned about how other people
live but in keeping with the theme of learning from experience
they learned of others by comparing them with their own lives.
Also following an integrative approach each subject connected.
For example, in studying the history of the industrial revolution,
the role of geography in that revolution was studied.
Steiner believed the curriculum should be equally divided into a
study of academics and the practical/manual arts. All children in
Waldorf Schools studied music beginning with the recorder, foreign
language, physical education, fine art and manual training. This
was to promote the all-round expansion and individual development
of each student in his thinking, feeling, and will and to lend to
his maturity. The purpose was that students were able to relate
what they learned in school with their own lives.

Mearns believed that creativity was the integrative thread of
the school curriculum. He said that since all subjects had a
creative side, the student should become an inventor, explorer,
interpreter, and an appreciator of fine things. That theme
permeated the curricula of the educators in this study. It was
never enough for students to learn information. It was always how

they reacted to it--whether they appreciated it or disregarded it

215

--but that they did react and relate to what they learned. There
was little point to just learning it. Mearns said that the
motivation necessary to learn would arise from the interrelation
of subject matter areas in real life situations. In 1946 he wrote
in "Creative Education in College" that the "subjects of study
should be carried over into your daily life to be used over and
over again as instruments of knowledge, interpretation, judgment,
and taste."49 He criticized teachers for failing to excite their
students in learning by being too satisfied with an uncritical
reception of what was studied. This perpetuated dependency in
students and it ignored the creative aspects to learning. "The
history student should become a historian and interpret the data
he uncovers. The scientist must make discoveries and rather than
merely studying literature-~make literature."50

Like Parker, Dewey, and Steiner, Mearns would have taken
textbooks and examinations out of the schools. To Mearns,
literary, dramatic, and graphic arts were the important
expressions of man, not learning per se. He wanted education to
be a live endeavor. And he recommended using journals to "rescue
creative intellectual powers from atrophy."52

Zirbes was opposed to the separation of subjects, opposed to
dependence on teachers, textbooks, and examinations, and in favor
of a developmental curriculum based on the experiences of the

child enhanced with enriching elements. She said it was easier to

learn when facts were interrelated and the connections made clear.

216

Isolating them made them more difficult to learn. She felt that
education really only became significant when actual experience
made it meaningful. It clarified meaning, developed concepts,
encouraged creative expression, inquiry, and social interaction.
First hand experience was the carry-over from school to the
students' lives.

First hand experience included sensory, tactile, exploratory
activities. Through these children learned appreciation and
developed an aesthetic sense. Children in a classroom Zirbes
visited showed her a lovely ceramic duck they had been given.
"Oh, we aren't allowed to touch it." Zirbes said the order must
have come from an "officious school bystander."

In the University School at The Ohio State University,
students worked on a thematic unit which integrated many
disciplines through exploration, information collection, and
language experience. Typical units were on how people live, work,
and play on a farm (Parker would have liked that one); how and
where we get food; what makes things go; communication; the story
of the Earth; the ways people live.53 These combined social
studies, science, music, math, geography, and art. For example,
during a bake sale, the children learned to count and make change.
They determined how far the pioneers travelled on the Oregon
Trail. They also studied the world close to them--how Columbus
protected its people and natural resources and industry in Ohio.

Throughout these units and in other areas such as art, music, and

217

physical education, teachers provided learning opportunities that
met the needs of each child at his particular stage of growth. A
criticism had been levelled at this element of these schools.
Some critics pointed out that the schools in this study were
either private or university sponsored which afforded these
teachers far greater opportunity for developmental
individualization. That was, of course, true. Mearns wanted to
experiment in a public school system, but he never found the
appropriate opportunity.

Finally, Zirbes preferred the use of textbooks as reference
rather than the major source of information. She urged students
to read widely from several areas and to look for areas of
agreement and disagreement rather than to put too much faith in
any single source. While she allowed that textbooks may be
necessary in foreign language, algebra, biology, and physics (1
can see Parker, Dewey, and Steiner shaking their heads on this),
she felt textbooks were only one means to learning.

Parker, Dewey, Stéiner, Mearns, and Zirbes, though living and
teaching at different times and in different places, all believed
that stilted, isolated facts thrust upon voiceless children was
not the way education should be. They believed, certainly, that
there were important facts to be learned. Though their method of
learning was sometimes criticized as empty and frivolous, this was
actually far from the truth. The content of their curriculum was

substantial. From Parker through Zirbes, they developed a strong

218

curriculum which consisted of science, math, social studies,
language arts, foreign language, fine arts, the humanities,
physical education, and hand crafts which included wood working
and metal working. The difference was that they built the facts
upon each other and taught them through the child rather than at
him. The how and the why of their teaching was different, not
necessarily the what. In fact, they would argue that their

students actually learned more.

School Discipline

The academic discipline of their schools was basic, mental,
and integrative. The school discipline was motivational. It was
the task of the school and the teacher to help the child to want
to learn. Parker believed that character and usefulness come
first and that knowledge was only one means to that end. He said
that character can only be made in freedom and knowledge which
does not bear fruit in the service to others is barren knowledge
and will sooner or later wither and die.54 Parker's school began
with daily assemblies during which children were encouraged to
come forward and tell some new thing they had learned, so children
of all grades had an idea of what others were learning. Parker
began the assembly by questioning the children: "What is the
great word?" "Responsibility!" "What is our motto?" "Everything

to help and nothing to hinder!"55

219

In her book The Quincy Methods, Patridge discussed Parker's

philosophy of motivation. First, he believed that power and
imagination should be developed in every step of every lesson.
After conducting a lesson while the class was sitting on a hill,
the teacher told them about the great mountains in the world.
When they were gathered on the banks of a river, she told them
about the great rivers in the world. She excited their curiosity
to solve problems. Where does the water go? What if the earth
were level? What's the difference between a river and a canal or
a pebble and a grain of sand? Parker said the purpose of teaching
that which can be seen and examined was to enable the child to
imagine the unseen. When Parker taught the seasons, he marked on
the floor the sunbeams. The next day at the same time the
children compared the marks and the sunbeam and wondered--which
was, of course, what Parker wanted.

Parker had his students study history in order to increase
their powers of imagination and deduction. For the younger
children, he told stories of the past or had them read easy,
interesting history books such as Quackenbos' Elementary flistory
or Mrs. Munroe's Our Qountgy. Then they read biographies. The
seventh and eighth graders were ready for salient facts of the
history of the country which were arranged so that each fit
together. Parker warned against trying to teach too many. He
said one fact that aroused a genuine interest and love for history

was better than one hundred superficially taught.

220

Parker complained about what he called drudgery in the
classroom. It was a forced action of the mind upon that which is
beyond the mental grasp of the child. It was the monotonous use
of verbal memory; it was lack of variety. Finally, it was the
straining of the mind on disliked subjects with a single motive:
applause, rewards, diplomas. The opposite of drudgery in the
classroom was real work done on real things that produced tangible
results. A key element was that the work was adapted to the
child's power to do it. Parker said that every struggle brings
success and makes better work possible; it stimulates every
activity of the mind and body. Parker warned that while the great
outcry was that schools and colleges were to educate children to
be above manual labor, what they were really doing was educating
them to be below it. The vague, meaningless things the children
learn were not adapted to real work.56

Dewey decried the anachronistic behavior of some teachers. In

math class students were not allowed to use algebra unless it was

specifically an algebra class. In chemistry students were not

 

allowed to use the word atom until half way through the term.
Dewey would have none of these practices.57 Instead, in order to
facilitate the growth and the learning of pupils, Dewey suggested
building on past experiences, providing relaxing activities, and
sequencing the complexity of the material to be learned. As far
as Dewey was concerned, traditional recitation was out; direct

observation through activities requiring construction and

221

experimentation were in. Then he wanted teachers to present these
activities in such a way that the pupils would feel the need and,
therefore, want to learn the traditional skills. For example,
teachers should make reading and writing more intellectual than
mechanical. The actual studying of skills should be alternated
with substantial study.58

To Dewey, the ideal teacher studied the children in order to
determine their capabilities in terms of psychological principles
and competence in the subject matter. In his laboratory school at
the University of Chicago, they tried self-contained classrooms,
but Dewey was not satisfied because teachers could not know enough
about all subjects. Mayhew wrote in her book The Dewey School
that Dewey worried that

. superficial work is bound to be done in
some of them, and the child, through not having a
model of expert workmanship to follow, acquires
careless and imperfect methods of work.
Intellectual integrity and continuity in the
treatment of subject matter seemed the greate
benefit than the hovering care of one person.

Dewey wanted to use the schools to promote democratic
cooperation that would destroy class distinction. He hoped that
he could help children see that as men in history had faced more
complex challenges, they developed more effective social
cooperation and more social institutions. He wanted to see this
continue, and he saw the schools as the avenue toward such change,

just as Emil Mott did in Stuttgart when he approached

Steiner. Dewey criticized education's emphasis on symbols of

222

knowledge. He said education didn't use positive, first-hand
contact with experience. Instead, it taught children to accept
the accepted social pattern and not to criticize and reconstruct
social life. He said, "Too much attention is paid to the
acquisition of knowledge and too little to the development of
responsiveness and sharing in common and pleasurable tasks."6O
Mott, an entrepreneur in post World War I Germany, feared a
breakdown in the social and economic life. He believed it could
not be healed by changing governments and simply substituting
political systems. A fundamental cultural renewal was necessary.
Mott believed it possible only through education, so he appealed
to Steiner to establish a school for his workers and for their
children. The motivation in the Waldorf Schools was that the
curriculum was designed to consider not only intellectual but
social and practical/artistic aspects which will promote
perception, recognition, and consideration.61 Steiner considered
the all-round expansion and individual development of each student
in his thinking, feeling, and developing maturity. He wanted them
to relate what they learned about the nature of the life of
humanity to their own existence. Steiner wrote, ”If one bears in
mind the well being and inner development of the child, one will
find the right way of acting pedagogically."62 In order to do
this, he believed that teachers have to be extremely well versed
in what and how they teach. Steiner believed that if a teacher

mastered the material, he could teach in three to four lessons

223

what might otherwise take half a year. He said that "no school
really succeeds in imparting so much knowledge, but this fact is
generally ignored. One merely pretends that the present system is
working and the curricula are set accordingly."63 As stated
previously, Steiner thought the teacher should prepare two to
three hours for each half hour teaching.

The aim was to teach within the shortest time the maximum
amount of content within the simplest means possible. In the
Waldorf Schools, the curriculum went beyond science, math,
language arts, and social studies to include foreign language
(both Latin and Greek), music theory and appreciation, eurythrmy,
hand work, printing, physics, geology, minerology, astronomy,
nature studies, and physical education. From his tutoring,
Steiner learned to teach well and efficiently by knowing the
subject so well that he could explain it substantially yet
economically. Steiner wanted students to "know themselves and to
have the confidence and inspiration to pursue the quest for
knowledge, which is, after all, the only real business of man."64
His motto, which Parker, Dewey, Mearns, and Zirbes, could have had
as their own, was, "Waldorf children do not do what they like, but
are so taught that they learn to enjoy what they do." He believed
it was important to avoid stress on the student's mind and soul,
not to let him feel a lesson was too difficult, but to make him

want to move on to the next step. He cautioned against the strain

224

put on children-- "If one presents content which is unsuitable for
the students, it makes them want to jump out of their skins."65
Just a few years later, Mearns wrote an article entitled
"Discipline and the Free Spirit." In it he said,
It is always the other fellow's spirit which

we wish to see broken and usually for some

personal gain to ourselves. To some, good

behavior means silence, immobility, unthinking

obedience. Discipline is a necessary restraint

upon behavior for some specific good purpose. It

can be good for the individual and good for the

social group. 6Discipline without a clear purpose

is suspicious.

Mearns liked to tell the story of teaching his first class.

The word physiology was in the curriculum. He pronounced it
before the class and said, "I don't believe I could even spell
it." Well, the class laughed. Then a teacher walked in and asked
if there were any trouble. She thought there was because she
heard laughter. Mearns said that in those days some children were
whipped at home for low conduct marks. So he told his class he
would give them the best marks in conduct that he could. He had
the best behaved students in the school. Years later in "Every
Child Has a Gift," he wrote, "To bring out the best in a child you
must be on his side as a defender against adult imposed customs
aimed at suppressing his good natural instincts."67 Mearns
pointed out that some teachers demand behavior from children that
they would never be able to maintain themselves.

Mearns certainly did not advocate chaos. He realized the need

for control and discipline. He wanted to be certain the students

225

did also. He wanted the disciplined environment to be both
imposed and self imposed. He said, ”Nothing in all of a teacher's
art can equal the potent effect of student peers."68 In Mearns'
classes students shared in the responsibility and initiative in
planning. This did not come easily for the students or the
teacher, but the results were worthwhile. Mearns was pleased with
the increased maturity of his student planners as the year
progressed.

When asked how he prevented chaos without the rigidity of the
formal classroom, Mearns had many suggestions. The first was to
"take the class with you by sheer dramatic power." When Mearns
read a piece of literature to his class, there was never any doubt
how moved he was by the writing. And there were never any
disruptive students afoot during the reading. Another suggestion
was "a sudden change of subject is always a good trick." If
classes are too predictable, students can too easily predict what
trouble to cause and even exactly where to cause it. Finally,
Mearns offered, "When in trouble with children, tell the truth."
As Steiner believed, there is nothing a child detects more quickly
than the hypocrisy of an adult lying in a situation where the
child is expected to be truthful.

Zirbes' response to ways to prevent classroom chaos was to
enlist and encourage pupils' purposes. She promoted having
students set their own purposes, and she was rewarded by observing

student growth. She also suggested many discipline problems were

226

due to a cultural and social adjustment lag. She described it as

a "melting pot" tradition that divides the generations.69 Zirbes

suggested that when students misbehave, the teacher should analyze
why. Is the material boring? Are the lessons too long? Are the

students working at the appropriate level?

Zirbes felt that if students set purposes and could see
results before their levels of endurance and interest were
reached, the classroom would be a success-~"reach the highest
pitch and lead most surely to success."70 She believed that
intrinsic motivation was essential to self-development, morale,
and self-realization. This led to cooperation and satisfaction
with group work which, in turn, led to social aspiration and
identification. Zirbes warned that if a child did not feel
accepted, a social feeling did not develop. Instead, the child
felt excluded, unwanted, and rejected. If that continued,
aspirations became anti-social and the child found solace through
identification with other anti-social children.71 She also
complained about grades which she called extrinsic motivation.
"This practice destroys abiding interest and the integrity of
expression."72 These were the things that Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
Mearns, and Zirbes felt important in the motivation of students.
First and foremost was the student. Second was what was important
for the student to learn and how to best make it available. They
believed that motivation was easily found when students saw the

purpose behind the task. In fact, the task was no longer work.

227

In the final selection of Chapter IV, I will describe some of
the actual behavioral discipline in the schools of Parker, Dewey,
Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes. First, Parker said much disobedience
in schools was due to over-nervousness and animal spirits which he
suggested may be cured by physical exercise and manual training.
In 1885 he predicted that the "day is not too distant when
scientists in physiological psychology and child study will have
prominent places in every normal school so that trained graduates
may come into work armed and equipped in this direction."73

Parker questioned his teachers: Did you see it? Do you know
it? Have you used it? No imitation credited and no pretense
tolerated! "We must see, feel, and experience for ourselves if we
would speak with authority to little children."74 Parker once
tricked a class of prospective teachers at Cook County Normal
School. He threw out several literary titles and asked if anyone
had read the works. The students, probably supposing that
teachers should have read them, said they had. Parker plied them
with questions about the works they couldn't answer. Then, in a
more kindly manner, explained the importance of not pretending to
know more than they did, especially in front of students. His
point was that students behaved better for teachers they
respected. The teacher had to have authority in order to speak
with it in order to maintain it in the classroom.

Influenced by his study in Germany, Parker introduced features

of kindergarten: songs and plays, blocks and colored sticks,

228

freedom of movement, and shortened lessons to avoid weariness. He
believed the first years of school fix the whole future course in
education. He wanted to make the school into a "pleasant,
cheerful home where little folks play, sing, read, count objects,
write, draw, and are happy."75 His notion was that if students
began school in an enjoyable situation, both the theme and the
mood might penetrate and continue through the ensuring years.

The following illuminating article in a Boston-area paper
called The Igibune on Thursday, January 8, 1880.

The discipline of the Quincy schools, as
explained by Mr. Slade, of the Committee rather
astonishes the teachers used to the old mechanical
methods. "But," says an old teacher sitting upon
the platform who is visiting the Quincy schools to
find out what under the sun it is that people are
talking about and newspapers discussing, "this is
very noisy." "Precisely, madam, this is a
workshop, not a funeral. You can't have a beehive
without a buzz." "And," continues the critic,
"that little boy in the plaid jacket whispered to
the little girl in white." "Quite likely, madam;
we can readily find an excuse for bright-eyed,
curly-headed, rosy-cheeked little boys who will
whisper to little girls in white. We once had a
tendency in that direction ourselves, and we do
not see any occasion for pounding him or shaking
him, or standing him in the corner, or putting him
in a dark closet, or even appearing to notice it
at all." Teachers make a great advance in 6
government when they learn how not to see."

Mearns would have enjoyed that story. Apparently, when the
article was brought to his attention, Parker wrote on it--"Kind of
Ihe Tribune to give us these little suggestions (referring to the
last sentence) which are quite novel." Despite his unorthodox

methods, Parker was deemed effective because he passed the

229

educator's ultimate test: ”Observers marveled that not a scratch
was visible on the children's desks."77
Dewey believed that motivation came from giving students
life-related activities. Connect what students should learn to
the world around them and teach them in such a way that they are
actively involved. They should be doing what they are learning.
One of his interests was manual training-~not for the purpose of
giving pupils greater manual skill or improving their chances to
get a job or becoming more efficient on the job. Dewey was
interested because he believed that through participation in
industry students can gain a better understanding of the meaning
of science and the constitution of social organisms. In the old
days when most industry was carried on in the neighborhoods or
households, children learned through participation and
observation. Eventually, children were sent to school for "book
learning" and this neighborhood-style education faded. Dewey
predicted manual training in the schools would fail if it were
taught as a separate entity. He said,
We must conceive of work in wood and metal, of

weaving, sewing, and cooking, as methods of living

and learning, not as distinct studies. We must

conceive of them in their social significance, as

types of processes by which society keeps itself

going, as agencies for bringing home to the child

some of the primal necessities of community life,

and as ways in which these needs have been met by

the growing insight and ingenuity of man; in short

as instrumentalities through which school itself

shall be made a genuine form of active community

life, instead 0 a place set apart in which to
learn lessons."

230

So Dewey taught history and science and the constitution of social
organisms by having students retrace the steps of the evolution of
the industrial processes. For example, they picked cotton from a
boll, carded and spun it into thread, and wove it into cloth. So
they learned history by actively repeating history, not by
repeating the verbal version of history. Dewey wanted children to
learn the history of the human race, not the history of a chosen
people such as the stages of European civilization.

Dewey's students also learned history from stories which led
to biographies which ultimately led to discussions of more
specialized, political institutions and governmental forms--
beginning with Rome and moving chronologically. In 1903 in an
article entitled ”The Place of Industries in Elementary
Education," Dewey wrote, "Every advance in civilization widens the
distance between the immaturity of the child and the
comprehensive, complex, remote, and subtle conditions he needs to
master."79

In Steiner's school motivation seemed almost natural because
the child was at the center of all thinking, planning and doing.
All lessons and all activities were conceived and developed for
the child, although not by the child. The day centered around the
child. The teacher, for example, stood at the classroom door and
greeted each child. They began the day with music and song. The
entire class worked together rhythmically. “There is a decided
effort to move from one moment to another through ceremonial and

ritual procedures rather than mechanical steps alone."80

231

The teachers were very well prepared again with the child in
mind. In the elementary school the teachers remained with the same
class for eight years if possible, if not at least three. This
was to provide continuity and allow the teacher and the children
to become thoroughly acquainted with each other. Then, since the
teachers were so well versed in what they were to teach, their
interest and power were transmitted through the lessons to their
students. One of the goals was that a Waldorf teacher, for
example, would never read a poem to her students; she would know
it by heart. When Steiner began the Waldorf Schools, he hired
artisans and craftsmen as teachers rather than state certified
educators. Here, again, the belief was that if the teacher knew
his subject full well and were able to convey that knowledge and
understanding along with a large degree of enthusiasm, the
students were bound to pay more attention to what they were
learning than to any distruptive behaviors.

Mearns believed democracy could be taught through democratic
behavior. Further, he believed every child had a gift but that he
must use it or lose it. As a creative artist, the child must
direct and control himself. In Mearns' classroom at the Lincoln
School, his students were wild at the beginning because it was
difficult for them to understand both individual freedom and
social control. Order was eventually gained through the student
council and group discussions patterned after town meetings which
brought about student understanding of the individual sacrifice

that must accompany social order.

232

In "Discipline and the Free Spirit," Mearns wrote

It is always the other fellow's spirit which
we wish to see broken, and usually for some
personal gain to ourselves. Good behavior [in the
schools] is taken as silence, immobility, and
unthinking obedience. A good disciplinarian is
one who succeeds in having maximum personal
comfort in the classroom. Discipline is the
necessary restraint upon behavior for some
specific good purpose. It is good for the
individual and for the social group. But 1
discipline without clear purpose is suspicious."

The answer, Mearns felt, was in self-mastery. Children should
be taught self-discipline for some understandable worthy end. He
wrote,

Discipline means the voluntary surrender of
something personal for the sake of an eventual
greater personal gain. Submission relieves us of
the pressure of the world. Children can learn to
outwardly obey the will of another while inwardly
being free, unsuspected, and at peace. They must
learn control ghich is the essence of
self-mastery."

Mearns also believed that learning would come easier and last
longer through self~mastery. He said that coercion which appealed
to fear was ineffective, harmful, and unnecessary. Self-mastery
developed where authority was supreme but never arbitrary-~where
discussion and compromise were standard. He wrote, "Children hate
injustice and hypocrisy. 'A Compulsory Study on the Dangers of
Compulsion.‘ Think of it. Adults are like that. 'Training for
the World.‘ That has been the excuse for every inequity practiced

upon childhood from child labor in the coal mines to compulsory

trigonometry for girls."84 Parker was called "The Children's

233

Champion." In areas of Mearns' writing, another "children's
champion" seemed to have surfaced.
Zirbes wrote in two interesting areas: research on discipline
for freedom and freedom in the classroom. Parker didn't have a
research base to support his conclusions, but he knew one day
there would be such specific attention paid to educational issues.
What Zirbes reported from her research supported the beliefs of
Parker, Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns. Behavior that was
"intimidating, penalizing, allocating blame, administering
punishment, exacting unquestioning submissive compliance,
suspicious, mistrustful, vindictive, stern, firm aloofness causes
neuroses and insecurity and is not compatible with the personal
integrity or values a free society guarantees and fosters."85 She
found that the research did not support any of these behaviors.
Instead, while there must be discipline it should be
. helpful and friendly, foster wholesome

attitudes and adjustments, initiative, choice, and

self-discipline. It should be concerned with

human values, foster morale, cultivate social

rapport, carry over to improve living and take

into account human driggs, aspirations, social

pressure, and tension.
Zirbes was also in favor of discipline that led to
self-discipline, self-direction, and self-mastery but she knew
coercion was not the course.

She responded to critics by explaining what freedom in the

classroom did not mean. First of all, children may not simply do

as they please despite the notion that in child-centered schools

234

that was precisely what they did. Second, there was no
unrestricted individual liberty for each child. The teacher did
not abdicate the position of authority. Fourth, there was no
lowering of standards of order for group conduct. However, the
discipline remained and was understood, accepted, and maintained
by all. Zirbes explained,

Children cannot learn to recognize, face, and
respect inherent limitations which situations
legitimately put upon their freedom when they are
systematically confused and thwarted by arbitrary
and irrelevant limitations. When, in order to
cure tardiness, we harass children in ways that
produce tears, engender feelings of disgrace and
fear, we do more harm than good. We cannot hope
to stimulate constructive effort and responsible
self-respegt by sarcasm, nagging, and harping
criticism.

This was the kind of behavior, of education methodology that
Parker led the battle against in the 18503, Zirbes continued in
the 19503, and Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns combatted in the
intervening years. They believed that children could become, with
help and direction, self-disciplined and self-motivated. This
then should make learning easier and longer lasting. They
discovered that when children had an interest in and understood
why they were doing what they were doing, the rest took care of
itself. To these five educators academic and school discipline
were automatically integrative. The two had to be connected. It
was the basis of a child-centered school. The tenets remained the

same, beginning with Parker but, hopefully, not ending with

Zirbes. There were basic elements within academic discipline

235

which needed to be learned, and there was a progression from
basics to more complex material. The interaction of academic and
school disciplines was the developmental, integrative approach to
learning what there was to be learned--no matter what it was.
They discovered where the child was and where he had been. They
began where he was and built on where he had been. The standards
were not lower in a child-centered school; they were different.
They were demanding both academically and behaviorally, but they
considered everyone involved--including the children. Mearns
explained, ”We have sought our own comfort and called it
discipline. We demanded behavior of children we would never
demand of ourselves. Our thinking has been slovenly and

88

selfish." Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes worked to

correct that situation.

236

bio—tea

1Harold Rugg & Ann Shumaker, The Child-Centered School (New
York: World Book Company, l928):37.

2K. C. Mayhew & A. C. Edwards, The Dewey §ghool (New York:

Appleton-Century Company, l936):7l.

3Ibid, 94.

4Arthur G. Wirth, Johh Dewey gs Educator (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966):llh.

5John Dewey, "The Psychological Aspects of the School
Curriculum,” Educational Review 13(1897):359.

6Wirth, 61.
71bid., 62.
81bid.

9Ernest C. Moore, "John Dewey's Contribution to Educational

Theory," School and Society 31(1930):46.

10Ibid.

11Ibid.

12Merle Curti, The Social Ideas of Americah Educators (New
Jersey: Pageant Books, Inc., l959):529.

13John Dewey, Qemogragy and Eduggrlon (New York: The

Macmillan Company, l916):160.

14Henry Barnes, ”An Introduction to Waldorf Education,"

Teachers College figggrg 81(1980):325.

15Ibid.

16Hope Jenson Leichter, "A Note on Time and Education,"

Teaghers lelege nggrg 81(1980):361.

17Hughes Mearns, Qrggrlvg Iguth (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Company, Inc., l925):64.

18Hughes Mearns, grearlve nggr (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Company, Inc., l930):9.

237

19Ibid., 78.

201bid., 63.

21Henry C. Fenn, "And What About Visitors?" Progressive
Education lh(l937):l75.

22Mearns, Qrentive Epwer, 8.

23Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Creatlve Teaching (New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1959):72.

24Laura Zirbes, Guidelines to Developmental Teaching

(Columbus: The Teaching Aids Laboratory of The Ohio State
University, 1959):17.

25Thomas Wakefield Goodspeed, A History of the University of
Chicago (Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, l916):47.

26Flora J. Cooke, "The Social Philosophy of Francis W.
Parker," Progressive Education 14(1937):382.

7Francis W.. Parker, "Discussion of W. P. Search's
'Individualism in Mass Education,'" Journal 9f the Proceedings and
Addresses of the National Education Association (l895):408.

28Francis W. Parker, "The New Department," The Journal of the

Proceedings and Addresses of rhe National Education Association
(l895):408.

29Dewey, Qemocracy and Education, 101.

30John Dewey, "Current Problems in Secondary Education," Th;
School Review ( ):23.

31Jay Williams, ”Dewey and the Idea of a Science of
Education," The School Revigw (1959):188.

32Barnes, "An Introduction to Waldorf Education," 325.

33Rudolf Steiner, The Stpry of My Llfg (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, Ltd., l954):235.

34Hughes Mearns, "Creative Education in College," Progressive
Education 23(1946):269.

351b1d., 279.

36Mearns, Creatlve Touth, 20.

238

37Zirbes, Spurs to Crentlve Teaghlng, 69.

38Laura Zirbes, "Clear the Way for Learning,” National
Education Assoclarion Journal 40(1951):349.

39Jack Campbell, The Children's Crusader (New York: Teachers'
College Press, 1967):133.

4Guam, 82.

41Lelia Patridge, The Qninpy hethogg (New York: E.L. Kellogg
& Co., l889):90.

421b1d., 128.

43w1rch, 127.

44John Dewey, "Interpretation of the Savage Mind," Psychology
Review (l902):219-220.

4Swuch, 131.

 

46John Dewey, School and Society (Chicago: University Press,
l953):l3l-132.

“7w1rch, 139.

48Ibid., 144.

49Mearns, "Creative Education in College," 269.

5°1b1d., 268.

51Fenn, 176.

52Hughes Mearns, "What Do You Think?" Scholastic Magazine
(l939):6.

53Herbert L. Coon. andbo or n ve s t hoo Parents
(Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University, l954):20.

5“Campbell, 32.

55

Helen M. Hefferan, “Colonel Francis Wayland Parker," Chicago
Schools Jgurnnl (l936):7.

56Patridge, 129-180.

57Edwin E. Slosson, ”John Dewey: Teacher of Teachers," Thg
Independent 89(1917):542.

239

58Wirth, 103.

59Mayhew, 16.

60Curti, 522.

61George Rist and Peter Schneider, Integrating Vocational and
General figuratlpn; A rudolr Steiner School, 40.

62Rist, 137.
631bid., 123.
64

Alan Howard, "Education and Our Human Future," Teachers
College Record 81(1980):343.

65Rudolf Steiner, Soul Economy and Waldorf Education (London:

Rudolf Steiner Press, 1986):130.
66 .
Hughes Mearns, "Discipline and the Free Spirit," Erngrgsgryg
Education 8(l931):634.

67Hughes Mearns, "Every Child Has a Gift," The Reader's Digest
(l952):21. .

8Mearns, Creative Youth, 91.

69Laura Zirbes, "The Contribution of Research Toward
Discipline for Freedom," Shildhood Education 27(1951):226.

70Laura Zirbes, "Priorities in Childhood Education,"
Progressive Education 20(1943):105.

71Zirbes, Guigelines to ngelopmental Teaching, 72.

Zirbes, Spurs to Creative Teaching, 140.

73Francis W. Parker, "Application of Child Study in the
School," ourna o e o eed s dresses 0 th National

Education Association (l885):426.
74Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A hlstory of American
Educaripn (New York: Macmillan Co., l956):6l.

75Campbell, 81.

72

761hg_TrThnng, January 8, 1880, from the collection of the
University of Chicago Libraries.

77Campbell, 56.

240

78Slosson, 542.

79John Dewey, "The Place of Industries in Elementary

Education," Elementary Sghool qurnal (l903):727.

80Leichter, 367.

81Mearns, "Discipline and the Free Spirit," 634.

821bid., 635.
83Ibid., 636.
841bid., 639.
85

Zirbes, "The Contribution of Research Toward Discipline for
Freedom," 225.

861bid., 228.

87Laura Zirbes, "What Is 'Freedom' in the Classroom?"
Progressive Education, ll(l934):384.

88Mearns, "Discipline and the Free Spirit," 640.

CHAPTER V

STRUCTURE: HISTORY, PURPOSE
AND ORGANIZATION

The structure of the schools in this study encompassed
buildings and people, curriculum and materials, ideals and goals,
frustrations, disappointments, and successes. The number of
blockades encountered was amazing considering the humble,
well-intended pursuits of these five educators. After a
successful military career and a triumphant reign in Quincy,
Parker was definitely back on the battlefield while at the helm of
the Cook County Normal School. Dewey and his wife resigned with
resentment from the University of Chicago. Steiner's monument to
Goethe and center for study was destroyed by arsonists. Hitler
closed the Waldorf Schools (or at least forced them underground).
After spending several years on development, Zirbes was denied the
directorship of the laboratory school of the Ohio State
University. But they never stopped their endeavor to provide the
best education possible with children as the central focus.

I have divided this chapter into three sections: History,
Purpose, and Organization. Dewey was the most prolific writer on

the subject of the structure of the schools, though Parker and

241

242

Zirbes did not lag behind. Parker and Dewey lived it and wrote
more than the others on the history of the schools. Mearns and
Zirbes actually wrote very little on the historical point of view.
Nearly half of Dewey's writing on structure was on the purpose of
the structure of these child-centered schools. All of the
explanations of purpose were cogent and logical and certainly
answerable to their many critics. The others spent well over half
of their writings on structure--that is, the literal make-up of

the schools.

str

In the old days, as Foster reported in Erancis Wayland Parker:

His Life and Educational Rerprm, "Anyone who could keep school was

a good teacher. And the schools were kept but the children were
not taught. The system necessarily killed ambition and rendered
stagnate any impulse for higher things."1 The state normal
schools were first established in 1839 by agricultural people in
order to train teachers for their children. This was similar to
the Waldorf Schools established in 1919 for the children of Mott's
factory workers. Education was beginning to progress from a
post-Civil War trend of authoritarian, standardized, precise,
clocklike, routinized, aristocratic schools. The most obvious
change was in awareness of child development, learner
independence, and school reform. Between 1865 and 1885, ten times

as many English language books on education were published as ever

243

before. Colleges and universities were founding chairs of
pedagogics recognizing education as a science and teaching as an
art.2 Perhaps education changed because it was forced. Two
groups emerged fighting over the schools: those who favored the
status quo and those reformers who wanted schools to interact with
society. Historically, public elementary schools had been for the
poor-—to attempt to teach them the three Rs. Those formal high
schools that existed were preparatory to college. The problem
then was to adjust the schools to meet the needs of all their
students. Parker had studied and observed the German schools, and
he found them to be very good schools, but they were not schools
for all society's children or common schools. In 1894 Parker
wrote, "Common schools were born of democracy, cultured and
supported by democracy, and its future is founded upon the growth
of democracy."3 Parker wanted a national normal school but not a
common course of study. Earlier he had communicated, "Teaching is
a business now; when it becomes an art it will attract great
minds."4

In 1864 when Parker returned to Manchester the organization of
the schools was ungraded and partially graded. The districts were
small. Primary grades began with four-year olds. In two years
the prerequisites were supposedly mastered. There was an
intermediate level for those who couldn't attend regularly and
children with mental and physical handicaps. The grammar school

was four years. And the high school was either classical which

244

was college preparatory or English which was for terminal
students. In 1865 Parker became the principal of North Grammar
School in Manchester. He was very strict on discipline, and he
ranked the students on attendance, deportment, and scholarship.

He increased the time spent on physical education, good order, and
morale.

In 1868 he moved to Dayton, Ohio, where two of out every three
children were not in school. Parker's challenge was to make the
schools serve the needs and interests of all classes of the
community. Parker left Dayton for a sabbatical in Germany; and
when he returned, he took the post of superintendent of the
Quincy, Massachusetts, schools. There he realized the need for a
common, continuous systematic plan for all the schools. He was
appalled by what he observed. Children came to school after five
or six years of vigorous development in nature's great methods,
object teaching, and playing only to find their imagination,
curiosity, and love for mental and physical activity destroyed by
dull, wearisome hours of listless activity upon hard benches. He
found children mouthing words mechanically, without understanding
the ideas they represented. He instituted many successful changes
before moving on to the Boston schools and then to Cook County
Normal School--a school he grew to love the best, yet the one over
which he fought the biggest battles.

Parker's rationale for moving from Quincy was always to go

where he could in order to reach and help the most children. The

245

problems at CCNS began over budgetary matters and moved to
philosophical educational differences between essentially two
groups: the Parkerites and the enemies of the Parkerites. One
trick from the enemy camp was unannounced, secretive testing of
students-~both regular and "slow" (mentally handicapped)--and the
slanted newspaper publication of the results. Parker and his
followers would fight back and invariably Parker's contract would
be grudgingly extended for one more year. Eventually, Parker's
school united with Dewey's, and both men went on their separate
ways.

Dewey had his opportunity to test his ideas about children,
classrooms, teaching strategies, and teacher training when he
opened the laboratory school of the University of Chicago in 1896.
He, too, was very successful and had devoted teachers and
followers. His reputation was growing and perhaps due to his
presence, both physically and personally-~he appeared
mild-mannered and he didn't automatically ruffle so many feathers
as did Parker. His major battle arena was in the area of budget.
As Parker found a financial friend in Mrs. Emmon Blaine, Dewey's
economic mainstays during those early lab school days were William
Kent and Charles R. Crane. They had inherited both wealth and
social consciences. They were "authentic upper class liberals of
the turn of the century who not only sent their children to the
Dewey School, but also contributed generously, canvassed their

friends for funds to tide it over, and fought when its existence

246

was threatened."5 Dewey didn't remain long after the Parker
school and his were combined. There were faculty problems and
political pursuits that he no longer cared to suffer. He moved to
Columbia University where he began to speak and write from a more
global platform. There was a brief mention of his use of the
Lincoln School (where Mearns did much of his early work) to
develop new theories and see how they work. "He wallowed in
dramatic and artistic play until the play way became too
exhausting for teachers."6

The pre-World War I progressive movement saw the schools as a
lever of social change. The post war progressive schools
recognized that each individual had uniquely creative
potentialities. These were schools in which "children were
encouraged freely to develop these potentialities as the best
guarantees of a larger society truly devoted to human worth and
excellence."7 In the 19203 the movement was a creative revolution
which Dewey saw as the central connection to democracy. It stood
for freedom, child interest, pupil initiative, creative
self-expression, and personality development. The fight was
against standardization, superficiality, and the commercialism of
an industrial civilization. Dewey continued to be interested but
was gradually becoming a critic. By 1926 he attached the lack of
adult guidance in these "avant garde schools . . . such a method
is really stupid for it attempts the impossible which is always

stupid and it misconceives the conditions of independent

247

thinking."8 Dewey continued to believe in a child-centered
school, but some educators and schools had gone too far
denigrating even the term progressive. Some schools had gone from
one extreme to another. They had gone from fear-induced,
mindless, rote, drill, seat work to total so-called freedom and
degrees of chaos. Unfortunately, some led their classrooms to
these new reforms in Dewey's name, and ultimately he was forced to
speak out against them.

The post-world war period in Germany had brought a breakdown
in the social and economic life. Mott and other reformers
believed it was too late for any productive governmental change.
They felt that the only avenue of hope was through education.
Steiner's Waldorf Schools were viewed as an avenue for a
fundamental cultural renewal. In the beginning Steiner had no
budgetary problems. His discord developed from the ruling classes
who saw too much education for the workers as a danger and from
those groups who disagreed with or didn't understand Steiner's
anthroposophical movement. Some actually feared the movement and
worked toward Steiner's downfall. However, a few years after the
successful institution of the Waldorf Schools, they went public
and enrolled over a thousand students. Waldorf Schools were
opened in Switzerland, Holland, England, Austria, Hungary, Norway,
and Scotland. In 1928, Waldorf education came to America. This
was three years after Steiner's death but he had been involved in

much of the planning. In 1933 the Nazi party began harassing the

248

Waldorf Schools in Germany, and in 1938 the government closed
them. The published reason was that the purpose of education was
to develop citizens for the state, not to develop individuals who
could think for themselves. Steiner said, ”Our highest endeavor
must be to develop free human beings who are able of themselves to
impart purpose and direction to their lives."9

Writing in 1930, Mearns described the progressive movement as
a revolt by parents against exclusive schools still teaching
outdated content. The new schools were called Country Day, Park,
and Experimental Schools. Mearns quoted Eugene Randolph Smith,
the headmaster of Beaver Country Day in Chestnut Hill,
Massachusetts.

Progressive education is a state of mind satisfied
with nothing less than the best and keeps in touch
with the development of educational
experimentation, investigation, and philosophy,
adopting for its own use such changes as seem
soundoand contributing its own initiative where it
can.

In Mearns' era and indeed in many others, grammar schools were
judged on the number of students who passed the high school
entrance exam. Some schools were actually glad when weak students
dropped out as it, at least temporarily, raised the schools'
ratings. The students were not actually learning-~they were
cramming for the entrance exams. In the high school, the
curriculum didn't allow for anything that didn't relate to the

college entrance examination. The conditions seemed to have

returned, provided they ever left, to the ones discovered by

249

Charles Adams, Jr., in the Quincy Schools prior to the arrival of
F. W. Parker. Though Dewey favored manual training-~not to
prepare a particular group of students for their lives' work but
for a more well-rounded curriculum, the schools were afraid its
inclusion would lower standards. In "The High School and the
'Standard,'" Mearns quoted the author of a Latin textbook, "Put
the screws on early to sift out the unfit."11

Mearns spent a number of years and wrote two of his most
important educational works at the Lincoln School which was
founded in 1917 by the general education board with Rockefeller
funds for educational experimentation. The Horace Mann School had
been founded in 1887. It was taken over by Teachers' College in
1891. In 1940 Teachers' College merged the Horace Mann and Lincoln
Schools despite a law suit. The court ruled that "as long as the
general intent of the original grant was fulfilled [the merger
could proceed]."12 In February, 1946, both the Horace Mann and
Lincoln Schools were dropped because of the deficit they were
creating. "It was a private school, valuable for educational
experiments and observations of methods, but Teachers' College's
main interest was in the public schools."13

While at the Lincoln School, Harold Ordway Rugg measured and
charted the abilities of every child there. He called it
"salvation through fact finding.”14 The school became identified

with technocracy. Some questioned whether these

experiments-~Mearns' creativity, for example-~would work in the

250

public schools. They called them ”those dreamers from Teachers'
College and especially from Lincoln School."15 As a matter of
fact, they were trying to analyze if these methods would work in
the real world. They (Mearns included) were hOping some public
school would let them try it out. However, that never did take
place.

In her book Spurs to Sreative Teaching, published in 1959,
Zirbes wrote that education borrowed the military autocratic
methods of mass control; from factory production the emphasis on
product and training for a specific task; from big business the
socially disintegrative and exploitive motives that give more
power to captains; from modern merchandising and marketing
grading, marking, sorting, and labeling for ready handling and
segregating of inferior from superior; and from medicine
remediation over prevention. On larger school effect, she said
that herding led to a mob spirit. It submerged individuality and
initiative. The size of the schools forced conditions which
demanded mechanized dismissal and regulation by bells. A police
state existed rather than the development of sounder modes of
social control.16

Earlier in 1934 she wrote in an article entitled "What Is
Freedom in the Classroom?" that another poor practice of the
schools was the "disregard for individual differences and choice
by a fore-ordained curriculum that causes docile fellowship,
stifles thought and inquiry, is determined to fix habits and

skills, and exaggerates an emphasis on imparting knowledge."17

251

Zirbes recognized the inherent difficulties in reform. She
realized that for every time schools make a change, someone or
group complains that things aren't the way they were when they
were in school: ". . . few windows to large windows to covered
windows (she wrote in 1955, and they covered them up again in the
late 19703) . . . unsanitary conditions to sanitary to chemicals.
She also credited the curriculum of the schools as being too
reliant on the regimented European curriculum. Education, she
said, should never stand still or ever assume there is no room for
improvement. And definitely not stand for the assumption that
schools were better in the old days. A talk with Parker would end
that notion. Instead Zirbes echoed Dewey when she called for
"functional approaches through direct experiences in an expanding
social environment."18

Zirbes began working on the laboratory school of The Ohio
State University in 1929. Elementary education was not enjoying a
grand season. There were few state standards. Most teachers
graduated from normal schools. Then the depression closed the
kindergartens. Teacher education courses at the university were
made optional when most professors refused to change. Then as new
professors were hired, cooperation aided in the development of new
courses of study. They received a legislative grant for a teacher
training program and an eight-week elementary summer school
program in a public school building near campus blossomed with

Zirbes as the director. It became a laboratory for the study of

252

the practical implications of progressive theory. Next step was
to offer three classes at the university during the school year
and another summer session. Finally, the elementary laboratory
school became an independent program. So Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
Mearns, and Zirbes were each reformers in their own right. Each
of them had been avid but critical students of education in their
youth, and each eventually found an opportunity to develop
structural and curricular changes that might eventually have an
impact on the educational community. An interesting point is that
their individual opportunities spanned 100 years. Each did, in

fact, implement change--similar changes.

Purpose

The five educators under study had an easier time defining the
purpose of the structure of their schools than they did actually
describing a definitive structure for followers to latch on to and
that was their intent. Since they all believed the only way to
really learn was to do, they realized that future teachers could
not learn by reading their words on the specific things to do, but
by the ideas behind them: Parker's "theory of concentration,"
Dewey’s "learn by doing,” Steiner's "teacher as artist," Mearns'
"creative spirit," and Zirbes' "purposeful guidance." Parker was
convinced the needs of society should determine the work of the
school. The school should be a significant form of community

life. The purpose of education was the development of the human

253

character and intelligent social cooperation. Of course, he could
easily have been speaking for all of the educators in this study.
Like Horace Mann, Emit Mott, and many others, he saw the task of
education as fundamental in remaking society.19 He believed
education was relative to the culture in which it existed.
Education grew out of the conditions and trends of a particular
period, but must also be used to guide and direct that culture.
In Parker's case, he believed schools should be miniature and
model democracies where pupils could learn self-control and
self-government. He said that schools should offer "good
wholesome normal instruction, mild firm government, and the proper
amount of exercise. Free schools, independence, and democracy are
mutual partners."20 Schools were the "means of freedom for a vast
number of people whose ancestors have been degraded through long
ages of ignorance and oppression."21 Parker also saw the need to
battle the overcoming thirst for money and the desire to get
something for nothing. That was in 1885. Back in 1879, he and
Charles Adams proposed the Quincy experiment. They offered what
they considered to be a better, more economical system of
education. Adams promised "excellence and economy--neither to be
subordinated to the other."22

Parker explained that those who seek some special and peculiar
method or device in the Quincy movement will never find it. He
said, "Faith and ideal spirit explains all that pertains to our

success whatever that success may be."23 That faith and ideal

254

spirit was to drive out the sarcastic, stern, and severe form of
discipline to make way for a new relation between teachers,
students, and parents. They were to become more like a family
with more communication and developed interests. Parker wanted
students and teachers to have a mutual interest in literature and
nature. He suggested a change in subject matter and a new social
atmosphere. Parker believed that children had a vast thirst for
knowledge and were naturally curious and eager to learn. The task
was to present appropriate information in an appropriate manner
always pursuing the interests of the children. Parker maintained
that all activities must be well directed. Of course, he
preferred subject matter to textbooks and wide reading to memory
work.

According to Parker, knowledge and skill were the means, not
the end of working toward the symmetrical upbuilding of the whole
being or character of the child. The process involved two
factors. The first was the inborn, inherited power of the mind,
and the second was the environment of the mind or the subjects
taught. The subjects taught were the means of mental development.
Knowing both mind and means leads to growth. Method, then, was
the adaptation of the means of growth to the mind to be developed.
To Parker a natural method would be an exact adaptation. This
would require adaptation to the varying conditions such as food,
clothing, and exercise. All five of the educators were interested

in the whole child and the means to reach it, but Parker, Steiner,

255

and Zirbes mentioned the suitability of the clothing of the
children. It was to be comfortable, for example, and allow the
children to move freely.

Like Parker, Dewey also saw the schools as the means of
freedom. He said that freedom was not given out at birth; it had
to be achieved. The way to achieve it was to present the best
picture or structure of reality-~the way things really were. Also
like Parker, Dewey wanted to use education toward an adjustment of
conditions rather than an acceptance of them. He wanted to remake
existing conditions rather than remake children to fit the
existing conditions. He said, "Build not the perfect society, but
a better society."24

Dewey cited a variety of problems with education which are
echoed with remarkable consistency today. He said that education
changed like clothing styles. Styles and patterns altered
frequently while the basic garment remained essentially the same.
That changed slowly and was more often a change in society at
large. In the schools sometimes change was brought about because
something a group wanted was being threatened or what they wanted
to remain stable was being altered. So groups demanded something
be taught in the schools to either prevent or cause an action. In
1916 Dewey wrote:

Those in favor of new burdens are organized
and clamorous. The pupils, being pupils, are
discreetly dumb. The mass of the public is inert,
or at least inactive, and gets in its work only by
an ultimate passive resistance which first

moderates and then smothers in execygion the
schemes legitimated into existence.

256

The problem was that schools would respond to one interest group
after another while grasping at fads to ward off criticism. Dewey
also jabbed at universities for "their tiresome habit was to
equate educational theory with peddling trivial techniques and
spurious panaceas."26 Further problems developed from the
proponents of liberal and the proponents of technical studies.
Students could choose from new and old modern foreign language,
Latin, Greek, natural science, social science, manual arts,
journalism, agriculture, forestry, engineering, and many others.
In 1935 Dewey wrote that the poor combination of the old schools
with the new schools gave poor results.
The old was designed for small and select

classes. The numbers in high school and college

have increased six-fold and more in about a

generation. Only those pupils who have a strong

natural bent come out with any clear idea either

of their own capacities or of the world in which

they are to li e. The schools are adrift rather

than a system.
A basic problem was to attempt a reconciliation between the demand
for more education and training with the desire to conserve the
values represented in the tradition of higher education. So was
the role of the high school to prepare students for the university
or to prepare them for the adult world. The answer in the 18903
was that preparation for the universities was the best preparation
for the adult world. But in 1902, Dewey wrote in "Current

Problems in Secondary Education" that the idea that preparation

for college was the best preparation for life didn't work. He

257

offered the possibility of colleges changing to commercial and
social studies technical schools as a possible solution.

Also like Parker, Dewey criticized the schools for demanding
pupils spend time in the mere accumulation of information and the
acquisition of mechanical forms of skills. He said that
information was selected upon no particular principle, much of it
because it had been taught in the past. The prime need, according
to Dewey, was to learn to think, to see problems, to relate facts,
and to use and enjoy ideas. That need could not be fulfilled by
the

. wooden routine and deadly

conventionality of the traditional school. In

startling contrast the experimental schools

offered mobility, flexibility, freshness, and a

variety of modern life. They emancipated

themselves from tradition and directive ideas.

Experimentation is the fruit of science in the

field of creative endeavor of controlled

constructive invention. It is based on ideas and

is the mefigod for continuous carrying of ideas to

maturity.
But there was a "painful" gap between the actual theory in
psychology and that which governed school practice. So Dewey saw
hope through experimentation. "The ideal of the experimental
method is the spirit in which a social problem is to be
approached."29 Dewey wanted to make the public aware that
education should not be confined to making choices among

already-formulated, conflicting alternatives. Instead, it should

offer the opportunity for genuine discovery.

258

The laboratory school was to contribute to the progress of
scientific thought in education. It had to be effective to
justify its existence to parents and supporters. It was created
firmly on grounded theory and applicability, but it was not
designed as nor could it be a quick fix for the public schools.

Mayhew wrote in her book The Dgwgy Sphool,

The idea of education as growth was new.
Education is all one with growing. It is the
result of the constant adjustment of the
individual to his physical and social environment
which is thus both used and modified to supply his
needs and those of his social group. The school
opened in January 1896 in a private dwelling with
sixteen pupils and two teachers. It didn't work
very wgll. It was chiefly indicative of what not
to do.

Dewey had criticized traditional schools for not being
seriously concerned with the goal of preparing students to learn
throughout life, to be capable of acting effectively in both the
natural and social world with a sense of obligation to human
society-~past, present, and future. He also criticized the
traditional schools for their isolation of the different levels
borrowed from various centuries and traditions. He said the
universities came from the medieval scholastic tradition,
kindergarten came from the romantic, moralistic philosophy of the
18th century, and the primary grades were in response to the need
to teach reading when printing was invented. And they all lack
coordination.31 Freedom to think, to see the problem, and to

discover original solutions was what he advocated. He said such

freedom was to be "systematically wrought out in cooperation with

259

experienced teachers knowledgeable in their own traditions. Baby
does not know best."32 That freedom had to be developed gradually
and over time. He began his school in 1896 with that in mind, but
over time the progressive schools lost sight of that gradual
developmental mission. They were heading toward a disregard for
subject matter and discipline. Dewey kept silent for a time while
those who called themselves his followers went about on a mission
of too much freedom and too little learning. Finally, in his 1928
address to the Progressive Education Association he said,

Progressive schools set store by individuality
and sometimes it seems to be thought that orderly
organization of subject matter is hostile to the
needs of students in their individual character.
But individuality is something to be developed and
to be continuously attained, not something given
all at once and ready made. Far from being
hostile to the principle of individuality, some
systematic organization of activities and subject
matter is the only means for actually achieving
individuality; and teachers, by virtue of their
richer and fuller experience, have not only the
right but the high obligation to assist students
in the enterprise.

He spoke out again in 1930.

The formalism and isolation of the
conventional school room had literally cried out
for reform. But the point of the progressive
revolt had been not to rid schools of subject
matter, but rather to build a new subject matter,
as well organized as the old, but having a more
intimate relation to the experience of the
student.

He attacked them again because while they had been successful in

creativity, that was an individual and private matter. He said

260

the schools must give students insight into the basic forces of
industrial and urban civilization.33

The purpose of Steiner's Waldorf Schools closely resembled
much of what Parker and Dewey believed and advocated. Steiner and
Emil Mott saw education as the tool for the restructuring of the
society. Steiner wanted to provide children with the opportunity
to think for themselves as individuals and for the good of
society. Every plan and every action of these schools was
designed to fulfill the triune nature of the children: body,
mind, and soul. Steiner was not so critical of the schools, but
he had criticisms of his own schooling's lack of regard for the
individual.

Mearns, however, was somewhat critical. He said the "folly of
formal education was that it attempted to crowd everything into
the curriculum."34 Mearns said it was information education
(drill and memory) versus taste education (experience, exposure,
and influence). He said the source of information for the
traditional classroom was not experience but books and the
standard of achievement was the perfection of knowing and
retaining information never encountered or used again. But the
new conception of public education was the bettering of all
children of all people and the business of all educators was to do
something with the students they got. The Lincoln School

philosophy was that integration "constitutes a direct answer to

261

the profound and widespread disintegrations that now exist in all
areas of human experiences."35

It was the integration of school life and real life that
Zirbes sought for the classroom. She believed that the quality of
the education a child received related to the integration of
vital, developmental learning with the life of the child. In

Spurs to Creative Teaching, Zirbes wrote that during the

. very years that children should be

exposed to a congenial climate, social interaction

and cooperative endeavor for the common good, they

are systematically exposed to the rigors of

competition, sorted into rankings and homoggneous

groupings and regimented into mass action.
In 1949 she developed and published a list of facts and findings
that influenced the curriculum of that time. Some of them were
similar to the problems that Parker and Dewey fought against and,
some of them are current today.

1. Play is only important as relief from work.

2. The arts are unimportant.

3. Habits are fixed as early as possible by a
rigid process of conditioning.

4. Knowledge is acquired by rote and tested by
recitation. Examinations are a real test of
learning.

5. Children learn one thing at a time.

6. Certain practices are still unchallenged:
oral spelldown, reading orally paragraph by
paragraph in turn, regular assigneg7homework,
formal drills of facts and tables. ‘

Zirbes believed that a child's "appetite for knowledge is

often dulled by the pedantic approach of the teacher telling

262

rather than helping the child to find out on his own."38 She
preferred the process of inquiry which she described as learning
what they need to know, the ways of finding out and discovery.
She wanted children to learn the process of testing propositions,
judgments, ideas, and inferences. She wanted them to learn what
sources were available and reliable, what past inquires have
discovered, and what the unknowns were. In short, she, too,
wanted children to be able to see the problem. She said that
education must change and that teachers and principals must have a
better understanding of the problems. The change must involve a
shift from extrinsic motivation and coercive discipline and
submissive obedience to guidance, intrinsic motivation, purpose,
and continued self-improvement.

The Ohio State University Laboratory School was according to
Zirbes, a program of action regarding the personal and social
development of students. One of the methodological emphases was
group work which led to and developed intrinsic satisfaction,
wholehearted activity and cooperative endeavor. The purpose of the
program was twofold:

1. Education at all levels has the primary
responsibility for creating, preserving, and
developing the values involved in a democratic
way of life.

2. Teaching is a calling which demands
professional preparation appropriate t 9the
functions of education in a democracy.

There were two guiding principles:

1. The child is of primary importance.

263

2. All school procedures, from making basic
philosophy to the treatment of individual
differences, must be the result of a common
enterprise, in which interests, plann 8g,
efforts, and achievements are shared.

The Handbook for University Schpol Parenrs published in 1954
states:
This is not a lab school where human guinea
pigs are exposed to capricious experiments of
theoretically minded educators. It is a
laboratory situation in which we strive to
demonstrate what a good school can be and how a
school operates when intelligence and co-operative

planning are applied to the problems of
educational curriculum and method.

The purposes of the schools of these five educators were
mutual and two-fold: the improvement of society through the
improvement of the child. What they desired was to gradually
develop children instilled with a love of learning, a respect for
themselves and others, and the courage to be independent. They
wanted to develop schools that were aware of and acted in advance
of community concerns. They did develop schools that placed the

child and his experience at the center of their curriculum.

t on
While in the 19503, The Ohio State University Laboratory
School Handbook reflected the concern regarding educational
experimentation, back in the 18703, according to MacConnell in Eng
Schools ior New Culture, Parker scandalized the New England

scholastics with his advanced ideas such as new promotion plans,

264

new grading schemes, new modes of classifying pupils, supervised
study, credit for quality, intermediate grades, junior high
schools, and individualizing.42 At Quincy he sent to the
background the rigid programs, the old fashioned speller and
reader, the hated grammar book and cOpy book. He made his mark
out East and moved to the Midwest where by 1892 some of his
structuralizations were adopted by the Chicago Public Schools:
publicly supported kindergartens. manual training, household arts,
and the assembly. In his own school he and his teachers promoted
the concepts of concrete activities for the needs and development
of children, self-activated work, initiative and interest
training, freedom with responsibility leading to moral and
intellectual growth, real experience with actual materials as
essential for learning, opportunities for varied expression,
students treated as individuals, and social motives as the best
motives for work.43 Then, it is interesting, as MacConnell
reported, that Parker's radical changes worked on the grade school
level but not on the high school level curriculum because it was
controlled by the college entrance examinations. Dewey
practically ignored the high school level during this period.
Mearns was a high school teacher, so while his work included the
high school, it was not necessarily on a structured leve1--only in

as much as the individual classroom was concerned. Steiner

provided a structure for grades K-12.

265

As Charles Adams described in 1879, the essence of the new
system was that there was no system. It was marked by intense
individuality.

Children learned to read all together and by

practice. The hours were kept diversified.

Children, after all, were children. Long

confinement was irksome. They had a play table

and toys . . . . This system is harder on the

teacher . . . Going tgaschool should cease to be a

homesick tribulation.
What Adams, Parker, Dewey, and others found was that the structure
was actually more important than the methods of instruction.
Perhaps given their unique situations and abilities to alter
structure, their methods worked in their school--Quincy, Cook
County Normal, University of Chicago Lab School, Waldorf Schools,
Lincoln School, and the Ohio State University Lab School. And
perhaps because of the inherent difficulties in re-structuring
American public school, others who attempted to incorporate these
methods faced oppressive problems.

In 1854 at Parker's first school, Corser Hull School in
Boscawen (now Webster), New Hampshire, the playground was divided
into two parts; the level ground where the boys had their ball
field and the hilly end where the girls could pick flowers and
play house. The children responded well to the stimuli of
activity. They borrowed tools and board from home. By the end of
Parker's first year, parents wanted ”that boy Parker" back. Their
children had never worked so hard.45 Corser Hull had two rooms--a

ground floor room and one the floor above. It was ungraded with a

special department for girls.

266

After the Civil War, Parker accepted the principalship of the
North Grammar School in Manchester, New Hampshire. There he
developed a system of ranking the students based on emulation and
incentive rather than strictness and punishment. He increased the
amount of time spent on physical education. To Parker good order
and morale were the basic structures for academic training. He
blamed the lack of a good system for the poor learning that had
taken place.46

Parker worked in the Quincy, Massachusetts, schools in the
18703. There he advocated the use of concrete materials,
observations, student expressions, drawing, modeling clay, both
planned and impromptu lessons. For plant lessons, he had students
plant seeds in a box. For geography he modeled hills in a sand
box and illustrated erosion with water. He told the students to
notice the shapes of the hills on their way to and from school.

He encouraged lessons on form, color, numbers, and language. He
wanted the Quincy students to become good writers, so he suggested
teachers combine subjects. For example, every lesson could become
a language arts lesson. He completely discarded the spelling book
and said spelling could be taught through reading and writing in
every lesson at all levels. For example, language lessons could
be taught in beginning science. Color lessons could involve form.
Number work could use both form and color. All lessons should
teach good manners and morals. Finally, classrooms should have an

atmosphere of cheerfulness, activity, and interest.47

267

This was a typical first and second day in an early elementary

 

 

school.
FIRST DAY - AFTERNOON
Lnst Year's Pupils New Pupils
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Time Low 32! E92 393 M E01
2:00- General Exercise - Singing
2:05
2205- Writing Writing Writing Drawing Drawing Drawing
2:20
2:20- Reading *B.W. B.W. Picture B.W. B.W.
2:35 Lesson Sticks Sticks Lesson Splints Splints
by 33 by 23
2:35- B.W. Reading B.W. B.W. Picture B.W.
2:50 Sticks Lesson Sticks Splints Lesson Splints
by 43 by 23
2:50- General Exercise - Singing of Motion Songs
3:05
3:05- B.W. B.W. Reading B.W. B.W. Picture
3:15 Sticks Sticks Lesson Splints Splints Lesson
3:15- Examining Busy-Work - Collecting Sticks and Splints
3:20
3:20- General Exercise - Number Lesson
3:30
3:30- General Exercise - Language Lesson
3:45
3:45- General Exercise - Thinking Game
3:50
3:50- Dismissal
4:00

*Busy Work

 

268

SECOND DAY - MORNING

Last Year's Pupils

00 Teacher Examines Slates -

First

Time 82!
9:00-9:10
9:10- Writing
9:25 Sentence
9:25- Number
9:35 Lesson
9:35- B.W Ill.
9:45 Drawing
9:45- B.W Ill.
9:55 Drawing
9:55-10:
10:00- Reading
10:10 Lesson
10:10- B.W.
10:20 Pictures
10:20-10:30
10:30-10:45
10:45-10:50
10:50- String
11:00 Beads

by 43
11:00- Language
11:10 Lesson
11:10- String
11:20 Beads

by 43
11:20-11:25
11:25-11:40
11:40-11:50
11:50-12:00

Second
Row

Writing
Sentence

B.W Ill.
Drawing

Number
Lesson

B.W Ill.
Drawing

Third
32!

Prayer and Singing

Writing
Sentence

B.W Ill.
Drawing

B.W Ill.
Drawing

Number
Lesson

New Pupils

Fourth
Row

Writing
is

Conver-

sa. Les.

B.W.
Drawing

B.W.
Pegs

Fifth
32!

Writing
is

B.W.
Drawing

Conver-

sa. Les.

B.W.
Pegs

Sixth
Row

Writing
is

B.W.
Drawing

B.W.
Pegs

Conver-
sa. Les.

Singing by the Pupils

B.W. B.W. Elementary Lesson in Color
Pictures Pictures
Reading B.W. B.W. B.W. B.W.
Lesson Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures

Singing and Marching

Recess
Singing and Cleaning Slates

String Reading Conver- B.W. B.W.
Beads Lesson sation Pegs. Pegs.
by 33 Lesson
String String B.W. Conver- B.W.
Beads Beads Pegs. sation Pegs.
by 33 by 23 Lesson
Language String B.W. B.W. Conver-
Lesson Beads Pegs. Pegs. sation

by 23 Lesson

Language Lesson
Dismissal

Teacher Examines Busy Work - Singing by the Pupils
A11 Draw Straight Lines

 

:00-2:

:10-2:

:13-2:

:20-2:

:30-2

:40-2:

:50-2:

:55-3

:05-3:

:15-3:

:25-3:

:35-3

:50-4:

:00

10

13

20

30

:40

50

55

:05

15

25

35

:40

00

269

SECOND DAY - AFTERNOON

Teacher Marks the Roll.
Children.

Cleaning of Slates by the

General Exercise.
Song of Sixpence"

Singing "Clock," "Pony," "Sing a

Drill in Phonics. Chart.

General Exercise. Conversation Lesson.

Week, etc.

Day of the

A Language Lesson from a Picture.

First Row: Writing. Copying Words from Blackboard.
Second Row: Writing. Tracing on Blackboard.
Third Row: A Language Lesson by the Trainer.
Fourth Row: A Picture Lesson by the Teacher.

Fifth Row: Shoe-pegs. Busy-Work.

Sixth Row: Shoe-Pegs. Busy-Work.

General Exercise in Language. Recalling.
Running Recess.

General Exercise. A Story by the Teacher.

First Row: Number Lesson by the Trainer.

Second Row: Splints. Busy-Work.

Third Row: Sliced Pictures (home made). Busy-Work.
Fourth Row: Shoe-pegs. Busy-Work.

Fifth Row: A Picture Lesson by the Teacher.

Sixth Row: Shoe-pegs. Busy-Work.

Singing "Little Miss Muffit," “Little Boy Blue."

First Row: Make a Picture of ”Miss Muffit."
Busy-Work.

Second Row: Number Lesson by the Trainer.

Third Row: Make a Picture of "Little Boy Blue."
Busy-Work.

Fourth Row: Shoe-pegs. Busy-Work.

Fifth Row: Shoe-pegs. Busy-Work.

Sixth Row: A Picture Lesson by the Teacher.

Examining Busy-Work. Collecting Materials.

Dismissal48

270

In the early 18803, Parker assumed the principalship of the
Cook County Normal School. It was a three-story brick building on
twenty acres of land that had been given in perpetuity to the
county by a Dr. Beck. It had twelve rooms and an assembly hall.
Its purpose was to train high school graduates to teach in county
schools. There were two divisions of instruction: a professional
training class and a school of practice where the student teachers
had experience in teaching. Mr. D. S. Wentworth, the former
principal, had done good work despite the enemies of the school
who were at that time opposed to county tax dollars being spent on
such an enterprise. After the death of Wentworth, Mr. Champlin,
the chairman of the Cook County School Board of Education, sent
for Parker. Despite warnings against it, Parker accepted. This
was not the first time Parker had been directly involved in
teacher education. He had been supervising principal of the
Normal School in Dayton, and he had instructed the Quincy teachers
in regularly scheduled sessions. Also, he wanted a wider scope
for training teachers, and he saw an opportunity to test his
theories of teacher training by being close to children and by
working with themf‘9

The year 1884 brought the first Parker graduates, but Parker
wanted to extend the training and make it a two-year program. He
was successful almost immediately as several of the graduates
agreed to remain for additional training. Miss Delia Speer (whom
he had brought from Quincy) was the head of the practice school.

The organization of the school called for the student teacher to

271

submit her lesson plans for her four to six students to the room
teacher. There were generally four student teachers to each room.
The room teacher submitted the plans to Miss Speer who, in turn,
had a weekly meeting with Parker. Of course, Parker met regularly
with the entire staff and literally demanded that they speak out
about their learning and their experiences. In fact, if anyone
refused to speak at these meetings, they weren't welcome to remain
at CCNS. Parker believed that "speaking out sorts things out in
the mind."50

The assemblies were of major importance to the structure of
each day. At them, Parker could interact with his children and
the children could be exposed to the community of students. They,
too, were encouraged to come forward and speak out. Applause was
discouraged to avoid competition. At the assemblies students and
faculty performed music and art in celebration of Christmas or
spring or to commemorate Lincoln (Parker recited "Captain, 0'
Captain" by Whitman), Washington, Longfellow, or Emerson.51

Parker maintained his interest in working directly with
students, in students actually involved in the physical action of
the learning, and in bringing the community and the school
together in a mutual learning. Parker instituted the first
elementary woodshop in the Chicago area. He was successful
because he enlisted the help of the neighborhood--all of whom
aided with either equipment, time, or both. He established one of

the first community gardens. He persuaded mothers to accompany

272

the teachers and children on field trips. And despite his meager
budget, Parker was able to attract expert teachers in art, music,
literature, dramatics, physical training, history, and science,
along with trained librarians and a museum curator. Parker had
worked on developing a Parent Teachers Association earlier in his
career, and he reestablished his interest. The concept was that
classroom problems and concerns could be more easily resolved by
enlisting the aid of parents, teachers, businessmen, and
fundamentalists who refused to see farther than the three Rs.524

Quincy had been the culmination of what Parker had learned and
experienced and the spur to his future work. He inaugurated many
supported, though risky, changes. There, he dropped the set
program, the speller, the reader, the grammar, and the copy book.
While treating the alphabet with slight deference, "his children
set upon at once to work making words and sentences."5

His teachers and students learned first to think and observe,
and then how to put these powers to work on required subjects.
Actually, there were few required subjects. Instead the children
were expected to be able to read well at sight, to write
correctly, to compute sums in ordinary business transactions, to
know geography from a practical point of view and to know leading
events in history. The children were expected to learn how to
learn--"trained facilities and senses with which to acquire such
other knowledge as they might desire later on."54 The year before

Adams hired Parker, the children of the Quincy Schools could

273

answer only those specific questions for which they had been
prepared. They could not write a simple letter or summarize the
reading of a new essay. They couldn't explain or discuss science,
history, or geography.

Parker accomplished this not with specific methodology--

There were no royal roads and no prescribed
methods, no Quincy methods. Each teacher had to
have her own methods and work with definite ends
in view, learn to make her own maps, charts, etc.,
and be able to convince the superintendent of the
necessity of evggy article to be purchased at the
public expense.

The basis of the Parker method was to begin with objects in and
around school: yards, fences, boxes, blocks, gardens, gutters,
board and chalk, roads and fields, chairs and stools, pastures,
hills, and valleys--"out of these many valuable object and
568
language lessons may be learned."
In her book The Quincy Methods, Patridge listed the

distinguishing features of the Quincy work.

1. The joyous life of the schools and the
comradeship of teacher and pupils.

2. The grouping of their pupils (in the lower
grades), obtaining many of the benefits of
individual teaching.

3. The skillful use of a great amount and variety
of "Busy-Work."

4. Lessons in subjects not usually
taught--drawing, modeling, form, color,
natural history, etc.

5. The constant use of drawing as a means of
expression.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

274

. Use of text-books as repositories of

knowledge.

. Amount and variety of Supplementary Reading.

. Substitution of the expression of original

thought on the part of the pupils for the
old-fashioned memoriter recitation.

. Carefully varied programme, whose order was

known only to the teacher.

The atmosphere of happy work which encompassed
teachers and pupils.

Disorder not worrying the teacher and wasting
her time.

The confidence, courtesy, and respect
characterizing the attitude not only of pupils
to teacher, but teacher to pupils.

The absence of scolding, snubbing, or spying.

The dignity, self-possession, and lack of
self-consciousness of pupils.

The making of the child the objective point,
and not Courses of Study, examinations, or
promotions.

The great economy, naturalness, and
practicability of the devices employed.

The marked attention paid to the so-called
dull pupils.

The evident growth of moral power.

The remarkable skill of the teachers
evidencing their comprehension of underlying
principles.

The wonderful originality and individuality of
the teachers--none being imitators; the
devices used varying from day to day.

The high ideal set before the teachers by the
Superintendent, and their hearty co-operation
with him in striving to attain it.

275

22. The absence of machinery, and the absolute
freedom from any fixed or prescribed mode of
work, each teacher being encouraged to invent
and try any device not violating fundamental
laws.

23. Examinations aimed to test the teacher's power
to teach.

24. Examinations such as to test the children'
power to do, not their power to memorize.

Patridge described this as a harmonious education which
encompassed mind, body, and soul. She observed a combination of
mental and physical activities, of work and play, and of the
development of good habits. Her analogy was that of a garden with
the teachers as gardeners seeking to learn "the divine laws which
governed their development (the pupils) and watched each mind to
see what helped or hindered growth."58 That, she reported, was
the goal of this new education--growth rather than simply the
acquisition of skill and knowledge.

Parker and others had for some time realized the importance of
children (and adults) learning to think rather than learning an
amount of factual information. Parker realized that in order to
practice thinking children needed situations which would challenge
them to search for solutions and choose among alternatives. They
needed to get out of their seats and out of their drill exercise
books.

In 1935 Dewey and Tyler Dennett warned in The Forum that the
education in some schools bore no very close relationship to

thinking. They suggested that some people are educated and some

276

think. "The two categories are not identical, at best they
overlap. It may be doubtful whether any new or old method will
greatly modify this fact. American history is studded with names
of men not educated but who could think."59 Dewey's suggestion
was that current and future practice in the schools be based on an
accurate understanding of psychological principles. He envisioned
a continuum between the psychological theorist, the educational
theorist, and the teacher. For Dewey, the way to learn to think
was through inquiry and its outcome in gathering and retention.
In discussing his beliefs, Mayhew wrote in The Dewey School the
"skill of reading, writing, and numbers grows out of the needs and
the results of activities. Knowledge grows out of active contact
with things and energies inherent in consecutive activities."60

In seeking to explain the theory behind the structure of the
Dewey School, Edwin Slosson wrote in 1917 regarding the grouping
of children. He explained that both social and cooperative group
work was not only important for individual freedom, but also on
moral grounds. Further, Dewey believed in the theoretical
conception that "human intelligence developed under social
conditions and for social purposes. The mind had developed not
only with respect to activity having purpose but also social
activity."61

Also Dewey hoped to use educational theory to aid in

determining the physical structure of a school. For example, he

would employ educational theory in conjunction with the decision

277

on how to provide good light, heat, ventilation, sanitary
facilities, educational equipment, and play space. Steiner took
not only educational theory, but the knowledge and experience of
his teachers into account when determining the physical structure
of his schools. This, however, has usually caused prohibitive
economic problems as the descriptions of these early schools
should demonstrate.

Dewey's school was designed to be a community where the "mind
and selves are formed to be free to have interaction with others
through communication, cooperation, inquiry, and thinking."62
Dewey believed that the adult world was too complex for children
and that the amount of knowledge was overwhelming. In order to
help children, he proposed to coordinate the school's activities
with the basic aspects of the world outside. He intended to
organize their studies in a "framework of simplified principles
and concepts that would introduce order into the welter of data."
Dewey said that "schools should promote ways of learning and
living that demonstrate habits of cooperation, free communication,
and reflective thinking."63 The theory that Dewey espoused was
that values are learned better when lived than when merely talked
about. The school was to be social in scholarship. They would
build the school work on the experience and activities of the
child directing his immediate interests to significant educative
ends. But Dewey always believed that basic skills and knowledge

in subject matter had to be a vital part of the school program.

278

In Dewey's experimental school, the idea was if children had
sufficient variety of activities provided, they would like what
they did and their activities would be so arranged as to result in
getting knowledge and forming good habits of thought. (As in,
"Waldorf children do not do as they like; they are so taught that
they enjoy what they do."64) The intellectual idea or philosophy
of the school was to attempt to work out the theory that
"knowledge, with respect to both sense observation and general
principles, is the offshoot of activities, and practical problems
arising in connection with consecutive occupations afford the
means for developing interest in scientific problems for their own
sake."65 Since the school was a center for graduate study at the
University of Chicago, one of their tasks was, for example, to
develop a sequence of school activities appropriate for the muscle
coordinations of children at different stages of growth.

Dewey's experiment began in January 1896 in a private dwelling
with sixteen pupils and two teachers. It didn't work very well
and, as Mayhew reported in The Dewey Sghopl, those first months
were "chiefly indicative of what not to do." In Rugg's Thg
Shilg-Centered Schopl, it was described as a "neighborhood
laboratory school--radical--with neither conventional school
subjects nor school furniture."66 They next opened in October of
the same year at 5718 Kimbard Avenue with thirty-two pupils

between the ages of six and eleven years and three teachers, one

part-time music teacher, and three graduate assistants. The

279

curriculum consisted of science and domestic arts, literature and
history, manual training and music. By January 1897 the pupil
population growth (to 55) caused them to move to the South Park
Club House at Rosalie Court and 57th Street. By December 1898
they had sixty pupils and sixteen teachers. In October 1898 they
moved to 5412 Ellis Avenue and by the inclusion of pupils four and
five years of age, the population grew to eighty-two.67

Dewey developed new doctrines for educational reconstruction.
Out of his round table staff meetings and lectures to parents came
his books School and Sogiety and The Child and Curriculum.68
Dewey's work became more harmonized with the university as the
University Laboratory School was also considered a laboratory in
educational psychology with research and evaluation functions.
The staff worked out "educational programs and practices
consistent with the philosophical and psychological theories along
with changes following examination of the work in progress."69

At the Ellis Avenue address, the gym and shop were in the
barn, the art and textile rooms were in the attic. The science
labs included physics, chemistry, and biology. History and
literature classes were held in three rooms. The domestic science
area consisted of a large kitchen and two dining rooms. Before
the tremendous growth in pupil population, the teachers were the
administrators (as in the Waldorf Schools); but by 1902 there were
140 pupils, twenty-three teachers, ten graduate assistants, Dewey

as director, Ella Flagg Young as supervisor of instruction, and

280

Alice Chipman Dewey (Mrs. John) as principal and director of the
English Department. Similar to the other schools in this study,
they were always in financial trouble, despite generous donations
from benefactors such as Mrs. Charles R. Linn's 1896 gift of
$1200.

In 1902 the first attempt to merge Parker's Chicago Institute
with Dewey's Lab School failed due to parent and teacher protest.
Mayhew described Parker's school as mainly teacher training. They
won a year's reprieve, but when Parker died, the Chicago
Institute, the Chicago Manual Training School, the South Side
Academy, and the University of Chicago Laboratory School merged to
become the School of Education of the University of Chicago.70

Dewey was named director of the school and chairman of the
department, but he wasn't destined to remain in Chicago. Parker's
teachers harbored resentments upon entering the merger. None of
the teachers seemed pleased with Mrs. Dewey as principal, and
President Harper may or may not have made promises he didn't
intend to keep. In 1904 the Deweys resigned a few days apart, and
Teachers' College, Columbia University, was quick to invite Dewey
to join its staff. In 1959 Robert McCaul wrote in "Dewey's
Chicago" he

. resigned and so withdrew from a
situation which presented opportunities to work
out bearings of his educational ideas in a form
more accommodated to the realities and demands of
the regular community schools. Because he was
more intelligent and moderate than his later
brokers and popularizers, had he stayed in

Chicago, we might have received a m9 e viable
educational theory and methodology.

281

The same question might have been posed regarding Steiner's
work as he died but four years after the opening of the first
Waldorf School in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1919. He, alone of the
five educators of this study, has an international system of
schools remaining though the laboratory school is still viable in
the University of Chicago and the Francis W. Parker School in
Chicago continues.

Despite the fact that he had strong financial backing from
Emil Mott, Steiner's first school was housed in an old beer
garden. One pupil was reported to have remembered still being
able to smell the stale odor of beer during his lessons.72 The
organization of the Waldorf Schools was unique. Each one was
administratively autonomous and took full responsibility for its
existence. In "An Introduction to Waldorf Education," Henry
Barnes wrote, "What unites the movement is the education itself
which is a unique blend of the individual, the local atmosphere,
and what is universally human."73 There were no administrators,
no textbooks, no exams, and no report cards as were known in the
public schools. The teachers administrated and managed the school
by committees and on a rotating basis. Steiner believed the
"organization and administration is best done by those who
implement it. The principle of self-responsibility and
participation calls for the school to be run by those immediately
involved."74 Some schools maintained a geschafts furhur. This

was not an administrative position, but one of a business manager

282

who ordered what was needed by the teachers. The teachers,
according to Steiner's original plan, were to meet with the
architect prior to building or remodeling so that every aspect of
the child's day was considered. This was not always economically
feasible.

Steiner, having learned much about teaching from his years of
tutoring, believed that the teacher must know the subject so well
that he could concentrate on how he would teach and reach each
student. To that end he was at liberty to hire artisans who knew
their craft full well and then Steiner could guide them in their
teaching. ”The central didactic principle is to give all lessons
an artistic design by emphasizing how a subject is taught rather
than what."75 Intellectual demands were always combined with hard
work or physical movement. A lesson began with a "fundamental
exposition and descriptive elaboration; the next day is revision
of thoughts and images for discussion followed by creative writing
or artistic expression."76 Story telling was very important.
"Stories provide material for verbal and written recapitulation;
they provide practice in speaking clearly, remembering, expressing
coherently, and re-creating a particular turn of a phrase.

Stories enrich vocabulary. Students acquire a feeling for
language."77

Students did not use textbooks. They used, instead, classics
and both personal and vicarious experiences. The classics used

covered fairy tales to Dante and on to modern works. History was

283

taught at first through dramatic pictures, then from heroes of the
past to live history. Geography studies were linked to the
students' immediate surroundings commencing with descriptions of
and the actual building of houses on a small scale to an
understanding of the student's own environment, own country, the
world, and on to a study of the universe and astrology. Students
gained first experience with geometric forms and their variations
followed by a study of laws and theorems. For the study of
science, students learned a reverence for nature by experiencing
those realms closest to them: animals, plants, and minerals.
Students wrote and illustrated their own texts from these lessons.

The students did not take examinations as public school
children did. Steiner said, "We should never want to hold
official examinations."78 He obtained authorization for the
schools to hold their own learning exams so that they would be
allowed to "follow the educational principles to their logical
conclusions."79 Also, Waldorf teachers did not give report cards
as public school teachers knew them either. Steiner said, "There
are no report cards, rather a mirror picture, a biography of
progress." He would not tolerate a "white washing of less
positive aspects of a child's studies."80 Rist called them report
maxims.

The typical day in a Waldorf school began with an assembly.
This brought students and teachers together for a common purpose:

to work and to learn together. The assembly consisted of a

284

variety of activities designed to awaken and concentrate the
students' minds prior to the work of the day. Activities were to
achieve a well-rounded balance of serious, happy, new, and
familiar. Music and singing were often used. Individual classes
help plan the assembly.

After the assembly children attended their main block lesson.
This two to two and one-half hour lesson ran two to eight weeks.
Marjorie Spock wrote in Teaching as a Lively Art that Steiner
believed short classes were against human nature--that they

. turn healthy human beings into nervous

cripples . . . that they are burdens with a
crushing weight of purely external skills and
lifeless knowledge . . . that they are

catastrophic for a child's development as a means

of breaking off of play activity followed By a

crippling effect on the child's intellect.
The two hour lesson allowed both absorption and a refreshing
change when they moved on to a new lesson. The two hours were
rarely too tiring as they always attempted to combine the three
fold activities: a rhythmic balance among mental effort
(thinking), artistic creation (feeling), and motor activity
(willing).82 If a student seemed to "breathe a sigh of relief
that the lesson is over it is an unfailing indication that the
teachers planning lacked balance."83 Steiner hated lessons that
made children want "to jump out of their skin." Main block
lessons did not consist of lecture. They were made up of plays

written and enacted, painting, dancing, singing, reciting, and

storytelling. The main block lesson took the greater part of the

285

morning and was followed by a recess and then a shorter period of
instruction in a subject matter that offered a decided contrast
such as foreign language, eurythmy, singing, or handwork. All
students took music lessons beginning with a recorder and moving
on to an instrument of their choice. These lessons were not
merely for skills acquisition but a part of total balance and
development.

Steiner intended that teachers remain with the same pupils
from first through eighth grade. Where this was not possible,
schools attempted having the teacher remain with her pupils from
first through third grade. In this way the teacher knew the
children and was able to build on their past experiences and to
provide a better balance in the lessons.

There were specialist teachers who taught music, art, physical
education, crafts, and eurythmy. Eurythmy was a special exercise
in body movement which represented poetic forms of speech.
Steiner and his wife developed this movement and incorporated it
in their anthroposophical work prior to its addition in the
Waldorf school. There was also a curative eurythmy used in
rehabilitation.

Steiner and the other educators in this study were fortunate
in that they were each able to develop or assist in developing a
school or a school system. Mearns observed, however, that it took
about five years to change a system and that school

superintendents were like missionaries attempting to re-educate

286

the adult community. This description was much like Parker in the
Quincy Schools. There he was an extraordinarily fortunate
missionary because the times and the people--the adult community
and specifically the leaders-~were ripe for change. In a 1937
article entitled ”Administration Faces New Problems," Lester Dix
described the challenges of the development of the Lincoln School.
He wrote that "progressive education makes teachers and
administrators work together and realize each other's
perspective."84 This was, of course, what all of the schools in
this study were striving for and because of their diligence it
became a central focus of the schools. Dix wrote that since
scheduling in a progressive, less limiting manner was such a
tremendous problem, administration had actually to become
everyone's concern.

Recall Steiner's "Waldorf children do not do as they please,
they are taught so they like what they do." Dewey broke a long
silence to criticize progressive curriculums with little or n
actual substance. Parker loved little children, but he preferred
them busy. In a 1930 article entitled "Educating the Whole
Child," Mearns wrote "Doing what they please! What an
absurdity!"85 For him the key word was environment not lessons,
but he always recognized the need for lessons. What he clearly

saw was the waste when lessons did not reach the children due to

the wrong environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

287

In Creative Power, Mearns wrote his "Slow Miss Mandy Theory":
Slow Miss Mandy,
Her babies weren't fat,
But they always wanted what they couldn't get at;
On the very top shelf
She put the cream in the crock,
And she left the ladder Bgndy
And the key in the lock.
He listed seven rules for creating a conducive and cohesive
environment.
1. Never be dogmatic or superior. To sneer at
taste is caddish at best and certainly futile.
2. Taste grows through stages of saturation and
surfeit.
3. Always have materials at the ready.
4. Without a large library and a gifted librarian
who will work with the class responding to

their needs, it won't work.

5. Material necessary to lift students to the
next level needn't be adult literacy.

6. An atmosphere enticing suggestions must be
set, preferably by the children.

7. Never lie to a child.87
Mearns could not tolerate double standards either between
consenting adults or adults and children.

Finally, Mearns advocated a shift away from sophisticated,
smart, and showy curriculums and classrooms and a move toward the
simple, worthwhile, and unspectacular.88 At the Lincoln school,
teachers worked toward an integration of curriculum rather than

continued distinctions and separations. For example, students

learned the principles of flotation (Archimedes' Principle and

288

Application) in first hour math and applied the principle in
second hour swim class. The teachers observed what the students
ate for lunch and added nutrition to the curriculum.

In Mearns' own classes one of his first goals was to secure
wide and varied experiences with all kinds of literature. He
permitted without fear or rebuke the freest expressions of likes
and dislikes. Gradually as he and his students became better
acquainted, they formed a student committee to select the
literature to be studied. One year the student committee
determined that the class read twenty books. They then wrote
critiques and essays on the same theme. Students wrote essays,
critiques, short stories, speeches, plays, and verses. Yet Mearns
never demanded and, since he was patient, he was never
disappointed. Also the students at Lincoln school, like those in
Waldorf schools, presented an annual play to the school and
parents.

The new methods developed at the Lincoln school were in four
basic categories: (a) integrated courses, (b) cooperative
planning and teaching, (c) increased participation of students in
the curriculum, and (d) the promotion of interpretative,
expressional, and creative activities. These goals were
accomplished in a variety of areas and activities. They were
extremely interested in "out of classroom activities" such as
field trips and physical education. Students were given time on

Friday afternoon to "do" (as if they hadn't been) things such as

289

shopping, art projects, music practice, drama, newspapers,
marnnwttes, and hobby clubs. They integrated English, history,
art, science, and music into Western culture. The responsibility
for the course was shared by both students and teachers. At one
point they complained that there was simply not enough time in the
school day to accomplish all they desired, and these American
students and teachers considered lengthening the school day. In
the content integrated curriculum were four areas: (a) cultural
evolution (social understanding), (b) self and personality, (c)
natural environment, and (d) art of communication, expression, and
imagination.

The junior high school "scope and sequence" included (a)
individual development, (b) sound basic techniques, and (c) broad
orientation.

Seventh grade: Evolution of cultures

English
Natural science
Natural mathematics
Integrated general arts
Health and personal development
French (elective)
Eighth grade: Evolution of cultures
Social studies
English

Art

 

 

 

290

Natural science
Universal mathematics
Algebraic abstractions
General arts
Health and personal development
French (elective)
Ninth grade: Evolution of cultures
Social studies
Science
Household arts
English
Preparation for high school math
General arts
Health and personal development
Dance
Leadership
French (elective)

The senior high school ”scope and sequence" was (a) all-round
adulthood: personal attitude, poise, intellectual curiosity, and
self-respect; (b) sound inquiry and scholarship; and (c) social
orientation by student choice in work.

Tenth-Twelfth grades: Evolution of cultures

Health and personal development
Biology

Math

 

 

 

291

French
Stagecraft
Photography

International peace

School politics

gr
Sports 2
Games E
Dance

The tenth and eleventh graders studied the evolution of cultures

from primitive man to the national cultures. The twelfth grade

course was on American culture. It was designed for the best

students with the hope that the ”mediocre would learn as well or

opt for an independent study."89 Nonetheless, experience and

integration were overriding goals of the Lincoln school.

As has been shown, Parker, Dewey, and Steiner were sincerely

interested in what they called the whole or triune nature of the

child-~the body, the mind, and the soul. They were interested in

values, morals, and the needs of the individual as he integrated

‘with the rest of his society. Zirbes, too, was most interested in

values, and she believed they could be taught in and out of the

classroom. She wrote in Eocus on Valnes in Elementary Education

that the "model elementary school is based on values that were not

known earlier.” She continued that the old idea of a model

school and demonstration lessons lead to imitation; and though
Parker would certainly have taken issue, she may have had a point.

At any rate, she said the. new idea was that the schools

 

292

demonstrate values in the process and various manners of learning.

She said educators must leave room for situational thinking, value

judgments, and voluntary creative involvements. In her summer

demonstration school at The Ohio State University, the regular

staff was augmented by teachers from all over the country.
Hundreds of teachers took classes and workshops in which the

school staff demonstrated an interaction guided by a shared

concern for democratic values. While they might not have worded

it just that way, Parker and Dewey would certainly have agreed.

Zirbes favored a minimum of formal instruction, didactic

training, and coercive direction. Instead, children should learn

in and through experience. Teachers were responsible for making

learning effective, thorough-going, and scientific, but not

mechanical and systematic. They prepared and developed the

child's sensitivities for subject matter in life contexts. Zirbes

believed that the beauty of color, line, form, and arrangement,

for example, could be fostered and realized in everyday

experiences. However, she warned that there was no chance for

that kind of learning in classes that existed in a regimented
routine restricted to exercises matching color patches to color
names and filling in stencilled outlines with crumbling crayons.
She said children and teachers can't link learning to the wonders
of the woods, fields, and significant personal experience under a

regimen of restraint, mass management, rows and lines, inhibitions

and restrictions, conformity and standardization.92

 

293

Zirbes believed that guidance led to continuity and
consistency which, in turn, led to a stabilizing, integrative, and
developmental curriculum. Her concern was for meaningful,
cumulative learning and abiding interest. She encouraged teachers

to foster personal responsibility by involving the children in the

cultivation of foresight, judgment, purposeful action, evaluation,

and intelligent re trospection .

Zirbes believed that children needed freedom from emotional

stress and strain upon which she partly blamed competition. She

said that competition failed to induce children to the finer
values of intrinsic effort and cooperation and that while the

ablest child may be spurred by competition, the less able was

often discouraged. She was as critical of poor education as

Steiner when she proclaimed, "If children are inert unless cheap
spurs are applied the education must be poorly adjusted and

conceived."94 She also emphasized that each phase must be paced

with the child's level of maturity in order to avoid emotional
blocks and nervous disorganization and to reduce the "inordinate

amount of repetitive drill of unrelated, unassimilated, dormant

elements."95 Again like Steiner, Zirbes recommended a definite

rhythm in each school day from the playground to the bathroom to

the circle for story-telling and the discussion of problems

concerning the group or planning for the next day.

Like Dewey she opposed any increase in class size. She

cautioned that an increase simply adds more workbook and other

m “if -l «1"

294

seatwork material. Actually, she was vocal regarding certain

seatwork popular in the early 19403. She complained that the

letter blocks, beads, sewing cards, patterns for paper

construction, and expensive four-inch squares were ”didactic

devices of formal learning . . . stereotyped mass instruction that
g.

perpetuate the inhibition in natural play impulses, discouraged

cooperative social play through which social attitudes develop, E

and build needless tensions and strains."

Instead she preferred a functionalist attitude. She

considered the function of education, the resources, and the

activities in the planning of a modern classroom. She realized

the psychology of color and modern educational equipment such as

built-in facilities for use and storage essential to effective

work, order, and organization. She decried "compulsory attendance

at places unfit for human habitation" and called them

indefensible.97 She wanted light, bright colors in the classrooms

and corridors. Furniture flexible for a chance to "learn by

doing"--centers for group activity, a reading nook, a book table,

and handy, well-stocked shelves. She said that "special places

contribute to developing an interest in books as a source of

satisfaction."98 She would also have a science corner with

facilities for direct inquiry, observation, and experimentation in

both laboratory study and the role of science in modern life. For

social studies she recommended bulletin boards with current

affairs: local, national, and world-wide, and community study for

295

social learning and first hand experience followed by classroom
discussion and work. She maintained that unless school learnings
were conducted in such a manner as to carry over to life, the
school was not setting a conducive learning environment. Zirbes
accused isolated learnings of causing "rapid forgettings, low
morale, dependence on coercive pressure and extrinsic motivation .

it encouraged individualism and aggressive, self-centered
behavior."99

Zirbes described The Ohio State University Experimental
Elementary School as the following:

1. demonstration of mental hygienic values
implicit in the curriculum,

2. regular provisions for study trips,
3. substitution of cooperation for competition,
4. regular regimen of rest,

5. studied avoidance of the evils of over
stimulation,

6. purposeful activity,
7. socially responsible work periods,

8. free choice of art or science activities in
separate blocks of time, and

9. democratic pupil cooperation in planning.100
She referred to these as the "dynamics of advancement in teacher
education."
More specifically, for kindergarten she encouraged guided

interaction. That is, she had the children work in small groups

and report to the class. The teacher had to refrain from telling

296

the<fidldren exactly what to do, but, rather, suggest alternative
ways of working to make the most of the resources available. The
teacher lead the children to see why it was necessary to set
limits and come to group decisions democratically. The first
graders needed weeks of working and playing together to develop a
group interest. They needed to be encouraged to see a job through
to completion. The second graders liked reading, counting and
planning for lunch, sharing responsibility for the lunch slips,
and sharing experiences in their newsletter. The third graders
discussed the possibilities of a group project. The fourth
graders actually discussed what to do: arithmetic, writing,
reading, and then decided on four topics: (a) early man, (b)
other lands, (c) airplanes, and (d) animals. Included in their
study were reading, interesting jobs, writing, arithmetic, and
movies, trips, and speakers. The fifth graders were interested in
reading, nature studies, and writing autobiographies. The sixth
graders had a more defined day. They worked from 8:00 to 8:45
four days a week and had one free day. From 9:10 to 9:30, they
had music. From 10:15 to 10:45, they had physical education. The
rest of the time was more flexible, and they planned it together.
In the particular group she was describing, here were several
‘behavior problems; so she warned that the group project would have
to be very interesting and employ easy reading materials. In book
reporting, for example, she found they enjoyed telling about their
101 The

own book, but they didn't care to listen to their peers.

high school offered two types of educational experiences:

297

l. the study of problems and skill development
and attributes important to all people in a
democracy regardless of vocation (they called
this the core and physical program), and

2. preparation for a specific vocation.

According to the 1954 handbook for University School Parents,

the selection policy worked toward a well-balanced mix of

students. First, a student was accepted if his admission would

bring a better balance to a grade group in sex, race, religion,
income, social adjustment problem, and academic nature. Priority

was given to siblings of currently enrolled students and children

of faculty and staff. Some provision was made for help with fees

in certain cases. Normally, no application was accepted for

enrollment beyond the tenth grade. Like Parker's and Dewey's
before her, the building was always crowded and outmoded.

Originally, it was just to be used as a high school and the

additional wing was never built. In the end, there were fourteen

grades housed in a space planned for six.

Nonetheless, the staff experimented in the areas of (a) a
desirable balance of various types of activities found in a school
day, (b) a language arts program consistent with the purpose of
the general education program, (c) a related arts program
consistent with the general education program, and ((1) further

development of the core programs at both the junior and senior

higfllilevels.102 There were more planned but insufficient staffing

and funding caused postponement.

298

The basic purpose of the school as stated in the Philosophy

and Purpose pi rhe University School published in 1948 was "to

preserve and continually reinterpret and recreate the democratic

103

way of life which made public education possible." This

document stated that there were two types of curricular experience

that were regarded as threads of continuity that give unity to

experience.

A. Continuous curricular experience directly
related to democratic values

1.

2.

6.

7.

Develop social sensitivity

Develop co-operativeness

Develop the ability and zeal to utilize
methods of intelligence in solving all
problems of human concern

Develop creativeness

Develop skills in democratic living

Interpret democracy

Develop self-direction

B. Continuous curricular experience implied by
democratic values

1.

Develop communication skills and
appreciations: reading, writing,
speaking, music, art, language of quantity

Develop skills in measurement and use of
quantitative symbols

Develop skills in utilizing goods an
services (not only consumer goods, but
radio, movies, recreation, and
entertainment)

Promote social adjustments

299

5. Promote health and safety

6. Develop vocational adjustments and
standards

7. Develop adequate recreational outlets
8. Develop standards of personal appearance
and grooming

The basic, underlying idea was that the school should be the

finest illustration of democratic living. All involved should

learn to live democratically by the actual process of living
together. Parker and Dewey would have approved.

Parker began his teaching career in 1864, and Zirbes began her
work in the Laboratory School in 1929. They had some striking
similarities and some glaring differences, but throughout their
work they both, along with Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns, attempted
to determine the best possible program for the educational
development of children. The educators in this study were more
concerned with the process through which children learned, and
through that process they expected the product to be substantial.
They each had to fight to establish the reforms they believed in
and then continue the battle to maintain them. They each amassed
a number of devoted disciples who worked diligently and
enthusiastically despite difficult conditions. Parker's work at
Quincy and the Cook County Normal School, Dewey's at the
University of Chicago Laboratory School, Steiner's Waldorf
Schools, Mearns' Lincoln School, and Zirbes' Laboratory School of
The Ohio State University, while each unique, exhibited certain

commonalities. The structure of each was directed toward the

300

child, the way in which he learned, and the on-going purposes of
his education. The physical and mental structure of the schools
themselves and the school days promoted freedom, individuality,
independence, and responsibility. This was accomplished through
the teachers, the students, and the faith of the students'

parents.

301

EOCGS

1Marion Foster Washburne, et al., Francis Wayland Parker: His

Life and Educational Refiorn Wprk (New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.,
l900):48.

2F. W. Parker, ”Application of Child Study in the School,"
Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Ngtionnl Education
Association (1885):4l8.

3F. W. Parker, "Discussion of Professor Richard Jones' 'German
Methods of Using the Mother Tongue,'" Journal of the Proceedings

and Addresses of the National Education Assopinrion (l894):484.

4F. W. Parker, "Discussion After Professor Charles Dearmo's

Paper on 'The German System of Normal Schools,'" Journal of the

Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association
(1887):493.

5Harold Rugg and Ann Shumaker, The Child-Centered School (New
York: World Book Co., l928):277.

 

6Horace Coon, Columbia; Colossus on the Hudson (New York: E.
P. Dutton & Co., Inc., l947):221.

7Lawrence A. Cremin, ”John Dewey and the Progressive Education

Movement," The School Review (Summer, 1959):164.

8Ibid., 166.

9Henry Barnes, ”An Introduction to Waldorf Education,"
Teachers College Record (l980):325.

10Hughes Mearns, "Salvation by Information," The North
American Review, 229(1930):7l.

11Hughes Mearns, "The High School and the 'Standard,'" Th;
Independenr, 73(1912):482.

12Coon, 224.
131bid.
141bid., 223.

15Elmira R. Lucke, "Helping Youth Find His Larger Community,"
Progressive Educatipn, 10(1937):395.

16Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Srgntive Tgnching (New York: G. P.

Putnam's Sons, l959):73-74.

 

302

17Laura Zirbes, "What 13 Freedom in the Classroom?"

Progressive Egugnrion, ll(l934):385.

18Laura Zirbes, "Our Research Responsibilities," Eduggtional

Leadership, 9(1952):487.

19W. Carson Ryan, "Editorial," Conference Commemorating the

100th Anniversary of the Birth of Francis Wayland Parker, 582.
20Jack Campbell, The Children's Crusader (New York: Teachers'
College Press, l967):82-83.

21F. W. Parker, "Application of Child Study," 482.

22Charles F. Adams, Jr., "The New Departure in the Common
Schools of Quincy and Other Papers on Educational Topics" (Boston,

1879). Reprint, The Elementary School Journal 35(1935):496.

23"Address of Colonel Francis W. Parker." April 20’ 1900'

delivered in Old Stole Temple, Quincy, MA, 2.

24Cremin, 170.

25John Dewey, "The Schools and Social Preparedness," The New

Republic, 7(1916):15.

26Arthur G. Wirth, John Dewey as Educator (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., l966):38.

27John Dewey, "The Need for Orientation," The Forum,
93(1935):333.

28John Dewey, "Current Tendencies in Education," The Dial,
64(1918):289.

29John Dewey, "Experiment in Education," The New Republic,
10(1917):16.

30K. C. Mayhew and A. C. Edwards, The Dewey Schpgl (New York:
Appleton-Century Co., l936):7.

31Wirth, 30.
32Cremin, 166.
33Ibid., 166-167.

31‘Hughes Mearns, Sreativg nggr (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Co., Inc., l930):264.

303

35Lester Dix, "Integration in the Lincoln School Philosophy,"
Teachers College Eecord, 37(1936):363. '

36Laura Zirbes, Spurs ro Creative Teaching, 71.

7Laura Zirbes, "Gaps in Curriculum Research," Egnpsripnsl
Leadership, 7(1949):190.
38Laura Zirbes, Guide nes o Develo mental Teachin
(Columbus: The Teaching Aids Laboratory, The Ohio State
University, l959):52.

39John A. Ramseyer and the Faculty of the University School,

The hi 3 and ur o e 0 th U vers t hool (Columbus:
The Ohio State University, l948):2.

Herbert L. Coon, A Handbook for University School Parents
(Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University, l954):4.

 

“11616., 6.
42Rugg, ll.
ABIbid., 43.
44Adams, 500.
45

Flora J. Cooke, "Colonel Francis W. Parker and His Influence
upon Education," Erogressive Edusation, l4(1937):589.

46Campbell, 40.

47Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A Histpry of American
Education (New York: Macmillan Co., 1956, l973):207.

48Lelia Patridge (reported), Francis W. Parker, Notes on Talks
on Teaching (New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co., 1883, authorized

facsimile by micro-xerography by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
MI, l967):42-45.

49Helen M. Hefferan, "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker," Chicago

Schools Spnrnal, l8(l936):4.

501bid., 6.

511616.

52Mrs. W. S. Hefferan, ”The Social Philosophy of Colonel

Francis W. Parker," Erogrsssive Educarign, l4(1937):622.

 

 

304

53Washburne, 19.
541616.
551616., 41.
56
Patridge, Notes on Talks on Teaching, 129.
57Ibid., xii-xiii.
58Ibid., xiii.
59

Tyler Dennett, "Education Cannot Lead," The Forum,
93(1936):336.

60Mayhew, 5.

 

61'Edwin E. Slossen, "John Dewey: Teacher of Teachers," Ths
Independent, 89(1917):542.

62Wirth, 124.

63Ibid.

6[‘Earl J. Ogletree, Wsldorf Schools: A Child-Centered System.
Document (l975):l4.
65Slossen, 542.

66Rugg. 38.

67Mayhew, 7.

68Rugg. 39.

69Wirth, 188.
7OMayhew, 12.

71Robert L. McCaul, ”Dewey's Chicago," The School Review
(l959):279.

72Stewart C. Easton, Heralg of a New Epoch (Spring Valley, NY:
The Anthroposophic Press, l980):l87.

73Barnes, 325.

74Georg Rist and Peter Schneider, lnrsgrating Vocational and

General Educat o ' Ru olf teiner cho . Document (l978):30.

305

751bid., 31.

76Werner Glas, The Wsldorf School Approach to History (The
Anthroposophic Press, 1963):15.

77Rist, 45.

78Rudolf Steiner, A Modern Art of Education (London: Rudolf
Steiner Press, 1972):l33.

79Rist, 21.
80Steiner, A Modern Art of Education, 133.

81Marjorie Spock, Teaching as a Lively Art (Hudson, NY: The

Anthroposophic Press, l985):20.

82Ibid., 21.

83Ibid.

84Lester Dix, "Administration Faces New Problems," Progressive
Education, l4(1937):516.

85Hughes Mearns, ”Educating the Whole Child," The North
American Eeview, 230(1930):701.

86Mearns, Creative Bower, 210.

87Ibid., 211.

88Guide R. Meyer, "Leisure in the New Curriculum," Teachers
College Record, 37(1936):389.

89Lester Dix, "The Experimental High School," Teachers College
Record, 38(1937):510-514.

90Zirbes, Epcus on Vslues, 107.

911bid., 64.

 

92Laura Zirbes, "Give Beauty a Chance," Childhood Education,
25(1949):290-291.

93Laura Zirbes, "The Challenge of Children's Needs," Childhood
Educstion, 25(1949):417.

91‘Zirbes, "What 13 Freedom," 384.

 

 

306

95Laura Zirbes, "The Emotional Climate of Schools,"
Educational Methods, l4(1935):l7l.

96Laura Zirbes, "Equipping Today's Kindergarten," Ths_flsripn;s
Schools, 28(1941):46.

97Laura Zirbes, "Modern Settings for Learning," Egnpnripnsl
Leadership, 5(1948):354.

981bid.

99Ibid., 355.

100Laura Zirbes, "The Dynamics of Advance in Teacher

Education," rogressive Education, l6(l939):47l.

 

101Zirbes, Eocus on Values, 70-75.
102Coon, 13.
103

Ramseyer, 11.

1041616., 10-11.

 

CHAPTER VI

STRUCTURE: TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND PARENTS

Despite the set-backs and at times bitter battles among the
educators in this study, Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, Zirbes,
and their administrators, boards of directors, and school boards,
they maintained a strong supportive base among their teachers,
students, and parents. This must have been a part of the force
that drove them forward. For the discussion on the people who
comprised the structure, Parker, Mearns, and Zirbes wrote more on
teachers than did Dewey and Steiner. Of course, Parker, Mearns,
and Zirbes were actually school teachers while Dewey and Steiner
could be more aptly described as teacher educators. Both Dewey
and Steiner spent substantial time in that capacity with the
teachers of their schools.

For educators devoted to a child-centered curriculum, it
seems unusual to note that only about nine percent of their
writing was directed toward children and their parents. Very few
specific discussions and descriptions of students were noted.
Little was mentioned of parents, yet they were always careful to

communicate to parents why they employed such seemingly unorthodox

307

 

308

methods. And it was often parents who came to their rescue both

politically and financially.

Teachers

What would a school structure be without teachers? Parker
knew full well as he wrote in an 1891 article entitled "The School

of the Future,"

As is the teacher, so is the school . . . .
Exalt the common school by the exaltation of th
teacher . . . . Make thoroughly educated men and
women fully capable of taking priceless treasures
of truth, revealed in this mighty century, to the
school room and put them in the souls of children.
Make them capable of undertaking the problems of
man and the destinies of humanity.

Parker recognized the importance of the teacher as the basis of
the entire structure. In his day the average school
superintendent would ask a new teacher, "Do you know arithmetic,
geography, etc.?" and send him off to teach. Parker asked, "Do
you know how to direct mental activity? Have you given that
prolonged study?"2 Parker demanded a great deal of his teachers,
but no more than of himself, and he gave them much in return. He

wrote,

A superintendent who doesn't allow teachers
freedom is a nuisance and ought to be put out. A
teacher who has no ideal, no lifting horizon, is a
nuisance. I say to my teachers, "Don't follow me.
Go your own way to work. Do a little well. But
one thing I do demand. You shall move. Do
nothing twice alike. Don't do things you have
done before. If a child stood up before, have him
sit down now. Whatever you do, do something
different. Have no patterns. Uniformity is
death. Variety is life."

309

Parker demanded much but he also respected and cherished his
teachers. The Parker's home was always open to his teachers, and
many remained loyal and close to him all his life. So it angered
him greatly when from his angle of vision school authorities took
pleasure in seeing their employees cringe, even though they

despised them for it.4 In fact, in 1872 as he was leaving Dayton.

Ohio, to study in Germany, he commented, "School teacheresses must
marry to get out of their misery."5

Though Parker advised teachers not to imitate, but to go their
own ways, he was never silent on suggestions for the journey. For
him the true method of teaching was an exact adaptation of the
subject taught as a means of growth to the learning mind. He said
if it is not, then artificial stimulation is necessary which
results in ”unhealthy mental action."6 The first thing to be done
in teaching any topic was to set the stage or structure on which
scene could be enacted in the child's mind. Teachers, he
suggested, should mold in sand, on the molding board, or on the
blackboard. He said history should not be taught from one book.
Ideally, he would have each child with a different book and topic
so they could all "read, discuss, add, shape, direct, dispute, and
write . . . . compare this teaching that delights children at
every step, trains close observation, lays the foundation for the
development of the imagination with rote learning of a mass of
dry, disconnected facts."7 In order to accomplish this, Parker

wanted teachers "spurred" to find the best and most economical

 

 

 

310

methods so they have time to stress these other important
elements.

Parker's major love was children, but he was not unaware of
the need for classroom control. He said there were two
ingredients: self-control and courage.

If you cannot govern them, they will govern
you. They will study you to find your weakness.
Give them something to do the first moment. Show
them how skillful you are without being
ostentatious. They'll soon forget their desire to
badger you in the pleasure of doing. If you
punish in apger, you simply enhance the
difficulty.

To Parker and actually to all of the educators in this study,
the best controlling device was student interest. They believed
that the natural curiosity of children would stimulate learning
provided the conditions were appropriate. To Parker if the
teacher was not interesting to the class, the lesson was over as
far as the learner was concerned. "Every time a child should
attend and does not, he has not only lost the learning but has
lost training in attention. Busy work is an effective device for
aiding the teacher in a crowded school. But it must be
interesting, require skill, and have variety.9 Parker wanted to
reach not just the minds of his pupils. He was after total
development; and in order to achieve that, the teacher had to be
in control of the free interests of the child. Parker called this
quality rather than quantity teaching which he said "makes the
soul the focus of light, in which all rays are blended. It is the

means of the richness and fullness of action for the all-sided

 

311

development of the body, mind, and soul."10 In April 1869 at the
Teacher's Institute on Martha's Vineyard, Parker challenged
teachers during his lecture on techniques in teaching geography to

"resign when they cease to make their profession the subject of

daily study.”11

Parker believed that teaching demanded honest, earnest
investigation of the truth as found in the learning mind and the
subjects taught and the courageous application of the truth when
found. He said that

in order to train children to know how
to do, we must be able to do ourselves. We must
have the skills in the techniques of school work
which are 1. voice training--the voice must be
clear, musical, slow pronunciations with ease and
natural inflections, perfect articulation and
pronunciation. Faults of tone, modulation, and
manner are propagated by the teacher, as well as
false syntax and incorrect pronunciation; 2.
expressive reader; 3. sing well; 4. write; 5.
draw/art; 6. gymnastics--train the whole body for
mental actipp depends largely upon physical
conditions.

Finally, Parker felt that the time had come--this was 1885--
when teachers (what he called "genuine teachers") should come
together for the purpose of discovering the new directions and
purposes of education. He wrote,

Shorn of all narrowing prejudices, all
implicit beliefs in dogmas, many teachers today
are ready to test anew the value of the old and
with profound faith to surrender any predilection
and move on to higher planes. Teachers of today
realize that most human beings are simply
specimens of arrested development and that the
schools of the 20th century must work out every
socialistii3problem which the 19th century has
presented.

 

312

Perhaps because Dewey lived so much longer than Parker, he
spoke and wrote more negatively regarding the position of
teachers. Richard Hofstader wrote in Anti-lntsllectualism in
Anerican Life (1963) that Dewey left no concrete curricular
direction, that he said the teacher should be in charge but that
he didn't say exactly of what.14 Dewey would no more tell a
teacher exactly how to teach than would Parker. But they
certainly told a great deal by their discussions of interest,
experience, and development. Dewey said that the

. more the teacher is aware of the

interests of the students and the factors in their

experiences, the more imaginative they can be in

establishing situations, raising questions, and

suggesting activities that might engage the

students to make sense of things themselves. This

increases thg chance of effectively reconstructing

experience.
For Dewey, the methods of instruction had to vary with the
situation. He was in favor of small classes and the organization
of subject matter into units. In his laboratory school, he had
the students either present papers or oral summaries at the
conclusion of each unit. He also encouraged the use of general
assemblies for singing and reports, the library, field trips,
laboratory experiments, maps, and movies.16 He preferred a
generalist teacher over the specialist and an interdisciplinary
approach.17

Dewey recognized problems both inside and outside of the

system. For one he believed public school teachers should have

been paid as much as university professors. He said, "It is

 

313

impossible to maintain a dichotomy between lower and higher
education."18 Also, universities had to change the attitude
against schools of education. He reported that to most

universities "education is not really a subject, and even if it

is, it is not considered a discipline."19

Like Parker, Dewey was also critical of poor school
administrations. He explained that it is easier to be docile,
directed, and controlled than to be insubordinate or original. He
said the scales are weighted in favor of habituation and against
reflective thought. In a 1918 edition of The Dial, he wrote,

Routine is so easy as to be natural and
initiative so difficult as to require the severe
art of discipline but the sociological antithesis
of the individual and the social has invaded
educational thought and is employed by pedagogues
to defend unintelligent convention, unexamined
tradition, and to feed the irritable vanity of
that petty tyrant, the educational administrator,
who learns by the study of new sociological
pedagogy that exercise of his personal authority
is in reality an exemplar of the great problem of
sociolog --the "social control" of the
unregenerate, unsocialized individual. This
thoughtless sociology does something, however,
even more harmful than the rationalization of mere
personal authority. It serves to justify the
laziness, the intellectual inertia o the

educational routineer (the teacher).50

The justifications are that (a) it is easier to rely on textbooks,
(b) textbooks embody the intellectual heritage of the race, (c)
originality in teaching has socially disastrous consequences, (d)
it is better to follow the line of least resistance, (e) it is
better to deal with students on an external and perfunctory level,

and (f) there is danger in catering to individuality.21

firmms-m-m

 

314

Later Dewey blamed the system rather than teachers. Writing
for Ths_£prnn in 1935, both Dewey and Dennett complained that it
was not the fault of the teachers, but the system that students
were not learning how to think. Dewey said that teachers had to
obey administrators and school boards. He warned that the
problems in the schools were reflections of the problems in
society and that they were perpetuating those conditions. He
wrote the ”schools must have a definite share in the evolution of
a reconstructed social order."22 This was the same plea of Emil
Mott in 1919 in Germany. In a companion article, Dennett wrote
that

Schools are never better than the taxpayers,
the parents, and the government. More often the
handicap or corruption of high purpose flows from
just plain ignorance and bigotry. The would-be
statesman rants in one breath about the evils of
holding companies and high rates and in the next
breath charges some poor teacher with disloyalty
to the constitution of the United States because
he ventures to make an objective sgudy of the
rates under government ownership.

Steiner didn't address the issue of poor teachers and bad
administrators. He didn't really discuss German education at
large, but contained his comments strictly to Waldorf schools.
When he began his work, he made an agreement with both Mott and
the state that he could work without interference. So when he
interviewed teachers, he was more concerned with their knowledge
of the subject and practical applicability than credentials. He

wanted them to know their subjects so thoroughly that they could

concentrate on methods. Steiner trained them before they began

315

teaching, and then during their teaching they had weekly meetings
and often went to see Steiner at the Goetheneam. He also visited
the schools as often as he could. Steiner wanted the teachers to
be the planners, the arrangers, and the coordinators. He also
wanted the students to see the teachers adjusting, learning, and
acquiring the ability for life-long learning.

Mearns, too, chose not to elaborate on the problems of the
teaching profession. His discussion of teachers as a part of the
structure of education was based on what they should be and
suggestions on what they should do. He began by admitting that
"there will be an external conflict between those who want to
teach the use of a tool by unmotivated drill directed toward
mechanical proficiency and those who believe the tool is best
taught through motivated applications in life situations."24
Mearns described the old system as perfect order, mass attention
to the workings of the teacher's "peculiar adult mind." The
teacher was the master, the student was the servant, and the
weapons were the punishments and the rewards. But the teacher
was, in turn, subservient to the administration. The teacher knew
the textbook, which he accepted without question although some of
it was false, but not living knowledge. Mearns said the new
education (which sounds to me much like Parker and Dewey) found
the teacher interested in the growth of the child and full of
surprises and trials and errors.25 But either way, be they

"subject matter teachers or child interest teachers with no notion

 

 

316

of outcomes beyond the hour or the semester, they are ineffective
and dangerous."26

Mearns felt that the best way to become a good teacher and to
teach the child interest methods was, rather than reading a book,
the observation of a good teacher. He, too, refused to state
point by point instructions on good teaching. But he did suggest
these methods called for a new type of learning which in turn
called for more information about self and children. He had
learned through his own experience as an adult attempting to enter
the children's world that it required "silence and self-
effacement."27

Mearns taught writing and believed that in order to teach
writing one should be a writer or at the least understand the
process. He quipped, "Successful writers speak seldom of heir
English classes."28 In the external conflict Mearns was in the
group who believed the tool was best taught through motivated
applications in life situations. Grammar, for example.
Composition was not simply an exercise in writing English
correctly. It should be the desire to say something. "The
student with something to say realizes his adequacy with his skill
and desires to learn grammar. The rules are taught as needed."296

Mearns and his fellow teachers at the Lincoln school had
little faith in the power of the traditional curriculum to meet
the demands of the large proportions of students. They preferred

what they called improved methods such as self-education,

cooperative groups, informal teacher-student relations, unhampered

317

intellectual honesty, and natural personal freedom. In Creative
Epnsr, he wrote, "Teachers must furnish the right world to work in
and have a clear vision of the ultimate educational outcomes for
their students. They must know what they are driving at
professionally."30 One of the things they need to do at the
beginning is develop minimum skills in their students as soon as
possible so that the students can feel a sense of satisfaction and
so that students can learn to work alone and have the confidence
to ask questions. He further suggested that teachers give
students tasks within their power to perform and enjoy with which
Steiner, Dewey, and Parker would have wholeheartedly agreed. Then
the teacher must be sensitive to difficulties as they progress and
to approve good effort.

In Mearns' classroom the students and the teacher determined
the reading and writing curriculum. He believed that he, as
teacher, could not assign the writing topic. "One writes
imaginatively about imaginative experiences; no one can decide in
advance what they shall be. I can't tell you what to write about
because I don't know what you know.”31 And in class discussions
of each other's poems, his voice (the teacher's) was but one of
many. He wrote, ”Neither theme nor method of treatment may come
from the teacher; that is the only way if the aim is artistry."32

In 1938 Mearns wrote in Egnssripnsl_hsrhpgs about the research
quest his students endeavored. They selected the pilgrims to

study and they began with writing spontaneously on what they

 

 

318

already knew and felt. This made them want to write stories and a
play. They needed to know how the pilgrims dressed, worked, and
spoke. They began their research with the books they had at hand.
They went to the library and gathered information and brought what
they found back to class. They developed a scientific zeal for
accurate knowledge and that led to persistence and high ideals.
The "wealth of knowledge combined with their new tools of research
led to the joyous labor of a scholar."33

Zirbes' suggestions for teachers coincided well with those of
Mearns. In her Guidelines to evelo menta eac in , she offered
seven general suggestions: (a) provide challenging resources and
opportunities; (b) resist the impulse to infer; (c) contribute to
the continuity and forward reference; (d) give the process time;
(e) respect the rhythms of organic functions and indications of
individuality and conditions favorable to acculturation and
socialization; (f) display acceptant understanding of inept,
unskilled, initial efforts; and (g) encourage and foster aspiring
efforts.34 She felt that the major responsibility of the teacher
was to guide children to recognize their own needs. That children
needed to learn to think was a recurrent theme found in the works
of all the educators in this study. Zirbes realized that some
skills require frequent repetition and that some are mastered the
first time they are attempted. One of many ways she saw of
developing the students' abilities echoes Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
and Mearns. She saw the all-school event such as an assembly,

play, or musical as not only a provision for dramatic and musical

 

 

319

expression. It also encouraged the development of creativeness,
cooperativeness, self-direction, and sensitivity to the unique
contributions of others.35

Zirbes found that when teachers were in a quandary, they
regressed to the way they were taught. All their training was
forgotten. Often the problem was lack of realistic planning with
alternatives for unpredictable situations. She warned that
planlessness was exceedingly hazardous (as had Mearns), but that
stereotyped formal plans were not the answer. Instead she offered
teachers five steps to creative teaching: (a) an unsolved problem
should lead to the challenge of exploratory learning, (b) self-
awareness of habit bound teaching, (c) dump old devices, (d)
invite cooperative student planning, and (e) enjoy a new
situation.36

Zirbes knew that even though there be excellent cooperation
between faculties and staffs, the bottom line was that teachers
decide what to teach and how. But she realized the benefits
derived when basic policies and many procedures are developed by
the entire staff. Therefore, all should help to plan and to
understand all the grades. She was opposed, for example, to the
sharp break between the elementary, junior high, and high school
levels.37 At The Ohio State University Lab School, the staff was
the policy making group not the administration. The

administration's function was to implement and interpret. The

director was comparable to the chairman of a department and was

 

320

responsible for the general policy concerning the curriculum and
public and professional relations. The coordinator of instruction
had the mechanical run of the school. It was important that
adequate clerical staff was available to free the teachers' time
and give them the status of professionals. There were three
groups of staff members: the grade staff, the area staff, and the
grade counselors. The elementary staff worked together as a total
group. They believed that teachers should work with their
students for two years for similar reasons to Steiner's three-to-
eight years. The teachers and students could become much better
acquainted, accomplish much more, and provide continuity. Also,
as in the Waldorf school, the teachers selected new teachers and
administrators.38

In Spnrs to Crestivs Tesphing, Zirbes wrote that "creative
teaching requires a measure of insight and understanding,
imagination, vision, respect for one's role, confidence in one's
own potential, faith in emergent human values, and creative
endeavor."39 As the four educators in this study before her,
Zirbes was asking a lot of teachers, but never more than she gave.
Finally, she said she would like to see research on creative
teaching by creative teachers. "Creative teaching is the sole
source of operational data which applies to school living and
learning."40

What Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes had in common

regarding the teacher was their respect. Respect that was, of

ram-mun.“

321

course, earned. They did not suffer lazy, planless teachers well.
They demanded as much as they gave. They had all had actual
teaching experience, so they were able to speak from a practical
perspective as well as a theoretical one. They had great respect
for teachers and realized their importance in the structure of the
schools. The main and only reason, however, for the structure at

all was the children.

Students

Parker had determined that the "work of the head and the skill
of the hand be joined in the classroom and workshop into one
comprehensive method of the harmonious development of the powers
of the body, mind, and soul."41 Some of Parker's former students
remembered that harmony. One wrote,

Whenever a topic in school could be
legitimately strengthened by nature study, the
fact was carefully taught and interwoven, never
placed en bloc. In history we remember once
taking a class to the shore at Wallstone. We
walked and played along the beach upon which
merrymakers landed so many years before. A short
field lesson upon those glacier formed fields
discovered to us all one reason that particular
spot was chosen to be the home of that company of
early ”home seekers” unfortunate though the
attempt at settlement was. The interesting fact
here in a simple, unpretending way directly under
the Colonel's direction and inspiration we began
an outdoar laboratory study of geography and
history.

And in an editorial written for the conference commemorating the

100th anniversary of the birth of F. W. Parker, a group of former

students wrote,

 

 

 

322

We pupils become conscious that in a true
democracy, freedom and responsibility were
inexorably linked. For this reason, the
irksomeness of routine, always necessary in a
democracy, was easily faced. Restrictions imposed
by members of the community were welcomed and
judged by motives. We faced our social problems
together. The Colonel and Miss Cooke pointed out
the difference between justice and the uniformity
of penalty. By force of their example, we saw the
actions of our fellows to be judged in terms of
the whole situation, whole self, and the
background of the individual concerned. We sensed
a clear routine and good habits released rather
than inhibited powers within us--a point sometimes
overlooked in other progressive schools. Only
when routine becomes an end in itself does it
become dangerous and constricting. The Colonel
led us to the idea of world citizenship which is
greater than local and is more difficult and takes
more intelligence. World citizenship does not
depend on ideals at home alone.. That realization
is necessary, and we must see beneath the form or
symbol the xgderlying idea--just as the Colonel
used to do.

Dewey saw children growing and developing as members of a
social group. He was, therefore, so interested in the
appreciation of what the fundamental occupations of living--

. cooking, sewing, carpentry, and all
principle of manual training activities may do
when clarified and organized as a means par
excellence, of preserving the investigative
attitude and the creative ability of the growing
child in social directed expression. Day by day
he gains both in his skill to control situations
and to direct his own activity to further and
desired ends. He also gradually becomes conscious
of his gain. This results in an integrated child,
able to work more and more on his own initiative
and under his own guidance--a child who is
maturing, who is both educating and being
educaggd, and whose education continues throughout
life.

323

In the Waldorf Schools, Steiner's "highest endeavor must be to
develop free human beings who are able of themselves to impart
purpose and direction to their lives."45 Further he wrote, "It
simply won't do to educate pupils in such a way that when they
leave school to enter life, they can only criticize the
senselessness of all they find there."46

In the Lincoln school, Mearns said the ”first job of education
is to train students to seek facts intelligently, organize
effectively, and interpret understandingly."47

Finally, Zirbes wrote that creative teaching "expands the
child's experience when initiated by his discriminative and
comparative observation . . . . It cultivates active curiosity,
initiative, open mindedness, resourceful, and originality."48

It would be too simplistic to say that these five educators
wanted to make life better for their pupils and for the pupils of
their pupils. Clearly what they wanted was for all students or at
least as many as possible to develop as only a few had been doing.
They wanted them all to learn to think for themselves, to make

sound decisions, and to become active rather than passive

sojourners.

Barents

Parker had been actively involved in the development of the
parent-teachers association as early as 1877. Parents had

complained that his innovations of manual training were fads and

 

 

324

frills. He and his faculty met frequently to explain to parents
what, why, and how they were educating the whole child: head,
hand, and heart.

Dewey was interested in bringing the school and the home
closer together. He also wanted to put much responsibility on
parents to keep their children in line. He frequently met with
the parents of students in his lab school. He had an enormous
challenge when he was forced to bring together the parents of the
children from the four merged schools. He confronted them with
the importance of education and called it "coeducational--parents/
teachers/pupils by one another rather than with one another."49

In the Waldorf schools, parents are interviewed as well as the
children prior to acceptance in the program. Also parents played
an active role in a variety of extra-curricular activities though
they were not encouraged to simply drop in on classes.

In 1930 Mearns wrote that reform was up to the parents. He
and the Lincoln school staff proceeded to involve parents as much
as possible. They encouraged classroom visits, student
demonstrations, lectures, parent-teacher socials. They offered a
study course for parents to discuss education. Mearns published
guiding principles, discussion questions, and situations to
analyze. They also offered classes in physical education, arts,
and crafts. They left the curriculum open to see what the class

wanted to learn--"let each person begin where he was and follow

with active interest."50

 

325

Also at The Ohio State University Lab School, there was a
strong parent council. It was described as an organization to aid
and cooperate with the school. Parents were included in the
planning, and there was much information that went from the school

to the home and the home to the school.

Con u o s

In 1885 Parker wrote, ". . . the schools of the 20th century
must work out every socialistic problem which the 19th century has
presented."51 Writing in 1959 Zirbes summed up what educators
such as the five under study and others had been attempting to do.
Foster a coordination of values; make sure activities at the
schools give everyone a sense of worth and belonging--Parker and
his pupils repairing their school yard; develop a sense of
continuity between school living and what goes on outside the
school and before--Dewey and the occupations. Good human
relations, group feeling, and personal adjustment must be fostered
in and through significant life-related, shared experiences--
Mearns and his creative writing class. Communication must be a
two-way process. Group experience must be worth talking about and
remembering--the Parker testimonials. Developmental
potentialities of group experience must not be missed. Then use
past experiences as resources that contribute to developing
attitudes, understandings, and aspirations--both Steiner and

Zirbes recommending the teachers remain with their students for at

least two--at the most eight years.

 

326

Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes developed over time
what they believed to be better educational ideas than those they
observed around them. Their goal was to reach the whole--mind,
body, and sou1--of every child. They attempted to develop a
structure to that end. The structure allowed the freedom to
pursue individual and group interests. The development of these
structures spanned 100 years. In 1916 Dewey commented on what, in
a sense, they were all attempting.

Industry ceased to be an empirical, rule of

thumb procedure, handed down by custom. It is now

technologically based on machinery resulting from

discoveries in math, physics, chemistry,

bacteriology, etc. As a consequence industrial

occupations have infinitely greater intellectual

content and infinitely larger cultural

possibilities than they used to possess. The

demand for such education as will acquaint workers

with scientific and social bases and bearings of

their pursuits becomes imperative, since those

without it inevitably sink to the role 3f an

appendage of the machine they operate.
Adams observed it in Quincy in the 18703. Children went through
the schools, but they weren't learning; and according to Parker
they were suffering as well. Dewey and Steiner were attempting to
create a new social order through the schools. To Dewey the
structure of the American public schools, as they were then and
now, does not allow students much opportunity to think. Parker
called it quantity versus quality education.

Again Dewey summarized the basis upon which all five educators

in this study seemed to stand. From Ehilgspphy and Civilization,
published in 1930, he wrote,

327

Associated or conjoint behavior is a universal
characteristic of all existences. Knowledge is in

terms of related objects and . . . relations as
the nerve of science correlates with the
association among all things . . . . The qualities

of things associated are displayed only in

association since in interactions alone are

potentialities released and actualized.
He was describing, as it seems, Parker, Steiner, Mearns, and
Zirbes would, the "whole fabric of civilized knowledge as a
natural emergent, which grew out of a man's special form of
interaction with the physical, organic, and mental phenomena of

the world."53

328

Notes

1Francis W. Parker, "The Schools of the Future," Journal of.

the Proceedings and Addrssses of the National Education
Association (l89l):87.

2Marion Foster Washburne et al., Erancis Wayland Psrker; His
Life snd Educational Reform Worh (New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.,
l900):48.

3F. W. Parker, ”Discussion," ourna he roceed n s and

Addressss of the National Education Associsrion (l88l):50.

“Jack Campbell, The Children's Qrusadsr (New York: Teachers'
College Press, l967):90.

SIbid., 63.

 

6Lelia Patridge (reported), Francis W. Parker, Notss on Tslhs
on Teaching (New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co., 1983; authorized
facsimile by micro-xerography by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
MI, l967):l70.

71bid., 132, 147.
8

Ibid., 163.
9

Lelia Patridge, The Quincy Merhods (New York: E. L. Kellogg
& Co., 1889):4.

10F. W. Parker, "The Report of the Commission of Ten--Its Use
for the Improvement of Teachers Now at Work in the Schools,
Journal 0 he ro eedin s d Add e ses of the National Education
Association (l894):447.

11Campbell, 52.
12
Patridge, Notes on Talks, 23.
13F. W. Parker, ”Application of Child Study in the School,"
Journal the roceed s a d Addresses of the National Education
Asspciatipn (1885):422.
14

Richard Hofstader, t - tel ctua is in Amer ca
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, (l963):375.

15Arthur G. Wirth, Jghn Dewey s3 Educsrpr (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., l966):38.

329

16Chauncey Samuel Boucher, The Chicago Qollege Elan (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1935):268.

17K. C. Mayhew and A. C. Edwards, Ths Dewey School (New York:

Appleton-Century Co., l936):7.

8Seymour Sarason, c 0011 n e ic ° Sc e oat and
Salvation (New York: Macmillan, Inc., l983):50.
191bid., 48.
20

John Dewey, ”Education and Social Direction," The Dial,
64(1918):334.

21Ibid., 334.

22John Dewey, "The Need for Orientation," The Eorum,

93(1935):335.

23Tyler Dennett, ”Education Cannot Lead," e orum,

93(1936):336.

2“Henry C. Fenn, "And What about Visitors?" Erogressive

Education, l4(1937):l79.

25Hughes Mearns, "Educating the Whole Child," The Nprth
American Review, 230(1930):701.

26Hughes Mearns, Cresrive Eower (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Co., Inc., l930):264.

27Ibid., 236.
281bid., 274.
29Fenn, 1979.

3oMearns, Qreative Epwer, 248.

31Hughes Mearns, Qrearivs Ignrh (New York: Doubleday, Doran,
& Co., Inc., l925):35.
321bid., 36.

3Hughes Mearns, "Some Notes on the Individual Contribution,"
Educational Nethods, l7(l938):l67.
34Laura Zirbes, del o eve o nta each n
(Columbus: The Teaching Aids Laboratory, The Ohio State
University, 1959):40.

330

35Herbert L. Coon, A handbook ior University School Parents
(Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University, 1954):28.

36Ibid., 24.
37Ibid., 12.
38

Charles A. Blackman, "The University Staff in Action" (The
Ohio State University Education, 704, 1952):l2.

39Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Creative Teaghing (New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, l959):54.

“01616., 78.

41Patridge, Notes oanalks, 181.

mm-

42Washburne, 51.

43Raymond W. Osbourne, "Where 13 Education Going?" Progressive
Education, l4(1937):634.

44Mayhew, 18.

45Henry Barnes, "An Introduction to Waldorf Education,"

Teachers College Essord (l980):325.

46Rudolf Steiner, A Nodern Art of Education (London: Rudolf

Steiner Press, l972):l33.
47Fenn, 176.
48

Laura Zirbes, ”What Creative Teaching Means," Childhood
Education, 44(1967):213.

agMayhew, 15.

50Elsa Denison Voorhees, "Creative Recreation for Parents,"

Prpgressive Edusation, 6(1929):337.

51Parker, ”Application of Child Study," 422.
SZWirth, 230.
53

John Dewey, Bhilosophy snd Civilization (New York: Minton,
Bolch, & Co., l930):123.

CHAPTER VII

GRADING, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT

The most notable comment to be made regarding the attitudes of
Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes is that compared with
the other topics addressed in their writing, they did their best
to ignore the topics of grading, evaluation, and assessment.
Mearns commented the most of the five, with Zirbes and Parker
vying for second and third. Steiner said what he had to say and
was done with the issue. Dewey, for all intents and purposes,
ignored the subject. In general, their attitude was one of
disdain for the prevailing traditional structured method. In
fact, they deemed it detrimental and backward. Even so, their
writings on this topic seemed more constructive than critical.

Parker and Mearns criticized the presence of fear in the
classroom as a detriment to success. Parker experienced his
greatest fear during the war: "If we should fail." When he
returned to education, he realized that the fear of failure was
most injurious to success, and he became determined to rid his
schools of report cards and the fear of failure.1 Mearns saw the
same problem, and he wrote the "two fears notoriously absent

should be the fear of not saying the right thing and the fear of

331

F“‘““‘""fl

332

not speaking the correct set of words."2 The problem that all
five educators under study recognized was the effect of criticism.
Mearns said, "Teachers' approval to the right sort is like rain on
the ground."3 The problem was not only that criticism existed,
but that it was abused and the abuser did not realize the power of
its effects.

I have divided Chapter VII into two categories: The Problems
with Evaluation and Suggestions for Evaluation. Undoubtedly, the
reasons why the positive, productive suggestions have not been
universally adopted will be apparent. All of these teachers
worked under difficult but far closer to ideal conditions than
most of the teachers they might have encouraged to employ these

evaluative techniques.

mum—1mm!
Parker had been aware of many of the problems he believed
education was facing, and he became both strengthened and vocal

when he returned from Germany and conducted his reformation of the

Quincy schools. Partridge quoted him in Ths Qninsy Nerhods:

Most children are reading in books far above
their range and power of thinking. They are going
through the arithmetic with an insufficient
knowledge of elements. They are learning page
after page of generalizations and facts that mean
little or nothing to them. Such teaching must be
enforced by the hope of rewards or the fear of
punishmgnt and this causes children to hate
school.

He was aware of the problem. If a class of third graders, for

example, was not prepared, the teacher had two choices. She could

 

333

teach them what they should have learned and have them fail the
third grade examination, or she could prepare them for the
examination by having them memorize empty facts. Parker quoted
Spencer for emphasis: "Having by our method induced helplessness,
we straightaway make helplessness the reason for our method."5
Consequently, Parker understood when teachers criticized the new
methods as worthless. They said they couldn't change because of
the exams. Perhaps they couldn't unless the examinations were
changed.

When Charles Adams and the Quincy school board, which was made
up of businessmen, stepped in and asked their own examination
questions, they discovered they were not getting their money's
worth out of the schools. The cost of education had gone up, and
the children didn't know anything beyond the rote answers they had
been prepared to present. They brought Parker in, and he said,
"Examinations should not be made a test of fitness for promotion.
If the teacher is good, she can tell it when the child is ready to
do the next work."6

Some sixty years had passed since Parker had complained that
children were being taught meaningless generalizations by coercion
and hating it, when Mearns wrote ”Adults encourage only a limited
range of traits . . . often considering the seemingly unimportant
gift the most useful."7 Much of Mearns' opinion on evaluation
stemmed from his work with the creative writing of his students
and often the rehabilitation he had to encourage for new students.

Of many of them he wrote, ”They failed but in reality we failed

334

for we did not recognize their creative genius or felt it our duty
to censor it."8 Mearns was particularly interested in encouraging
his student writers to think and write for themselves rather than
what they thought others (the teacher and evaluator) wanted to
hear. He advocated originality and bemoaned mimicry. ”Teachers
of painting have always known the dangers of imitation and

subservience, the two main practices of formal education."9 He

 

criticized adults who judge as "standardized persons" and said,
"We have become expert copyists. "How do you do! We cry out in
unison like a chorus of cuckoos."10 Mearns was critical of the
fact that many adults seem to praise imitation and criticize
originality though he realized that often the critics themselves
do not understand the difference.

Mearns worked to develop a classroom atmosphere that dispelled
fear. He wanted his students at ease in their classroom
conversation, and he was critical of the usual barrage of teacher
directed questioning. "All our questions in the classroom are
impertinent and highly unsportsmanlike quizzes to discover and
punish the guilty ones who have not obeyed. I rarely asked a
child a question unless I did not know the answer and thought he
could tell me."11

Zirbes would have agreed, adding that that kind of quiz-like
questioning could have nothing but a detrimental effect. The
students would not be learning for learning's sake, but learning

answers to respond and to forget. Further she believed total

extrinsic motivation carried with it long range effects. For

335

example, if children obey merely because they are afraid, they may
be expected to disobey when there is no threat or fear of
consequences. And she raised the question, "Who has not known an
adult whose childish dependence on approval and recognition limits
his adaptation to the challenges of maturity?"12 She also
questioned the mental hygiene of teachers who are over anxious
about marks, grades, and promotions. Zirbes suggested such over
emphasis caused both dishonesty and demoralization, and Parker,
Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns would have surely agreed. As a final
criticism, she noted that it takes years to undo the regimentation
and inappropriate expectations to which many students are

subjected.

u estions o va u t 0
Parker mixed no emotions when he said the following.

I believe the greatest obstacle in the way of
real teaching today is the standard of
examinations . . . . What should examinations be?
The test of real teaching. What is teaching?
Teaching is the evolution of thought and thought
is the mind's mode of action. Teaching develops
the mind and leads to acquisition of that
knowledge most useful to the mind and its
development. Pupils must be trained in the
correct modes of expression: talking, writing,
drawing, making, and building. All school work is
comprehended in thought and its expression.
Expression is only necessary when thought is
involved. Train expression at the expense of
thought and we have a body without a living soul
. . . There is no point to learning disconnected
facts. Real teaching leads to systematic,
symmetrical, all-sided upbuilding of a compact
body of knowledge in the mind. Every faculty of
the mind--perception, judgment, classification,
reason, imagination, and memory is brought into
action and foundations are laid broad and deep in

 

 

336

sense-products. Words and all other means of
expression are simply indications of thought-
building and its complicated processes.
Examinations should test the conditions and the
progress of the mind in its development. 1lnstead,
exams usually test the power to memorize.

Parker learned during his command in the Civil War that men
responded best to orders when they understood the reason for them.
So when he took command of the Quincy schools, he requested two
major provisions. The first was freedom for the superintendent
(himself) coupled with the responsibility for results when given
an adequate amount of time to secure them. The second was freedom
for the teacher to "do the right thing in one's own way for the
purpose of securing good results in a reasonable length of
time."14 For the children Parker recommended raising the
attractiveness of the object to be studied, exciting the interests
of the child, and lowering the amounts of rewards and punishments.
Parker's guarantee: "The true economical system of
responsibility: Ascertain whether the superintendent, principal,
or teacher can be trusted, and then trust them."15

Dewey explained his views in his 1935 article entitled "My
Pedagogic Creed." He wrote,

All questions regarding grading and promotion
should be determined by reference to the same
standard. Examinations are of use only so far as
they test the child's fitness for social life and
reveal the place where he can be the most use,
most service, or receive the most help.
It was never in the Dewey scheme to force the child to enter any

particular profession or service or even to receive help for that

matter. Dewey may have been influenced by trips abroad and

F‘E‘qum r11

 

337

studies made of other school systems and his ever-increasing
distance from young students. In his lab school at the University
of Chicago, he preferred the favored method of all five educators
in this study which was individual conferences with students and
their parents.

Though growing up and living in an environment that held
examinations very important, when he developed the Waldorf
schools, Steiner said, "We should never want to hold official
examinations."16 He obtained authorization for the schools to
hold their own leaving exams so that they would be allowed to
"follow the educational principles to their logical
conclusions."17

Waldorf teachers did not give report cards as they were
generally known. Steiner said, "There are no report cards, rather
a mirror picture, a biography of progress."18 During the course
of the year, the teachers held conferences with each student
regarding the work done and progress to be made. At the end of
the year, each teacher wrote an epigram, a short verse, or as
Steiner called it a guiding verse for each child regarding their
year together. This was, of course, designed to go well beyond
the simple grade which represented a term's or a year's work.
Steiner would not tolerate a ”white washing of less positive
aspects of a child's studies."19

These educators wanted to develop the abilities they believed
each child had. Mearns believed that the schools should be a

"self-cultivation in taste, never a slavery to information."20

 

 

338

He said children will do good and bad work and that they must be
allowed to do both so that they can be shown the difference in
taste. For Mearns taste came not only from quality and respect,
but originality. He opposed imitation as possibly and at times
excellent, but never art.

Mearns called imitation a "confession of mediocrity" and cited
examples such as moon in June, showers and flowers, a silver lake,
a robin in the spring, and bare trees in the winter. "One's own
good work," he wrote in Creative Dower, "is never, never, never
like anybody else's good work. Cast out everything you've heard,
doubt the truth, and then begin to think."21 He admonished both
teachers and students to reject imitations. He said the best work
is like nobody else's because it is founded on their
interpretation of the world about and within them. To encourage
this kind of atmosphere, Mearns suggested schools be free of
arrogant authority. He said that the student's personalities
should be watched and noted and that was far more important than
grades.

He explained that what the teachers at the Lincoln school
looked for was "instinctive insight, never imitative, never wholly
from without."22 But he warned that the process was difficult and
time consuming. Teachers had to be prepared for poor work at the
beginning for students have little experience with originality.
Next, they have to learn how to distinguish the good work that is

beginning to develop from the poor work that almost has to come

first. He encouraged teachers to let it grow--"some will be silly

 

 

339

whims and some will not be silly. The point is that one must be
able to distinguish."23 He warned that it may be necessary to get
inferior work out of the way so students may have to have several
drafts of a work to arrive at the one most pleasing. Mearns
explained that for those poor in English, "I don't correct their
papers. That's been done before and it didn't work. I look for
the idea, the thought, the picture, feeling, or argument and try
to admire it. 'Blessed are the poor in English for they shall see
with their own eyes."'24

Finally, for Mearns and his fellow Lincoln school teachers,
evaluations were held four times each year These included
conferences with teacher, student, and parents.

Zirbes, like Mearns, wanted students to be able to discern
their own good work without continual comparison to the work of
others. But the struggle for status in the conventional
evaluative system worked against positive personal values. Zirbes
contended that the system actually pits people who should work
together as rivals. She said we must face that fact that students
have different endowments, drives, interests, maturity levels, and
backgrounds. The grading process that defines poorest and best
must be both discouraging and frustrating to those most in need.
In her 1938 article on "Evaluation," she wrote that educators must

. reject the fact that there can be only
one best paper and instead evaluate in ways that
give everyone a stimulus, even ones who have no
chance of ever being best. We must give
evaluative comments that motivate intrinsically

because extrinsic motivation causes cqpying,
cheating, and short measure response.

 

 

340

And, in full agreement with Mearns, she continued,

Every child needs to learn to evaluate his own
work in terms of purpose, goals, and standards
which he understands and accepts so that he can
develop as a creative person, one who can find
satisfaction in experience and realize that values
depend 98 individual and group effort rather than
S tatus .

The faculty of the Lab School believed, as did Parker, that
numerical or letter grades place the primary emphasis on
memorization. Yet facts and dates are less important than how a
student locates, organizes, and uses facts. They believed that
children naturally work hard on things that are interesting and
important to them without needing the extrinsic motivations of
grading, ranking, and competition. Also, as Parker realized
during his military career, the university staff realized that
children will work hard at jobs that make sense to them. For
example, success in reading at the university school was related
to the fact that students read for purposes they understood.

Evaluations were done in terms of the potential capacity of
the individual and his aspirations. Social adjustment, physical
and emotional maturity, and native intelligence were considered in
the evaluation for promotion, acceleration, or retention. Most
children were promoted regularly with their group. A two-to-three
page typed evaluation letter described the progress of each
student's work. There was also one parent conference a year. The

final report called the senior statement was given to each

graduate at commencement.

 

 

 

 

341

EOSCSCE Lat

If it had been possible, I suspect Parker, Dewey, Mearns, and
Zirbes would simply have eliminated grading or formal evaluations.
Parker, with his confidence in and respect for good teachers,
would have left judgment on progress readiness to them. Since
they also realized some kind of assessment was eventually
necessary, they seemed, all five, to have settled on the oral
conference and the written report.

They agreed upon the negative aspects of the competitive,
extrinsically motivated, traditional grading system. It was based
on short term memorization and promoted cheating and dependence.
They realized, too, that it was most difficult for those students
who were most in need.

They also would have agreed that the best test of student
learning should not be how much could be memorized. It should be
on how a student thinks, if he can perceive a problem, determine
possible and practical solutions, and know how to locate necessary
information. If any assessment should be done, Parker, Dewey,
Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes, who demanded so much from their
teachers, would have assessed what they taught rather than what
supposedly the students were to have learned. The test would have

been theirs to take.

 

 

342

 

tes

1Jack Campbell, The Children's Crusader (New York: Teachers'
College Press, 1967):28.

2Hughes Mearns, Creative Youth (New York: Doubleday, Doran, &
Co., 1925):61.

3Hughes Mearns, Creative Eower (New York: Doubleday, Doran, &
Co., l930):160.

4Lelia Patridge (reported), Francis W. Parker, Notes of Talks
on Teaching (New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co., 1883; authorized
facsimile by micro-xerography by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
MI, l967):l6l.

51616., 153.

.F-‘F'W‘IL

61bid., 152.

7Hughes Mearns, "Every Child Has a Gift," The Eeader's Digest
(l952):22.

8Mearns, Crestive Power, 164.

9Ibid., 166.

10Hughes Mearns, "Promoting Self-Expression," World's Work,
58(1929):63.

11Mearns, Creative Eower, 158.

12Laura Zirbes, "The Emotional Climate of Schools,"

Educational Nethods, 14(1935):l72.

13Patridge, 151.

14Marion Foster Washburne, et al., rancis Wa an er°

His Life and Edusaripnal Eeform Wgrk (New York: E. L. Kellogg &
Co., l900):46.

15Patridge, 154.

16Rudolf Steiner, Sonl Esongmy and Walgorf Education (London:

Rudolf Steiner Press, 1986):133.

17George and Peter Schneider, lntsgrating Vpsationsl snd

Ge e u ' o ner 0 (Educational
document):2l.

 

343

18Steiner, Soul Economy, 135.

191bid., 138.

20Mearns, Qreative Dswer, 261.

21Ibid., 131, 146-150.

22Mearns, Qreative Touth, 26.

3Mearns, Crestiys.Powsr, 56.
241bid., 237.

25Laura Zirbes, "Evaluation," Childhood Education,
24(1948):251.

26Ibid., 252.

27Laura Zirbes, Spurs to Creative Teaching (New York:
Putnam's Sons, l960):42.

G.

P.

 

’?

CHAPTER VIII

ESTOPPEL

One of the profound mysteries in the world is
the marvelous psychological change that comes over
respectable, intelligent, and otherwise laymen
when elected to serve on school committees.
Persons who would never dream of superintending an
electric plant, managing a railroad, building a
bridge, leading an army, or commanding a ship
enter upon the duties of a school committee with
astonishing presumption. They can with safety
minister directly to the welfare of children, mold
society into right living and shape the destinies
of the nation by means of common education. They
can make courses of study, select teachers,
examine pupils, and manage internal and
pedagogical affairs of the school system. It
would e ridiculous were it not so solemn. It is
the culmination of bad politics and the very worst
by-product of democratic evolution. I have
sometimes thought that theology had the deepest
and strongest hold upon the human mind, especially
in New England, but that is not true. Educational
ideas are the slowest to change. Noah Webster was
mightier than Jonathan Edwards; technical grammar
mightier than predestination. Human progress is
measured by the time it takes to get good ideas
into life. . . . You may argue that Webster, Clay,
Sumner, all our greatest were educated in the old
way so why change? My dear sirs, you can count
the successes but is your power of calculation
great enough to count the failures? I have no
doubt that many of the frauds and defalcations so
common at present in this country may be traced
directly back to well-meant, but dishonest,
training in the school room. The learning of
words and pages of a textbook, without the
privilege of verifying the facts and

344

 

 

345

generalizations there given, weakens the reasoning

power that should be developed for the purpose of

controlling the will. The long perspective of our

life is truth and not a show; and I hold that sort

of teaching in the highest degree immoral which

crams the heads of our children with the unusable

pages of textbooks and then leads them to suppose

that they are gaining real knowledge. By making

quantity our ideal, we develop and foster conceit,

and conceit is one of the most formidable barriers

to true knowledge.
Parker delivered that address on April 20, 1900, in the Old Stole
Temple, Quincy, Massachusetts. "The long perspective of our life
is truth and not a show." Though these words were spoken before
the other educators in this study--Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and
Zirbes--even began their major educational emphases, they could
easily stand for their educational and life-long foci. These
educators were above all for truth in every permeable facet of
every child's existence. They decried educational dishonesty and
false methodology. And they devoted their lives to the goal of a
true education for all children.

Parker spoke against the influence of outsiders upon
education. Though each of the educators in this study had devoted
followers, they also had many battles in which they encountered
opponents of what they were trying to do in the classroom and for
the children. Those opponents ranged from school boards to
politicians to government officials, newspaper editors, school and
university officials, to individuals who visited their classrooms
and complained about students talking to each other. In varying

ways and degrees, all of society made demands upon the schools.

Each of the educators in this study developed a vision and a sense

 

 

346

of what they believed would be best for the children and
ultimately best for society. The purpose of this study was to
learn what five educators--certainly well known and influential in
their respective eras--thought and did. In that I was successful.
I've learned what they thought, perhaps why they thought it, what
they did, how they succeeded, and how they failed. The most
solemn failure to me was that their successes have had to be
re-invented. The unaccountable successes must have been the good
they did for children and the effect that had on society.

Good and Teller in A History oi Anerica Education wrote in
1956 that perhaps Parker had underestimated the economic and
political forces of the day and underestimated the power of the
school.2 Perhaps that was a partial explanation, at least, of the
ultimate problems each of these educators had in the promotion,
acceptance, continuity, and continuation of their pedagogical
processes. Parker's battles drained his life from him; Dewey
lived to see his vision incorrectly and in some cases
incompetently practiced; Steiner, who might have been the "herald
of a new epoch," had his spirit broken by arsonists and hate;
Mearns sat upon the podium of the annual MEA convention one year
beyond the appropriate time. His vision of creativity had been
displaced and the members were there, eager to hear from someone
else. Zirbes continued to speak out and publish literally until
the day she died, continuing to fight a battle she must have felt

she had not quite won.

'2'!

 

 

347

It seems to me that though the times have certainly changed,
the problems have not. The schools continue to be influenced,
pressured, and requested by politicians, the governments,
newspaper editors, school boards, committees, and the general
voting public. Too many children do not score well on assessment
tests, too many children cannot read, write, or cipher. Too many
children are not in school while there are too many children in
most classrooms. Too many children do not know how to learn
independently. Too many children do not know how to think. Dewey
warned that we would lose the democracy if the people could not
analyze, evaluate, and understand propaganda. And in June 1989
Gephardt, the new majority leader of the U. S. Senate, warned that
these are tough times because problems are difficult to see.

This study is divided into six categories: Biographies, The
Child, Language/Literacy, Academic and School Discipline, School
Structure, and Evaluation/Assessment. The research was both
interesting and extensive. I believe I was able to read much that
has been published by and about Parker, Mearns, and Zirbes. The
same held true for Steiner with the condition of being written in
English and published in America. So many have tackled Dewey that
I was forced to evaluate and exclude works both by and about him.
Of all the people I have contacted, librarians and archivists were
best acquainted with the existence and availability of material,
but they did not, of course, know the person. I have spoken to
two people who knew Laura Zirbes. They were former students. I

contacted all of the schools, but the people there now do not know

 

 

348

much about the people whose vision created them. A teacher at the
Francis W. Parker School in Chicago was kind in her offer to help,
but she wrote, "You can visit if you'd like and I know there are a
few old books around here but they are dusty and musty and
probably of little use." These five-~Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
Mearns, and Zirbes-~have seemed larger than life to me, yet as I
sat digging through microfiche of old newspapers and reading their
obituaries despite all they seemed to have done or tried to do, I
remembered hardly anyone, even at their own schools, remembered
them.

Parker grew up a poor boy in New Hampshire. He was
apprenticed at the age of seven. He had to defy his guardian in
order to attend school. Following a relatively successful career
in the Civil War and despite other offers, Parker returned to
teaching. This surprised and disappointed many members of his
family and friends as education was not considered a very worthy
profession, especially for a man. He devoted his life to
education and became the "children's crusader." He wanted schools
to become a place where "all good things come together." Each new
position he took was made with the intention of reaching more
people and helping more children. Both Parker and Steiner died
young--in their sixties-~and I wondered if the bitter battles they
encountered had not influenced those early deaths.

Dewey had an easier childhood than both Parker or Steiner. He
complained about his early education, but that was because he

could not get enough of what he wanted. He certainly had access

349

to all that was available. Dewey taught briefly in the schools
but was much more at home teaching philosophy at the University of
Michigan while he certainly wrote prolifically and influenced
many, Dewey-~to me--seemed more interested in education from a
more universal perspective despite his intensive work at the
University of Chicago Laboratory School.

Steiner did not actually teach until the early 19003 when he
taught an adult education class. He received his experience and
developed many of his ideas through his extensive tutoring. Yet
of the five, Steiner's Waldorf Schools are the most developed and
prolific. Mearns did not want to devote his life to education,
yet he did, and certainly not unhappily from what I have learned.
Zirbes received her teacher education at a normal school and after
her first year of teaching was told by her principal that she
should consider transferring to a private school where her unique
methods might be more acceptable.

What Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes wanted for
children was the development of respect and appreciation for the
acquisition of knowledge as life-long learners. What they fought
against was the rigidity, the strictness, the formality, the
dullness, the lack of integration, and the lack of respect for the
individual. They described childhood as a unique, developmental,
imitative, imaginative, energetic, and enthusiastic period of
human development. A consensus seemed to appear that the best
treatment which allowed the highest capabilities and offered the

most substantial learning was an in-depth knowledge of the

350

individual child followed by suitable arrangements and
adjustments.

For these five educators, the teaching of language was of
paramount importance. They were especially troubled by what they
considered to be incorrect methodology. For Parker and Steiner,
language had to be whole. It should permeate every lesson, every
aspect of the school day, every aspect of the lives of the
students. For Dewey language was a social instrument, a device
for communication, a tool used by one person in order to share his
feelings and thought with others. For Mearns language spoke
through the heart. He made language beautiful and intelligible.
For Zirbes language was purposeful. Children should have rich and
varied experiences through their reading. They should develop
strong motives toward permanent interests in reading.

All five educators in this study based their reading
instruction on the experiences of children. The knowledge base
should be built upon and developed from what children already
knew. Their goal was not only a literate society, but one
obtained in a less painful manner.

To Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes, academic and
school discipline were how, why, and what to teach. They
discussed what education was about, what human beings were capable
of learning and doing, and how to advance the furthest with each
individual and how everything fits together. They favored

discipline that led to self-discipline, self-direction, and

351

self-mastery, and that, therefore, academic and school discipline
were automatically integrative.

The structure of schools should, according to Parker, Dewey,
steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes, be directed toward the child, the
ways in which he learned, and the on-going processes of his
education. The curriculum was integrative and developmental and
organized in such a way as to reach the whole child: body, mind,
and soul. It must promote freedom, individuality, independence,
and responsibility. Students and their teachers were the most
important people in these schools.

The structure was to be one in which students and teachers
could work together in as painless a manner as possible.
Therefore, Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes worked to
eliminate the pain inflicted through fear of failure and
punishment. They attempted to do this through intrinsic
motivation and developmental, integrative, and holistic
evaluations. This was accomplished not on the basis of a test,
but on the collaboration of the teacher and student over time.

The predominant motif which joined the work of Parker, Dewey,
Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes was a concern for the development of
the whole child. Though their backgrounds were different and
their basic interests varied--Parker's study of geography, Dewey's
society, Steiner's science, Mearns' writing, and Zirbes' reading--
they worked conscientiously for the development of a better, more
substantial, more humane, and more successful way to teach
children. Whatever their successes and failures no one can argue

their intentions nor their determination.

 

 

352

NOCBS

1"Address of Colonel Francis W. Parker" (Quincy, MA: Old
Stole Temple, April 20, 1900).

2Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A history of American
Education (New York: Macmillan Company, 1956, 1973).

REFLECTIONS

America was the great experiment in democracy, and people
fighting for the democratic right of the future demanded
democratic, egalitarian, common public schools. DeTocqueville
wrote in a communique to Europe on this new American experiment
that Americans are interested in equality to the ultimate
detriment of the majority. Perhaps that is one explanation for
the supposed failure of the American public school system. It
would seem, however, difficult to fail at something that no one
has ever done before and that, therefore, at which no one has ever
been successful.

Parker and Dewey proclaimed that without free and common
schools, democracy would not survive. The question in these
concluding statements rests mainly in a critical analysis of the
connections between the past and the present. Certainly, the
argument has been offered in defense of historical study prior to
proposed change. I shall restrict my arguments to the educational
domain in general and the progressive alternatives offered in
response to the supposed failure of traditional education.

I begin with a reminder that in some sense, all things, all

ideas, all peoples are ultimately linked together. This is not a

353

354

phenomenon peculiar to education, though many in the field
proclaim it so. Democracy begot public, common schools. We were
the first country to attempt or even want to educate every youth
in our land. We clearly have not succeeded; however, we may argue
we have not only improved from the idea conception but also have
reaped much knowledge base due to the ”grand experiment."

As an example, I have compiled a Zirbesque list of 16
connections among the five educators in this study. These
connections are by no means judgmental or indicative of success or
failure in educational or social matters.

1. Mearns dedicated his book Creative Power
(1929) to John Dewey.

2. Both Parker and Dewey began their
teaching careers in country schools.
Parker's experience was good; Dewey's was
not good--both may have directed them
toward their future emphasis.

3. Parker, Dewey, and Steiner ultimately
became devotees of non-sectarian
religions. Mearns and Zirbes were not
included only because information is not
available.

4. War influenced Parker, Dewey, Steiner,
and Mearns--and probably Zirbes, but
information is not available. Parker
learned about the importance of
communication during his tenure as a
colonel in the Civil War. Dewey learned
the importance of family support when
during the Civil War his mother moved her
family to the south to be near her
fighting husband. Steiner's schools came
about because of the need for social
stability as a result of World War I and
were closed during World War II. Mearns
served in World War I.

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

355

Both Parker and Zirbes taught in Ohio--a
progressive state at one time in the
formation of the nation.

Both Parker and Steiner literally
rejected tests and grades. Though all of
the educators in this study rejected
strict, objective, destructive
evaluations figuratively.

Again both Parker and Steiner stand out
as forcefully and vocally insisting that
teachers be masters of their content.

Zirbes was both influenced and recognized
the influence of Dewey as she developed
her laboratory school.

Parker, Dewey, and Steiner were
vehemently opposed by many.

Parker, Dewey, and Steiner grew up in
small, rural villages.

Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns were bored
with their schooling. Parker criticized
certain of his teachers to their faces.

All five--Parker, Dewey, Steiner, Mearns,
and Zirbes-- published the lectures that
they gave.

Parker, Steiner, and Dewey were very poor
in their youth and had to work for their
schooling.

Dewey and Steiner were involved in many
areas outside of education. For Parker
and Zirbes, education was their whole
life.

Parker, Dewey, and Steiner were married
twice.

Dewey, Steiner, and Mearns hated their
early schooling.

Some of these connections caused their interest in making

education a focus of their professional careers, and some were

356

effects of their educational involvement and commitment. All of
them were very dedicated foremost to children followed by concern
for the educational structure at large. There was a suggestion
that perhaps Parker underestimated the economic and political
forces of the day and overestimated the power of the schools. I
suggest the same questionable state of consciousness may exist
among those who attempt and advocate reform today. It seems that
an essential yet too frequently ignored element of educational
reforms is a study of past attempts and the problems and barriers
to success. As I have reported throughout this study, Parker,
Dewey, Steiner, Mearns, and Zirbes had many educational beliefs
and suggestions in common. I see many in the reforms of the 19803
and 19903. My question is, are we not only re-inventing the
wheel, but are we attempting the task in a similar context and are
we not, therefore, doomed to repeat the failures?

Another question comes to mind: of the five, is Parker, in a
sense, the only one without some degree of responsibility for
sharing the blame I place on many reformers even today. That is
because he took as his primary theoretical and behavioral models
the influential Germans of the time. He appreciated much of what
the Germans were doing in their schools, but he realized that what
they had was not what he, as an American educator, had or wanted.
At that time the Germans fostered a restrictive, segregated school
system while Parker promoted a common, egalitarian one.

Thus, Parker had no one person or experiment to model or to

explore. He had no one's success or failure to study. My

 

rumJ-Jflrt'-

357

question is have the reformers since taken advantage of the
reforms and experiments that have preceded them? Dewey has
suggested that there are two doctrines of education: that of the
mental disciplinists (the university and school administrators and
subject matter specialists) and the revolutionists who protest the
status quo and preach growth, activity, and initiative. He
commented that everyone who devotes time to thinking about
education from 1890 on has "consciously or naively lined up with
one or the other." Dewey questioned why when these two should
actually reinforce one another. The requirements of civilization
should not be at war with the conditions of individual
development.

Yet they are, and the conflicts continue to attempt reforms
of content but within the same context. Talk of structural change
remains talk. "Good as our schools are, mighty as their progress
and magnificent the result, they are not, by any means, equal to
the tremendous social problems that face us in the coming 20th
century." Parker wrote that in 1885. One hundred years have

passed, and a similar claim can be made today.

APPENDIX

INVENTORY OF READING ACTIVITIES OF A
PROGRESSIVE PROGRAM COMPILED FROM
RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE

PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP

Enlist—612$

Activities Based on Content Units More than One Paragraph
in Length

Putting cut up stories together (reading puzzles)

Dramatizing rhymes

Composing story for others to read

Using Mother Goose books

Giving the name of a rhyme recited by another

Drawing pictures to illustrate an experience

Listening to others read

Reading meaning from pictures

Illustrating silent reading material

Reading to carry out directions

Answering silent reading questions on the board after a
class trip

Reproducing story read silently

Selecting material to read in class

Reading silently for interesting information

Dramatizing stories

Answering thought questions on a selection

Answering questions orally or in writing

Reading interesting parts of a library book to the class

Listening to a story or poem read by the teacher

Conversing about various points brought out in the story

Reproducing stories orally--after silent study

Proposing simple problems for solution through reading

Reading cumulative stories

Rereading interesting stories

Reading for oral reproduction

Silent reading, all the class using same material

Silent reading, all using different material

Silent reading, each of two or more groups using different

material

Illustrating a story read previously

Dramatizing a story read previously

Choosing and using different material to illustrate
readings

358

 

.4

II.

III.

IV.

359

Answering thought questions orally

Making individual booklets

Matching Mother Goose rhymes with illustration
Rearranging stories and rhymes

Answering silent reading questions about reading selections

Activities Based on Unrelated Paragraphs or Sentences

Using paragraph cards with specific questions on the
back of cards

Following directions written on blackboard

Pantomiming sentences read silently

Answering questions

Rearranging lines of a rhyme

Activities Based Chiefly on Phrases, Words, or Phonic
Elements

Finding how many times a given phrase was used in a
cumulative story

Reading children's names in print on cards, backs of
chairs, and lockers

Reading names of colors on crayola boxes

Matching pictures with phrases

Reading underlined words and phrases

Recognizing words and phrases written independently

Finding in books words or phrases written on blackboard

Making and using signs in correlation with building
projects

Reading signs and notices

Printing signs with price and sign markers

Pointing to words on chart as teacher retells story

Matching names and colors

Noting similarities and differences in words

Analyzing words into sound elements

Activities Involving the Use of the Table of Contents,
Index, etc.

Using table of contents to find reading matter in book

Second and Thirg Grsdes

Activities Based on Content Units More Than One Paragraph
in Length

Taking tests in silent reading
Summing up paragraphs by finding topics for each paragraph

.173“ F1
.I-I

hi

 

 

360

Illustrating silent reading material

Reading to carry out directions

Reproducing story read silently

Reading silently under a time pressure

Answering factual questions based upon reading story

Selecting material to read to class

Choosing best-liked selections and giving reasons for
choice

Listening to a reader with a problem in mind

Putting cut-up stories together (reading puzzles)

 

Reading silently for interesting information re
Dramatizing stories

Answering thought questions on a selection 6
Comparing one reading selection with others

Answering questions orally or in writing 1]

Solving problems through reading

Reading to get material for projects

Answering judgment questions

Suggesting headings for paragraphs

Suggesting original titles

Reading interesting parts of a library book to the class

Conversing about various points brought out in the story

Reproducing stories orally--after silent reading

Proposing simple problems for solution through reading

Reading cumulative stories

Rereading interesting stories

Studying selection to be used in class

Reading for oral reproduction

Silent Reading, all the class using same material

Silent reading, all using different material

Silent reading, each of two or more groups using
different material

Silent reading without preliminary preparation

Silent reading with preliminary preparation

Illustrating a story read previously

Dramatizing a story read previously

Choosing and using different material to illustrate
readings

Reading to answer questions on current events

Studying independently to solve problem difficulties

Answering thought questions orally

Finding a quotation in a book or selection

Using Mother Goose books

Keeping own record of speed tests

Giving setting of story in few words

Paraphrasing stories and rhymes

Drawing pictures to illustrate an experience

Answering silent reading questions about reading selections

Listening to others read

Reading meaning from pictures

 

 

II.

III.

IV.

361

Activities Based on Unrelated Paragraphs or Sentences

Following directions written on blackboard
Pantomiming sentences read silently
Asking questions of group

Answering questions

Rearranging lines of a rhyme

Activities Based Chiefly on Phrases, Words, or Phonetic
Elements

Reading underlined words and phrases

Recognizing words and phrases written independently
Analyzing words into sound elements

Analyzing long words into syllable elements
Recombining sound elements into original wholes
Recombining sound elements into different wholes
Listing words according to phonetic rules or groups

Activities Involving the Use of the Table of Contents,
Index, etc.

Using table of contents to find reading matter in book

ou f nd xth G es

Activities Based on Content Units More Than One Paragraph
in Length

Reproducing parts of text orally

Reading for pleasure and appreciation

Memorizing favorite selections or parts

Finding and preparing material for bulletin board
Listening to good oral reading

Studying pictures in connection with stories
Discussing to arouse interest

Voluntary home reading

Composing original stories for others to read
Solving riddles

Inventing titles

Connecting illustrative material with appropriate reading
Drawing or illustrating selections read

Giving directions

Making tests

Finding sentences that answer specific questions
Stating conclusions

Evaluating materials of reading

Finding the main topics in factual material

 

_ h

F§W-‘ I- ‘

 

362

Writing committee reports based on readings for projects

Making a bibliography of reading on a subject

Giving book reviews

Retelling famous stories

Selecting books

Reading to check answers

Selecting significant paragraphs or chapters

Selecting key sentences

Selecting appropriate topical headings for paragraphs

Making summary of paragraphs by having topic for each
paragraph

Making topical outlines

Making running notes while reading

Making and matching paragraph headings

Studying organization of headings in texts and newspapers

Analyzing short and long narrative units

Finding central thought or essential idea in limited time

Answering questions on books red

Keeping time limits on material read outside of recitations

Reading to compare two versions of a story

Using room library

Selecting material to read to class

Reading aloud to appreciate rhyme and rhythm

Discussing the appropriateness of headings

Reporting out of class reading

Writing questions to stress essential facts

Writing a synopsis of a story

Discussing current events and using clippings to prove
points

Reading the most interesting part of a book to others

Reading to solve problems

Reading to satisfy curiosity

Verifying facts and opinions

Reading to find new problems

Taking notes on an oral class report

Reading for information

Library reading of books and magazines

Locating data

Evaluating and selecting data

Organizing ideas

Memorizing material read

Making outlines

Giving information about outside reading, pertinent to
topics

Reporting to class on topical reading

Reading aloud for group enjoyment

Skimming for particular items

Reading aloud to prove a point

Reading independently books relating to content subjects

Studying selections to choose one to read aloud

Reading aloud for personal enjoyment

363

Reading to inform others

Reproducing the main thought

Reading to reproduce the most important facts

Writing summaries

Retelling parts of stories

Using paragraph headings

Interpreting maps, figures, diagrams, charts, and
illustrations

Interpreting tables, graphs, and other statistical
material

Making figures, diagrams, and simple graphs to interpret
reading matter

Selecting materials to fill out a topical outline or to
answer a question

Selecting the aim or purpose of a selection

Reading to find specific items

Finding topic or title for paragraph

Answering questions which require a summary

Solving science problems through reading

Reading weather maps

Writing class books for class library

Reading club organization

Discussing and enjoying stories

Reading aloud to prepare for dramatization

Practicing parts for a dramatization

Practicing breathing properly while reading orally

Finding and using materials in geography, history, etc.

Taking standard oral reading tests

Reading by groups

Reading minutes and announcements

Solving a problem of language

Checking and correcting own work

Comparing maps, charts, graphs, and statistical tables

Reading railroad folders, etc.

Picking out central thought or most important idea

Picking out pints which support author's point of view

Reading from films or slides

Finding specific words, phrases, and ideas

Finding relationships or contrasts between facts and ideas

Describing conditions described in selections

Reading between lines and interpreting in terms of past
experiences

Selecting important ideas or main points

Answering questions on reading

Dramatizing for grade assembly

Acting moving picture shows

Reading stories outside class to tell at class period

Diagnosing own weakness

Making a list of questions on reading matter

Reading to check accuracy of reports on books

Selecting key word to use in notes

II.

364

Using questions formulated in advance to guide readings

Reading references for a topic or question

Keeping record of library books used

Reading to prepare material for assembly program

Reporting by groups, covering special topics

Comparing dates of publication and reliability of
statements

Reading to settle questions of disagreement

Answering specific questions in connection with reading

Recording specific things on outline map according to
directions

Rereading for something overlooked

Reading for fun

Dramatic reading by groups

Discussing problems involving humorous parts of selections

Dramatizing a poem

Summarizing essential values of a story

Giving the most interesting point in a story

Naming characters, chief character, and highest point of
interest in a story

Guessing what may happen next in a story

Listening while another group reads

Putting together a cut up story

Illustrating stories

Solving situations through reading

Answering a question for each paragraph of factual
material

Listing the facts in a selection

Reading particularly interesting paragraphs aloud

Varying answers by careful reading

Analyzing short literary selections on some topic or
by some author

Rapid reference reading

Writing book reports

Finding materials for projects

 

 

Activities Based on Unrelated Paragraphs or Sentences

Judging correctness of answers or processes in arithmetic

Completing sentences on an informal test

Visualizing situations in arithmetic problems

Reading to be able to direct games

Paraphrasing

Pantomiming sentences and directions read silently

Analyzing arithmetic problems to state facts given

Analyzing arithmetic problems to find process necessary
to a solution

Selecting arithmetic problems requiring same process

III.

IV.

365

Activities Based Chiefly on Phrases, Words, or Phonic
Elements

Studying difficult and unusual wording

Talking about words occurring in geography content

Listing words according to phonetic rules

Interpreting the pronunciation of words through the use
of diacritical marks

Pronouncing words to get clear enunciation

Analyzing words phonetically

Studying prefixes, suffixes, root words, synonyms, and
antonyms

Activities Involving the Use of the Table of Contents,
Index, etc.

Using texts and reference books to find a definite topic

Using marginal headings to locate facts

Using local libraries to find material

Using encyclopedias to find information on a definite
topic

Using card catalogue to locate information

Using reader's guide to locate articles on specific topics

Using word list to pronounce difficult words

Using table of contents

Using index

Consulting dictionary

Finding materials

Using appendix

Using glossary

Using chapter headings

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Works Cited

FRANCIS PARKER

Books by Parker

 

Parker, Francis W. How so Stugy. New York: 1894.

Talks on Pedsgpgics. New York: 1894.

Talks on Teaching. New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.,
1883. (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1967).

Articles by Parker

Parker, Francis W. "Application of Child Study in the School."

The Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the National
Educational Assocaiton (1885):418-429.

"Art in Everything." The Journal pi the Proceedings

and Addresses of the National Educational Association (1900):
509-514.

 

. "The Child." e our al of the P oceedin s and
Addresses of the Nstional Educational Association (1889):

 

479-82.
"Discussion." The Journal of the Proceedings and
ddre se the at o du at onal Asso iation (1880):
49-50.

. "Discussion of James L. Hughes' 'Comparison of the
Educational Theories of Froebel and Herbart.'" The Journal

of the Eroceedings and Addresses of the National Educstionsl
Associatign (1895):344.

"Discussion of John S. Clark's 'The Place of Art in

General Education." The Journal of the Proceedings and

Addresses hi the Nsrionsl Educational Association (1895):
846-851.

 

366

367

"Discussion of Nathan C. Schaeffer's 'The Meaning and
Limitations of the Maxim We Learn to Do by Doing." The
Journal f e Pr eedin s and ddresses of the National

Educational Associarion (1887):381-382.

. "Discussion after Professor Richard Jones' 'German
Methods of Using the Mother Tongue.'" The Journal of the

Eroceedings and Addresses pf the National Educational
Association (1887):493-494.

”Discussion of the Report of the Sub-committee on the
Correlation of Studies in Elementary Education." The

Journal 9f the Proceedings and Addresses pi the National
Educational Association (1895):344.

"Discussion on the South and Its Problems." The

Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the National
Educational Association (1894):586-590.

"Discussion of W. P. Search's 'Individualism in Mass
Education.'" The Jou a o the oc in 3 nd dd esses of
the National Educational Association (1895):408.

"The Farm as the Center of Interest." The Journsl of

the Proceedings and Addresses oi the National Educational
Association (1897):527-536.

"The New Department." The Journal of the Proceedings

and Addresses of the Nationsl Educatipnal Assosiation (1895):
949.

"The Report of the Committee of Ten--Its Use for the
Improvement of Teachers Now at Work in the Schools." Ths
Journa o the oceed n s an dd esses of the National
Educational Association (l894):442-461

. "Responses.” e Journal of the oceedin d
Addresses of she Nsrignsl Educsrional Associarion (1895):

61-62.

. "Syllabus of the Philosophy of Education in the Course
of Study." Elenentary Sshogl Tescher (l900):27.

"The School of the Future." Ths Journal of rhe
s an es N t o ucational

Assosiatipn (l89l):82-102.
"Simplified Spelling." The Journal of the Proceedings

and ddresse of the a on ucati a Associat on
(1901):216.

 

4".

PA" '

 

368

”The Training of Teachers." The Journsl of the
roceedi 3 nd ddresses o the Nati nal ducational

Association (l895):969-972.

”Work of the Illinois Society for Child Study. The

Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the National
Educatignal Associarion (1896): 844- 846.

 

 

Booksrsbout Parker

Cambell, Jack. The Children's Crnsader. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1967.

Curti, Merle. The Social ideas of American Educators. New
Jersey: Pageant Books, 1959.

Francis Wa land Parke c a books nd isce aneous Pa ers.
University of Chicago Library, 1880-1901.

Good, Harry G. and James D. Teller. A History of American
Education. New York: Macmillan, 1956, 1973.

MacConnell, Charles M. New Schools for s New Culture. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1943.

Ohles, J. F. Ed. 0 ra hic 1 ictionar o erica ducators.
London: Greenwood Press, 1978.

Patridge, Lelia. The Quincy Nerhods. N.Y.: E.L. Kellogg & Co.,
1989.

Rugg, Harold & Ann Shumaker. The Child Centered School. Yonkers:
World Book, 1928.

Washburne, Marion Foster. 0 e a s W a ker° The Man and
Educarional Esfgrnsr. N.Y.: E.L. Kellogg & Co., 1990.
Articles bout e

Adams, Charles F., Jr. ”The New Departure in the Common Schools
of Quincy and Other Papers on Educational Topics." The

Elementary Sshool Spurnal (l935):495-504.

"Address of Colonel Francis W. Parker" Old Stole Temple, Quincy,
Mass. April 20, 1900.

"An American Educator." Ths_Qnrlpph (l902):754-755.

369

Bogan, W. J. “Progressive Education in Chicago." Progressive
Egnpnripn (l93l):40l-402.

Cook, John W. "Remarks" e Jou al of e ceedin s and
ddre e e io ducationa o atio
(l902):407-408.

Cooke, Flora J. "Colonel Francis W. Parker and His Influence on
Education." 0 r ve u ti (l937):583-588.

"The Social Philosophy of Francis W. Parker: Its

Implications for Today and Tomorrow." Drggressive Education
(l937):629-631.

Fox, Florence. "A Personal Glimpse of Colonel Parker."

Progressive Educstion (l932):59-61.

Hefferan, Helen M. "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker." Chicago
Schools Journal (1936):4-8.

. ”The Social Philosophy of Colonel Francis W. Parker."
Erogressive Education (l937):621-622.

Jackman, Wilbur S. "Colonel Francis Wayland Parker." qurnal of

the Eroceedings and Agdresses oi the National Educational
Associaripn (1902):399-405.

Judd, Charles H. "Francis Wayland Parker." Dictionary pf
Amerissn Bipgraphy, N.Y.: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934.

Kline, Elinor; David W. Moore; and Sharon Arthur Moore. "Colonel
Francis Parker and Beginning Reading Instruction." Esading

Research and lnstrnction (1987):14l-150.

Lang, Ossian H. "Francis Wayland Parker." The Forum
(l902):1l4-1l6.

Newlon, Jesse H. "Education and Social Problems: Democracy and

Education in Our Time." Erpgressive Education
(l937):589-594.

Osborne, Raymond W. "Where is Education Going?" Erpgressive
Education (l937):632-634.

Parker, Franklin. "Francis W. Parker & Public Education in
Chicago: The Stormy Career of a Great Educational Reformer."

Chicago Schools Journsl (l96l):305-312.

"The Silver Anniversary of the Quincy Movement." The School
Lemma]. (1900).

.".T

 

 

370

Tostberg, Robert E. "Colonel Parker's Quest for 'A School in
Which All Good Things Come Together.'" History of Education

Quarterly (1986):22-42.

Washburne, Marion Foster. "The Educational Crisis in Chicago."
The Arena (1896):611-618.

White, E. E. ”Remarks." Journa the oceed n s and
Addresses o the Nat o a ducat na ssociation
(l902):405-406.

Winship, A. E. ”Mrs. Frank Stuart Parker." The Journal of the
rocee n s and Addr sses he Nat 0 a1 ducational

Association (1899):246.

Wotherspoon, Marion Foster. "A Memory or Two of Colonel Parker."

Progressive Education (l937):635.

371

JOHN DEWEY

Books by Dewey

Dewey, John. Democracy snd Education. N.Y.: The MacMillan Co.,
1916.

. Erperience Ann Education. N.Y.: The MacMillan
Publishing Co. Inc., 1938.

. German Ehilosophy snd Dolitics. N.Y.: H. Holt & Co.,
1915.

. The School and Sosiety. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. 1915, 1943, 1953.

Articles by Dewey

Dewey, John. "Current Problems in Secondary Education." Address
to the Fifteenth Educational Conference of the Academies and
High Schools Affiliating or Cooperating with the University
of Chicago. The School Revisn (l902):13-28.

"Current Tendencies in Education." The Dial
(l917):287-289.

. "Education and Social Direction." The Dial
(1918):333-335.

. "Experiment in Education." The New Republic
(l917):lS-16.

. "In Explanation of Our Lapse." The New Eepublic
(l917):l7-18.

"My Pedagogoc Creed." The Journal of the Droceedings

and ddresses of ati na Education 3 ac tion
(1935):13-16.

”The Need for Orientation." Ths_£prnn (l935):333-335.

. "Public Education on Trial." The New Republic
(1917):245-147.

"The Schools and Social Preparedness." The New

Republis (l916):15-l6.

"The Situation as Regardds the Course of Study." The
Jou n o e ocee n s 3 es the National

Educsrion Asspsiaripn (1901).

372

. "Some Aspects of Modern Education." School and Society
(l93l):579-584.

Books Abonr Dswsy

Bernstein, Richard J. Jo ewe . N.Y.: Washington Square
Press, 1966.

Boucher, Chauncey Samuel. The Chicago Collegs Elan. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1935.

Brickman, William W. and Stanley Lehrer. ewe ' aster
Educator. N.Y.: Society for the Advancement of Education,
1959.

Campbell, Harry M. John Dewey. N.Y.: Twayne Publishers, Inc.,
1971.

Coon, Horace. Columbia; Colossus on the Hudson. N.Y.: E. P.
Dutton & Co., Inc., 1947.

Curti, Merle. The Social ldeas oi Anerican Educators. N.J.:
Pageant Books, Inc., 1959.

DePencier, I. B. The History of the Laboratory Schools, The
University of Chicago, 1896-1965. Chicago: Quadrangle

Books, 1967.

Dwarkin, Martin S. Dewsy on Edusstion. N.Y.: Teachers College
Press, 1959.

Dykhuizen, George. e fe nd in o h ewe . Carbondale:

Southern Illinois University Press, 1973.

Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. H 0 he ve s t of
thcago. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1916.

Graham, Patricia A. e es v du on
Assppinripn. N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 1967.

Mayhew, K. C. and A. C. Edwards. ewe oo . N.Y.: D.
Appleton-Century Co., 1936.

Rugg, Harold and Ann Shumaker. e er chool.
Yonkers: World Book, 1928.

Wirth, Arthur G. o w du o . N.Y.: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1966.

373

Articles Ahout Dewey

Barton, George E., Jr. "John Dewey: Too Soon a Period Piece."

The Sshppl Eeview (1959):128-138.

Bode, B. H. ”John Dewey." Education Research Bulletin
(1929):342-343.

. "13 Progressive Education Obsolete?" School A Society
(l933):544-548.

Breed, Frederick 8. "Progressive Education." School S Society
(l933):544-548.

Bruce, Wm. F. "Comment Upon Breed's Critricism of Dewey." School

A Society (1933):812-814.

Bucholz, H. E. "Dewey Mocked by the N.E.A." Egucational
Administrators and Superintendents (l932):413-421.

Cremin, Lawrence A. "John Dewey and the Progressive Education
Movement, 1915-1952." The School Eeview (1959):160-173.

Dennett, Tyler. "Education Cannot Lead." Debate Rebuttal to
Dewey's ”The Need for Orientation" The Eorum (l935):335-337.

Dunkel, Harold B. "Dewey and the Fine Arts." Ths School Review
(1959):160-173.

Dunkel, Harold B. & Robert L. McCaul. "Dewey: 1859-1959." Ths
Schogl Eeview (1959):123-124.

Jordan, James A. "Dewey & Progressive Education." The School
Review (1959):125-127.

Kimpton, Lawrence A. "Dewey & Progressive Education." The School
Eeview (1959):125-127.

Levit, Martin. "The Context of a Contextualist Philosophy." Ths
Schppl Esview (l959):246-257.

McCadden, Helen M. ”John Dewey and Education." The Commonweal
(1929):1l3.

McCaul, Robert. "Dewey's Chicago." The Schopl Review
(l959):258-280.

Moore, Ernest C. "John Dewey's Contribution to Educational

Theory.” School and Sosiety (l930):37-47.

374

Newlon, Jesse H. "John Dewey's Influence in the Schools."
Teachers College Record (1929):224-238.

"Notes and Announcements.” e u a1 0 h roceedin s and

Addresses oi the Narional Egucational Association (l933):68.

Popp, Jerome A. ”If You See John Dewey, Tell Him We Did It."
Educationsl Theory (l987):l45-152.

Roche, George. "Capitalism and the Future of America." Imprimus
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI. Special Edition.

Schwab, Joseph J. "The Impossible Role of the Teacher in
Progressive Education." Ths School Esivsw (1959):139-159.

Slosson, Edwin E. ”John Dewey: Teacher of Teachers." The
Independent (l917):541-544.

"Some Popular Appraisals of John Dewey." Teachers College Record
(1929):207-223.

Williams, Joy. "Dewey and the Idea of a Science of Education."
The School Review (1959):186-194.

Wood, Jacalyn. "The Dewey School Revisited." ca 0 ducation
(l981):99-101.

375

RUDOLF STEINER

Eooks by Sreiner

Steiner, Rudolf. e of t e ear. N.Y.: The
Anthroposophic Press, 1984.

Discussions With Tsschers. (Fifteen Discussions,
Stuttgart, August - September 1919) N.Y.: The
Anthroposophic Press.

The Education of the Child. London: Rudolf Steiner
Press. 1965.

. The Four Temperments. (Lecture given in Berlin on
March 4, 1909) London: Rudolf Steiner Press.

. The Gospel of St, John. N.Y.: The Anthroposophic
Press. 1940.

An introduction to Waldori Educarion. N.Y.: The
Anthroposophic Press, 1985.

Knowledge of the higher Worlds. London: Rudolf

Steiner Press, 1969.

. A Modern Art oi Education. London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1928, 1972.

Soul Economy and Wslgpri Egusation. London: Rudolf
Steiner Press, 1986.
. Thg_§rpry_pi_Ny_Liis. London: The Anthroposophical
Publishing Co., 1928.
Theosophy. N.Y.: The Anthroposophic Press, 1971.
e en 0 . N.Y.: The Anthroposophic Press,

1967.

Books Abour Srsinsr

Davy, John. ed. Nprhing_Arising. London: Rudolf Steiner Press,
1975.

Roles, John C. Wu. Berlin: Springer
International, 1979.

. Ths_finmsn_2syshs. Berlin: Springer International,
1979.

376

Glas, Werner. e Wa dor chool roach to stor . N.Y.: The
Anthroposophic Press, 1963.

Harwood, A. C. The Why pi s Shild. London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1967.

. The Eecovery oi han in Childhood. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1958.

Holland, Wade B. e W o o ' 3 e t o s d nswers.
California: Children's Book Services, 1981.

McDermott, Robert A. ed. The Essentisl Sisinsr. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1984.

Ogletree, Earl J. Eu m ' o oric and tis ic thod of
Teaching Young Children. Chicago: Chicago State University.

 

 

Rist, Georg and Peter Schneider. te ra Vocat ona and
Genera Education: d tei e Schoo .

Richards, Mary Caroline. owa s o ene33' udolf Steiner
Educstion in America. Conneticut: Wesleyan University
Press, 1980.

Shepard, A. P. A Scientisr of the Invisible. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1954.

Sloan, D. ed. Toward the Recovery of Wholeness. N.Y.: Teachers
College Press, 1984.

Stewart, Desmond. The Epreigner. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981.

Articles About Steiner

Barnes, Henry. ”An Introduction to Waldorf Education." Teachers

College Espprp (l980):322-336.

. "What is Waldorf Education?" e ducat est
(l980):46-49.

Davy, John. "The Social Meaning of Education." Teachers College
Record (l980):344-359.

Ginsburg, Iona H. "Jean Piagett and Rudolf Steiner: Stages of
Child Development and the Implications for Pegdagogy."
Teachers Co e e Reco d (l982):327-337.

377

Howard, Alan. "Education and Our Human Future." Teachers College
Eecprd (l980):337-344.

Leichter, Hope Jensen. "A Note on Time and Education." Teachers

Collegp Eeporp (l980):360-370.

Ogletree, Earl J. "Intellectual Growth in Children and the Theory
of Bioplasmic Forces." Phi Delta Eappan.

Ogletree, Earl J. "Rudolf Steiner: Unknown Educator." Thp
leme ta S o o r (l974):344-351.

"The Waldorf Schools: An Artistic Approach to
Education.” u 0 Su e tive-Acce e ive arnin and
Teaching (1980):81-86.

378

HUGHES MEARNS

Books by hearns

Mearns, Hughes. The Sreativp Adult. N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, &
Co., 1940.

Great ve owe . Garden City: Doubleday, Doran, & Co.,
1930.

. Creat ve outh. N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, & Co., Inc.,
1925.

The Demon oi lnhibiiion. N.Y.: Doublday, Doran, & Co.

Articles by Mearns

Mearns, Hughes. "The Authentic Language of Childhood."
Progressive Education (1929):290-293.

"Creative Education." The Parents hsgazine (1931):ll+.

. "Creative Education in College Years." Erogressive
Education (1946):268-279.

. ”Cultivating Self-Expression in English."
Junior-Senior high Sphopl Clparing hpnse (1930):52-53.

”Culture and Education in America." book review.
Progressive Education (1931).

. "The Demon of Inhibition." Junio - ior C earin
House (l930):346-350.

 

"Discipline and the Free Spirit." Erogressive

Eppppripn (l93l):633-64l.
. "Education Isn't What It Used to Be.” e e t's
hpgsrinp (1936):22-23+.
”Educating the New Child." e e an eview

(l930):696-703.

. ”Every Child Has a Gift." e ead '3 Di est
(l952):2l-24.

. ”The High School Student and the 'Standard.'" Thp
Tnppppnppnr (l912):480-485.

379

. "Language Artists in the Primary Grades." Childhood
Educatipn (1963):178-181.

. ”The Love That Fails." The Parents hagazine
(l934):l7+.

. ”A Note on Ordinary Folks." Jpnipr-Ssnior Clearing
House (l930):516-517.

 

"Our Native Speech." hpClpre (l916):87.

. ”Promoting Self Expression." W ' Work
(1929):60-63.

. ”Salvation by Information." The North American Review
(l930):65-72.

. ”Some Notes on the Individual Contribution."
Educational Method (l938):l66-l69.

. "Trust in Their Own Ability." Childhood Education
(1951):153-156.

Books About hearns

Coon, Horace. Solumbia; Colossus on the hudson. N.Y.: E. D.
Dutton & Co., Inc, 1947.

Ohles, J. F. biographical Dictionary pf Anerican Edupators.

London: Greenwood Press, 1978.

Rugg, Harold and Ann Shumaker. The Child-Centered School. N.Y.:
World Book Co., 1928.

Articles Abour hparns

Clark, John R. "Life in the High School." Tpaphprs Qollege
Eepprd (l936):393-398.

Crockett, Ann. "Miss Crockett Replies." Erpgressive Education
(l940):299.

Deffendal, P. H. "Cultivating Self-Expression in English."
Junipr-Spnior high Sphpol Clsaring hpuss (l930):52-53.

Dix, Lester. "The Experimental High School Program." Teachers
99.11.339.833231 (l937):503-517.

380

. "Integration in the Lincoln School Philosophy."
(l936):363-371.

Duff, John Carr. "Hughes Mearns: Pioneer in Creative Education."

The Qlearing house (l966):4l9-421.

"Eastern Conference at Providence." Music Superyisors Journal
(1933):26.

Hopkins, L. Thomas. ”Curriculum Development.” Teachers College
Record (1936):441-447.

 

Larrick, Nancy. ”Readings That Made a Difference." Journal of
Reaping (l979):202-204.

Meyer, Ovida R. ”Leisure in the New Curriculum.” Teachers
College Record (l936):388-392.

"North Central Conference." Music Su e so ournal
(1933):48-49.

"Portrait." Music Supervisors Journal (l933):26+46.

Wolf, Anna W. M. "Study Course on the School-Age Child." Thp
Parents Magazine (l936):89-90.

381

LAURA ZIRBES
Books by Zirbss
Zirbes, Laura. Sompprsrive Studies of Currpnt Eractice in
heading. N.Y.: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College

Columbia University, 1928.

ocus Va ue n ementa uc on. N.Y.: G. P.
Futman's Sons, 1960.

e es t eve 0 men al C n . Ohio: The
Teaching Aids Laboratory, 1959.

. Spurs to Creative Teaphing. N.Y.: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1959.

 

Articles irb s

Zirbes, Laura. "The Challenge of Children's Needs." Childhood
Education (1949):4l7-4l9.

. "Children Need Experiences." Shildhood Education
(1948):51.

. "Children Need Understanding." Childhood Education
(1949):338-339.

. "Clear the Way for Learning. Narional Educstional
Assopiation Journal (1951): 599- 602.

"The Continuity of Social Learning." Natipnal

Educational Associst ipn J oprnsl (1949): 599- 602.
. ”Creative Teaching for Creative Thinking and Living."
due 0 a ad (1956):l9-25.
"Discipline for Freedom." ion

(1951):225-230.

“The Dynamics of Advance in Teacher Education.

—W 91939): 467 473.

. ”The Emotional Climate of the Schools." Epupational
mm (1935).

”The Emotional Implications of School Practices and

Tasks.” The Educaripnsl hepprp (1935).

382

"Equipping Today's Kindergarten." The Nation's Schools
(1941):46-47.

"Evaluation." Shilphood Educaiipn (l948):251-252.

. "Gaps in Curriculum Research.” Educational Leadership
(1949):187-192.

. "Give Beauty a Chance." Childhppp Education
(1949):290-291.

“The Human Network." Erinpippl (1947):5-6.
"Identification." Shildhood Edppstion (1949):387-388.

. "Inalienable Rights of Children." thlphood Education
(1945):341-342.

. "Let's Pool What We Know." Children Education
(l952):339-340.

. "Modern Settings for Learning." Educational Leadership
(1948):353-357.

. "Needed Research in Education." Edupational Leadership
(19520:l29-131.

. "Objectives in Reading." Epucational Research Bulletin
(1929):343-344.

. "Our Research Responsibilities." Educational
Leadership (l952):485-488.

. "The Principal's Challenge." Natio a ementar
Principal (l952):28-36.

. "Priorities in Childhood Education." Erogressive
Educstion (1943):103-107.

"Programs and Practices in Focus and Perspective." _hs

Nationsl Elsnenrsry Sphopl Erinpipsl (l956):21-24.
"Raising Our Signts." a o a ucatio a sociation

qurnal (l955):394-396.

Zirbes, Laura and Lou LaBrent. "Social Studies in a New School."
Pr r iv ducat (1934).

"The Status of Progressive Schools." 0 3 've

369661126 (1931).

383

. "Thoughts on the Education of Science Teachers for
Today's Schools." Science Education (1958):280-288.

”Toward Social Maturity." Shildhood Education
(l947):107-108.

. "Viewing Remedial Work." Shilphood Education
(l956):51-54.

. "What Creative Teaching Means." Shildhood Education
(l956):51-54.

. "What is 'Freedom' in the Classroom?" Erogressive
Education (l934):383-385.

. "What is 'Valid' in Safety Education?" The National
Elementary Principal (l953):22-23+.

"Why Guidance?" Shildhood Education (l948):261-262.

. "Why Motives Matter." Childhood Educatipn
(l948):261-262.

"Work and Play." Shildhood Educaripn (1948):147-148.

Books About Zirbes

Coon, Herbert L. A Handbook Eor University School Earents.
Columbus: University Press, The Ohio State University Press,

1954.

Howes, D. ed. Anerican Women. L.A.: American Publishing Inc.,
1939.

Ohles, J. F. ed. Eiographical Dipripnary pi Anerican Education.

London: Greenwood Press, 1978.

Ramsey, John A. and the Faculty of the University School. Thp
u o e e Un ve oo . Columbus: University
Press, the Ohio State University, 1948.

Rugg. Harold and Ann Shumaker. MW.
Yonkers: World Book, 1928.

VanTil, William. hy Way Oi Lpohing As It. Terre Haute: Lake
Lure Press, 1983.

384

Articles Abpui Zirbes

Serviss, Trevor. "Teachers for Today's Schools...Gain

Professional Competence.” Epucational Lsadership
(l952):152-154.

—1- "-

"I7'1111'1111111'1’1111

 

.1_ili_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.