The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1896-12-10
Non-Scicntific Tcanhing.

1t is probable that nine-teuths Of
ell the teaching done is suon-scientiiic.
The school dame who sat in her chair
and called each child up in turn and
pointed to the letters Of the alphabet
successfully with the blade of a knife
and demanded the name was fair
tpye OF the scientific teacher in her
day-and her day is by no means
over. DR.. Gregory used to tell Of
teacher who would point to the first
letter and ask, "What's that. A.?
And so of the rest. The reason Icha-
bod Crane made Washington Irving
smile was because he was so unscien-
titic that he became ridiculous: it was
not because he taught in a poor log
schoolhOuse.
Let us put bicycle into the hands
of man of scientific tendencies and
observe the way he regards it. He
looks at it as a piece of mechanism
lifted for a certain purpose; it must
be light, and so the frame work is Of
hollow tubes; it must pass over in
equalities, without shaking or jarring
the rider, and 50 it has an elastic foot
ing, sid 30 OF its other features Its
fitness for the great end Ot rapid and
easy movement will be comprehended
by a person of philOSophic mind, and
he will ride it III the spirit of this com
prehension. He comprehends that it
needs fabrication, protection from
oxidation, and in general, a treat
! ment and usage anticipated by its
machinery.
| Children are far more wonderfully
made than bicycles; they are planned
for lives of happiness, usefulness, and
possibly grandeur even here. AT all
events they are fer more Obedient to
( the laws of the Creator than adults;
this is the testimony of Jesus. There
are plenty of reasons why adults un-
! derestimate children. or have done
so; they need not be here stated. Not
only in their homes but in the school
rooms this underestimatiOn has gone
on, and is going on to-day.
Mr.. Page speaks of certain teachers
who look at their pupils as jugs TO be
filled. Have you got your tables:
Have you studied your spelling lesson
over ten times? Have you learned
what is justification? Can you say
the 'siXes? Have you done your
sums? Can you say the chic towns
rivers and products of Ohio? Car
you give the date of the entr& ice OF
the Cloths into Rome?'
Froebel is the nearest to us of the
educational masters; he died in the
present half of this century. He be.
came master of looking at children
philosophically. He observed the
fact that children played and said
why? Nor did he stop until he got &
satisfactory answer, and being prac
tical man (far beyond those who claim
they are practical because they don't
think at all and only set lessons anC
hear them), lie sought to find ways oi
utilizing play; of getting more out OF
it than the child did.
The philosopher sees the child rub
the glass and get a spark of electric
ity; ne ponders on Che matter and
finds there is power in it. 1t was SC
in the case of Froebel. He set him
self to study children: the feature OF
play caught his attention; he followed
that up, and the kindergarten is the
result. Thousands now are using
certain selected plays and songs; OF
course, the results they get are par
tial and unsatisfactory.
Froebel was the pupil of PestalOzZi
it is not at all likely that he would
have made his discoveries if he haC
not been under the influence of the
great Swiss teacher; there was enough
fire in Pestalozzi to light all the
torches that were brought to him; in
fact, the wonderful thing about Pes
taloZzi is not that he discovered Sc
much, but that he set so many on the
track of discovery. The great thing
in this man was that ne studied the
child.
The fault in all Gchools-a few only
excepted-is that the teacher does MOI
philosophize or proceed scientifically
He will say in reply, Il must teach
them to read, spell and compute, anc
have no time to philos0phize," or ne
may say, "If should philOsophize
could produce no better results; it is d
practical business am in; | have tC
teach them to read, write and CON
pute.n But the philosophizing o
Pestalozzi brought crowds to ni'
school to see his results; and, in fact
the man was a very poor philosopher
| the same may be said of Froebel.