F. W. PARKER, _Cook County Normal, Chicago_: When I moved, two years ago, the appointment of this committee, I had in mind the careful study of the whole matter of correlation that teachers in this country should get from the highest sources the doctrine and the highest criticism,--that a report should be presented which should follow the greatest report upon education in this century,--the report of the Committee of Ten. I have not had time to study this report and can, therefore, say very little upon it. These subjects should be studied with the greatest care. It seems to me that there are some general criticisms which may be made in the brief time at my command.
We cannot doubt that these gentlemen have made the most careful study of the doctrine of Herbert and of his disciples,--Ziller, Stoy, and Rein; they have also had their eye upon the distinguished students of this doctrine in this country. The failure of this report is that they haven’t even given us the fundamental doctrine of Herbert. There is no doubt that the Herbartian doctrine and all other doctrines of concentration are ignored in their fundamental essentials. That is what this committee has left out--it is the old story, the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out, or to put it a little more mildly, Hamlet kicked out. It seems that this doctrine is the only doctrine which furnishes a grand working hypothesis to the teachers of the world. It should be examined most carefully, and what cannot bear the closest criticism should be rejected. The five, with the dissent of the Western men, have not deemed it worthy of this attention and have rejected it _in toto_.
Poor old Robinson Crusoe bears the brunt, notwithstanding our esteemed friends of the Normal University, who wish to interest the children in something. Sometimes we go into schools where there is not much interest, especially in spelling and grammar. I leave the defense of Robinson Crusoe to Mr. McMurry.
The other reference is to language. “It is not wise to stop a child to correct his mistakes in grammar”! “The development of language cannot be organically related to the development of thought”! It is one of the fundamental principles, if I understand it, that the development of thought should have as a necessity the evolution of language. This, says the report, cannot be done; grammar must be developed by itself and language by itself. If I am incorrect, I beg to be excused. I can only refer to a few features of this report in the tabulated programme. A course of study is absolutely necessary, but it should be marked “for this day only.” We take the subject of reading twice every day for the first two years, once a day for the next six years. Reading is thinking, it should be educated thinking. We cannot do thinking without the subjects to be learned--as geography and science. Science, according to the programme, is to be taught by oral lessons. The world is round, but children cannot reason. Would it not be well to go into the laboratory to see whether the children cannot reason? The child, by force of his nature, must reason--must find out these things. I am quoting from John Dewey. But we are told in this report that the subject of science, at least a few things in these subjects, must be told him first. I never knew a case of the kind, but it may be.