Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

were the same old conservative Yale ideas which have so generally characterized Yale educators, whether at home or abroad. As the Beloit men themselves expressed it," Education was understood to mean chiefly a self-development of the individual under training to a true self-possession and command of his best faculties." To-day Beloit and Yale are alike presided over by one of their own brilliant graduates. What Arthur T. Hadley is to Yale, Edward D. Eaton is to Beloit. And if I were seeking in the whole West for a young Yale, I should go at once to Beloit; and I have no hesitation in saying that there is no denominational or independent nonsectarian college in the West that is better than Beloit. President Eaton is a graduate of one of the departments of Yale.

I have chosen to speak of these colleges, not because Yale men were to be found in their faculties-there are many colleges all over the country that can not be named to-day of which the same is true-but because these institutions seem to have been created as well as developed by Yale influence, and in their career they have largely affected the character of the great Northwest, all of them having been established most opportunely by Yale influence within the territory dedicated to freedom and education and religion by the ordinance of 1787.

Passing from the consideration of institutions intended to reproduce Yale, I come next to consider the work of a few men who have been notable as educators. Foremost among these, worthy to be classed with Horace Mann in consideration of the originality of his plans and the extended scope of his work, was Henry Barnard, of the class of 1830, who closed his long career of usefulness in this first year of the twentieth century, a man whose influence upon the schools and the secondary education of the country was so pronounced that the largest educational convention of the year, with its 10,000 teachers from all parts of the country, fitly paused in its deliberations to celebrate at one entire session the remarkable achievements of this distinguished educator. He was a man of original ideas. He believed in progress. He never rested satisfied with what most of the world was ready to accept as the ultimate attainment. For him there was always something better further on, and the great army of educators, good and bad alike, were compelled at last to follow his leading. And he is not the only one who has gone out from Yale and has done a broader educational work than that outlined by her traditional policy. Indeed, it may be confidently asserted that the work done by Yale graduates as educators outside of New Haven in recent years has shown a much less close conformity to the conservative ideas of Yale than that done in the first half of the century. Too much honor can not be given to Daniel C. Gilman, of the class of 1852, first president of Johns Hopkins. He went out from Yale to assume the presidency of the University of California, and after some years of vigorous work in which he succeeded in giving form, purpose, and life to that university he was called to take up a new work in Baltimore. Discarding the traditions of the old colleges of the country, he set himself to the task, not of building up another rival college for undergraduates, but of establishing a genuine university in which graduates of the best colleges of the land could advance in knowledge beyond the limits of all the colleges, under men distinguished for their original investigations and for their great attainments in the subjects which they undertook to teach. How great his success was you all know. How much the old colleges are indebted to him for a new impulse and for his grand leadership in creating a real university the faculties of those colleges very well know, and how great a service he rendered to the country can be witnessed by hosts of bright graduates of Johns Hopkins filling most important positions in most of the leading colleges of the country and bringing to their work a new inspiration derived from great teachers and new methods of scientific investigation. And among the great men whom Gilman gathered around him, with a judgment that was almost faultless, we are proud to name one of yesterday's ora

tors, Dr. William H. Welch, the most distinguished pathologist and bacteriologist of our country. The direct influence upon the colleges of our country exerted by Johns Hopkins, planned and administered by Dr. Gilman, can hardly be overestimated. The methods of study and the learning of that university are being reproduced from the Atlantic to the Pacific in every institution that has money enough to secure graduates of Johns Hopkins for its faculty. A number of American colleges have thrown aside the bands which compressed them and have expanded into genuine universities. But it was Daniel C. Gilman who led the way, and every man who cares for progress in educational work and for the highest learning will acknowledge that the United States owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Gilman for the work he has done outside of Yale. President Gilman * * is even now ready to take up and carry forward successfully another very important educational work as director of the Washington Memorial Association at the capital.

*

* *

Of Andrew D. White, of the class of 1853, it is difficult to say whether he is more distinguished as a writer and thinker forty years in advance of his age, or as a diplomatist eminent for his services as the representative of his country at the courts of Russia and Germany, or as an educator blending the purposes of a land-grant college with the broad educational ideas of Ezra Cornell, and establishing and directing successfully for years that unique institution, Cornell University. Certainly his success in any one of these directions has been sufficient to satisfy the ambition of most men. As president of Cornell he did much to promote new theories of education and to enlarge the scope of educational institutions. The institution which he created had little resemblance to Yale, but it is not unlike the leading State universities of the West. The conditions of the endowments were doubtless in a large degree responsible for this; though no one supposes that Dr. White, even if given a free hand, would have attempted to reproduce a Yale at Ithaca. Something new, and as far as possible original, must be the outcome of his labors; and such, in the judgment of the Yale faculty at the time, was the outcome. As the years go on institutions, like men, learn from experience and soon drop off their unpleasant features and assume new ones that are desirable. This has been the history of Cornell, and, without losing in any degree her individuality, she has at last fallen practically into line with all the successful universities of the country. Dr. White gave to her service some of the best years of his life and not an inconsiderable part of his fortune.

Chicago University, which, though a mere child in age, has the size, strength, ambitions, and activity of the full-grown man, owes its existence and resources in the last analysis to the thought and suggestion of a Yale graduate; and owes its development, nerve, and originality to its first president, Dr. William R. Harper, who graduated at Yale as doctor of philosophy in 1875, and who as a professor at Yale had the opportunity to fill himself with the Yale spirit, if he did not secure it as an undergraduate at Muskingum College. Perhaps he did, for the first preceptor of that institution was David Putnam, grandson of Gen. Israel Putnam and a graduate of Yale in the class of 1793. Time will not permit an extended notice of Dr. Harper's great work in Chicago, and it is not necessary; for in these days the University of Chicago is very much in evidence, and the world knows how much the amiable, versatile, and progressive first president, Dr. William R. Harper, has done for education. I do not claim it all as a part of the glory of Yale, but I do claim an undivided and indivisible share.

I should be glad to pay a just tribute to the work done in Atlanta by Horace Bumstead, of the class of 1861; in Tulane University, at New Orleans, by William Preston Johnston, of the class of 1852; in New York by Charlton T. Lewis, of the class of 1853; in Rochester by Augustus H. Strong, of the class of 1857; in Cornell by Moses Coit Tyler, of the class of 1857; in Lincoln and Iowa City by

ED 1902-38

George E. MacLean, of the theological class of 1874, and by many others whose work is eminently worthy of special mention. But I can not further deal with individuals, but must briefly state the essential facts.

Yale furnished the first president of at least 18 colleges, and the list is remarkable as much for the distinguished character of the institutions as for their number. I name them: Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, University of Georgia, Williams, Hamilton, Kenyon, Illinois, Wabash, University of Missouri, University of Mississippi, University of Wisconsin, Beloit, Chicago, California, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and Western Reserve. One hundred and five graduates of Yale have been president of a college, and at least 85 different colleges have at some time had a Yale graduate for president. Among these are the State universities of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Vermont, California, and Oregon, and probably others. Among the other colleges (not State institutions) are Dickinson, Middlebury, Hampden-Sidney, Amherst, Rutgers, Trinity, Lafayette, Transylvania, Tulane, Lake Forest, Pomona, and Whitman, and the Imperial University of Japan. More than 600 graduates of Yale have been professors in some college. I wish I could name them, including the distinguished men who have done their work here at Yale; but the mere reading of the names of professors, the chairs they filled, and the colleges they served would require the entire time permitted for this address. No one can doubt that the influence of these men in so many institutions in all parts of our country has contributed much to the advancement of higher learning in all sections, to the elevation of the people, and to the prosperity and true grandeur of our Republic.

Tho prairies that for hundreds of miles stretch in almost unbroken continuity through the West do not excite in the traveler to the Pacific any especial emotion of wonder. Such emotion is excited by the tall peaks farther west that tower heavenward-the sentinels of the Rockies--grand, gloomy, solitary, sublime. But the prairies, monotonously level and tame though they are, can feed the world.

The largest part of the alumni of the college are like the prairie-inconspicuous but useful. Some of the others are like the foothills-elevated but small in comparison with Shasta's heaven-piercing head. Comparatively few rise to mountain heights, and hardly one attains the grandeur of the solitary peak to whose majesty the world does homage. But the inconspicuous lives are not always the least useful lives. The men with the longest record in the triennial catalogue are not necessarily the men who have done the most good. Many a graduate, as principal of an academy, a high school, or a preparatory school of some kind, has done a work that in its breadth, power, and beneficence is not equaled by the work of more conspicuous men in higher fields. I would rather have the glory which rests upon the memory of Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, than the halo which encircles the proudest don of Oxford. It is a great thing to be a real thinker. It is a great thing to have a noble character. But it is a greater thing to plant your thoughts in intellects where they will grow and to put your principles, which have made character, into hearts where they will be cherished. In this thought the teachers of all grades can rest content. And Mother Yale, as she calls the roll of her sons who are worthy of her love, will not omit a single one, however humble, if only he has done what he could.

THE KINDERGARTEN IDEAL OF NURTURE.@

By SUSAN E. BLOW.

The distinctive merit of the kindergarten is its proclamation of conscious nurture as a universal and compelling ideal. We may outgrow all the instrumental

a Read before the International Kindergarten Union, at Boston, 1900.

ities through which it now seeks to embody this ideal. We may increase and improve its gifts and occupations. We may create new and more beautiful plays, pictures, and stories. We may, in time, call forth a genius who will write a more profound and tender mother play. But to Froebel must belong forever the glory of having first appealed to humanity to consecrate itself to the high privilege of nurture and of having defined so clearly what nurture implies that the imperative ideal can never again cease its knocking at the gate of conscience.

The name which Froebel gave to the institution he founded suggests the ideal he was seeking to embody. Gardens are not wild nature, but "nature mingled with man's mind." The gardener recognizes that each plant is a plastic energy which obeys an inward though unconscious ideal. He can modify plants only as he influences them to modify themselves. Planting them in prepared soil, granting them their requisite supply of heat and moisture, giving them plenty of room to grow, watching, tending, grafting, and, if need be, pruning them, he aids them to vent their energies in such ways as to secure their healthy development. This analogy suggests the first specification in the Froebellian ideal of nurture, which is that nothing shall be poured into the child, but that the privilege of the kindergartner is to incite him to pour out himself. Giving expression to what is in him, he shall begin to discover what he is. Piqued by the contrast between the object in his mind and his crude product, he shall freely submit himself to the drudgery necessary to acquire skill. Stimulated by production to investigation, he shall produce himself as student and seek with reverence and docility to appropriate the rich treasures of human experience. Thus play, or self-expression for the mere sake of self-expression, marks the earliest period of development; constructive work, or the production of consciously planned objects, characterizes the second period; study, or the temporary ascendency of the learner over the doer, distinguishes the third period; while the goal of the whole educational process is the man or woman capacitated by assimilation of the wisdom of the race for the highest practical efficiency and the most resolute and loving self-devotion. The kindergarten receives the child at the climax of that first period of develop ment during which the free energy of the soul vents itself in the form of play. Its distinctive feature is that into the form of play, which is the form of freedom, it pours those rational ideals which are the substance of freedom. Through this infusion of the ideal it makes play the first instrument for conquest of the external world and the spontaneous self-incitement of the soul to self-mastery.

Had Froebel only emphasized the fact that mental life, like physical life, works from within outward, and that play is the highest reach of childish activity because it is "self-active representation of the inner life from inner necessity and impulse," he might have become the greatest of educational anarchists, but he could never have been the wise and tender apostle of nurture. His claim to our admiration and gratitude is, that having recognized that since mind develops through self-expression, we must not pour into the child, but help him to pour out himself, he advanced to the further question, What self shall the child pour out? and answered unequivocally, he shall pour out the rational self, which is implicit in every human being, that self which is defined in the course of history, revealed in art, literature, religion, incarnated in institutions, and interpreted in philosophy. Latent in each child of man is that generic humanity which has wrought all these marvels. Therefore, in their spontaneous play, little children try to repeat the typical deeds of mankind. Their attempt is self-defeating, because it is blind, and their plays are not pictures, but caricatures of human effort and achievement. Taught by his genius what little children were trying to do, Froebel came to the help of nascent humanity with the ideal of nurture and the instrumentalities of the kindergarten. By wisely abetting the child's efforts to dig, sew, weave, build, dance, sing, model, draw, and paint, he made these

traditional games and occupations a means of approach to the practical fine arts and a primal revelation of will as the power which converts matter to human uses and informs it with human ideals. Then, seizing upon those imitative plays wherein the children of all nations and all times have tried to picture the domestic, social, industrial, political, and religious life into the midst of which they are born, he evolved a series of dramatic games through which the playing child begins to discern the lineaments of his ideal selfhood, and thus to recognize the difference between what he is and what he ought to be.

Reverting to the analogy of the garden as a place where human intelligence assists the struggle of nature, we may remind ourselves that inferior plants are improved by grafting upon their stock a scion or branch of some more highly developed plant of identical or nearly allied type. Grafting does not diminish the energy of life within the plant, but utilizes it to a finer result. It enables the wild briar to produce garden roses and the crab-apple tree to yield large and luscious fruit. The superiority of the grafted plant is due to the fact that the scion is allied in the form of its energy to the stock upon which it is grafted, but has already developed the higher potencies of this energy. In exact analogy with this procedure the kindergarten grafts upon the instinctive plays of universal childhood the higher realization of their own ideal, and thus while preserving unimpaired the form of freedom, makes play the first means of revealing, developing, and confirming the colossal as opposed to the petty selfhood.

It is because Froebel's apotheosis of play is not yet generally understood that too many existing kindergartens caricature his method and too many critics confound his ideal with the practice of his blind or half-seeing followers. Any person who asserts that the kindergarten is a place where children should play what they choose, as they choose, proves that he has mastered but one aspect, and that the less original aspect of Froebel's thought. Recognition of “the deep meaning that lies hid in childish play" is as old as Plato, and in Frocbel's own time this meaning had been brilliantly disclosed by many great writers. No educator to-day questions the value of free play. No educator denies that through the untrammeled exercise of his own proclivities the child reveals and establishes his individuality. No educator challenges the assertion that without free play the child would lose all originality and become a mere machine. No educator refuses assent to the proposition that in his free play the child should not be interfered with, but should be left to exercise his powers according to his own caprice. On the other hand, no disciple of Froebel who has the least insight into his educational ideal will claim that free play belongs in the kindergarten. The child does not need the kindergartner to help him do what he pleases, as he pleases, neither does the kindergartner need two or three years of training to enable her to accomplish this feat.

To deny that Froebel attempted to rationalize play is our first offense against the great apostle of nurture. Our second and more heinous offense is the claim that in later periods of education he wished to preserve even the form of play. In common with all educators worthy of the name, he recognized the ineradicable distinction between play and work, but he advanced upon other educators through tracing the process by which childish play passes over into work, and by creating the kindergarten to abet the evolutionary effort of the mind. If we accept the formula of science, that all differences of kind result from the gradual accumulations of differences of degree, we must recognize that Froebel has done original and valuable service in abetting the process of mental evolution, and if we study fairly the results of his method as carried out in the best kindergartens, we shall be convinced that it increases power of attention and love of work.

The tendency to transform the kindergarten into a play room where children act out their own caprices is simply one manifestation of a spirit visibly at work

« AnteriorContinuar »