The Child under Eight

's distinctiv

ot the beasts':

s and wholly

uch like, a line of black or green board low down round the wall, little rough carts and trolleys, boxes which can be turned into houses, or sh

yet the writer had probably never read a page that Froebel wrote. On the contrary, she shows her entire ignorance o

ed here, because, for her conception of right surroundings for young children, the speaker has gone to the very source from which Froebel took

ly welcomed by so large a circle. But neither in England nor in America does that circle include the Froebelians, and this for several reasons. For one thing, much that the general public has accepted as new-and in this general public must be included weighty names, men of science, educational authorities, and others who have never troubled to inqu

so much stress on her "didactic apparatus," the intention of which is formal training in sense-discrimination. This material, which is an adaptation and enlargement of that provided by S

at she attaches special importance to the play activities, or natural activities of childhood, on which the Kindergarten is founded.

r construct coaches of chairs, that this "is not a proof of imagination but of an unsatisfied desire," and that rich children who own ponies and who drive out in motor-cars "would be astonished to see the delight of children who imagine themselves to be drawn along by stationary armchairs." Imitative play has, of course, nothin

rgartens and Infant Schools had already discarded time-tables, and Kindergarten classes have always been small enough to give the individual a fair chance. Froebel himself constantly urged that the child should become familiar with "both the strongly opposed elements of his life, the individual determining and directing side, and the

et been attained by the Dottoressa.[6] In order to make this clear, it is proposed to compare the theories of Froebel with the conclusions of a biol

r children makes this even more plain. For here is no discussion of what children at this sta

derived from accepted tradition." After such fundamentals as food and warmth, light, air and sleep, the first problems considered by this Biologist Educator are stages of growth, their appropria

dge of the past history of the race. From these he comes to a very pertinent conclusion, viz. "The general outcome of this is that the safe way of educating children is by means of Play," play bein

nts devised by adults and imposed at set times by authority," an opinion evidently gained from

se, who applied the idea of organic development to all departments of social science. It was because Froebel was himself, even in 1826, the Biologist Educator desiring to break with preconce

te 8: S

nd an idealist. Such words have sometimes been used as terms

portance of biological knowledge to educational theory. As the biologist defines play as "the natural manifestation of the child's activities," so Froedel says "play at first is just natural life." But to him the true inwardness of spontaneous play lies in the fact that it is spontaneous-so far as anything in th

ion, but the purpose or aim of human existence, the purpose of all and any existence, even whether there is any purpose in a

some great Mind, "a living, all-pervading, energising, self-conscious and hence eter

e is force, and that we cannot conceive of force without matter on which it can exercise itself. Neither can we think of matter w

stands and knows his own power." Conscious development of one's own power is the triumph of spirit over matter, therefore human development is spiritual development. So while man is the most perfect earthly being, yet,

failure. The lower animals have definite instincts and cannot fail, i.e. cannot learn.[9] Man wants to do much, but his instincts are less definite and

nowadays be considered t

ible in his day, he is at one with the biologist as to how we are to find out the course of this development. First, by looking into our own past; secondly, by the observation of c

that we should interchange the observations we make so that little by little we may come to know the grounds and conditions of what we observe, that we may formulate their laws." He protests that even in his day "the observation, development and guidance of children in the first years of life up to the proper a

r is always the more important," and from that point of view we ought "to consider childhood as the most important stage, … a stage in the development of the Godlike in the earthly and human." He a

n all respects adapted to him" but affording a minimum of opportunity of injury, "guarding and protecting" but not interfering, unless he is certain that healthy development has already been interrupted. It is somewhat remarkable that Froebel anticipated even the conclusions of modern psycho-analysis in his views about childish faults. "The sources of these," he says, are "neglect to develop certain sides of human life and, secondly, early distortion of originally good human powers by arbitrary interference with the orderly course of human development … a suppressed or perverted go

ratches the ground and the young swallow catches its food upon the wing. We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well; arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided because it would hinder their development; but the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax, a lump of clay, which man can mould into what he pleases. O man, who roamest through garden and field, through meadow and grove, why dost thou clo

, having man's special capacity of learning through experience, the child does gather ideas. By this time he has passed through the stage of

ich were supposed to be nonexistent. The hope he expressed that some philosopher would take up these subjects has now been fulfilled, a