Home / Pestalozzi

 

Teaching in the spirit of Pestalozzi

 

Introduction

In the late autumn of 2005 a sponsor of PestalozziWorld ( www.pestalozziworld.com ) introduced me to Sir Richard Butler who asked me, in my capacity as a Pestalozzi specialist, to support Education Consultant to PestalozziWorld, Joanna Nair. The object is to teach the PestalozziWorld students about Pestalozzi and in the Pestalozzi spirit, while encouraging the schools involved to adopt Pestalozzi’s principles and consequently to compile teaching and learning aids for the implementation of Pestalozzi’s ideas in school and educational practice. Ms. Nair and I discussed the various aspects of the projects for two days and finally came to the conclusion that (amongst other things) I ought to explain how school lessons should be planned if Pestalozzi’s ideas are really to be taken seriously.

Here we have the results of this task. I am assuming the reader has already studied both my articles of fundamental importance ‘A Biography of Pestalozzi’ and ‘The Fundamental Ideas of Pestalozzi’. For this reason I will not explain here how Pestalozzi or his colleagues taught in those days, but will attempt to show how lessons look today if they are arranged in the spirit of Pestalozzi. For, what interests us today about Pestalozzi and what can still be put into practice today is not exactly what was done at Pestalozzi’s schools (in Burgdorf or Yverdon) but his general principles of teaching and education. At first Pestalozzi simply described these as a ‘method’, later – more clearly and comprehensibly – as a ‘concept of elementary education’.

Since these principles are rather generally formulated and consequently broadly described, there are certainly always numerous different possibilities for applying these principles in a specific lesson and teaching situation. How this looks in practice therefore depends on the person who has to make the decision, and is therefore partly subjective. For this reason it might be useful for the reader to have some brief details about my life. Then he can decide how far my subjective experience and reflections can accompany his own teaching and educational practice:

From 1950 – 1954 I attended teacher-training college where I gained both theoretical and practical experience in Pestalozzi’s teaching method. I had the good fortune to be taught by one of the best Pestalozzi experts of that time, Otto Müller, who knew how to arouse my interest in Pestalozzi’s life and way of thinking. At the age of 20 I was employed as teacher in a small village. The school was run as a so-called ‘comprehensive school’, i.e. all 35 children attending classes 1 to 8 at that time were taught by me all in the same room. I worked at this school for 17 years and it was there that I discovered and began to appreciate the enormous advantages of a one-room school (children of different grade levels in the same class). It was not particularly difficult for me to apply Pestalozzi’s principle that the older pupils pass on the material they have learnt to the younger children or practice with them. A further advantage of the one-room school of great importance today is that the older pupils find it perfectly natural to show consideration towards the younger ones and that the latter find it perfectly natural to let the older ones help them. Under these circumstances it is much easier to create an atmosphere of non-violence, of peaceful co-existence, consequently, an atmosphere of perfectly natural learning. This type of school is more like a large family than a tightly run organization. And I experienced daily how pupils in a one-room school become extremely independent as they are not allowed to bother the teacher, who has his hands full anyway, with problems they can solve with help from a fellow-pupil. If I now had to make a decision on the organization in any school, I would intermix the pupils so that every teacher had to teach children of at least three different age-classes, that is 1st to 3rd grade, 4th to 6th grade, and 7th to 9th grade. This has the added advantage that, in a 3-class group, traditions can grow and do not need to be rebuilt with every change of pupils, since only one third of the pupils are replaced each year. This can greatly ease a teacher’s workload.

To return to my life: in ‘my’ village I also took on other duties. For example, I directed the choir, supervised the play staged annually by the drama group and took an active part in local government.

In those days in Switzerland the cantons (provinces of unequal size with historical background) acted independently on school issues, which is why each canton used its own teaching material in its schools. This material was compiled in each case by experienced teachers. I was assigned to draw up teaching material for Canton Aargau, to which ‘my’ village belonged, on the correct learning of standard German (this was intended for 3rd year pupils). Swiss children always have greater problems with this than German children, as the everyday language in our country is Swiss German, a language that differs so greatly from standard German that our German neighbours cannot usually understand us. The teaching of language was always one of my major concerns during the 43 years I was involved in teaching and I discovered that the application of Pestalozzi’s principles leads to success.

After what really were my ‘apprenticeship and diploma years’ as teacher at a village school, I studied Pedagogics and Psychology at Zürich University and ended my studies with a doctoral thesis on changes in Pestalozzi’s thinking. Following that I worked in teacher training as lecturer in Pedagogics, Psychology and Didactics, the last 20 years at a private teacher training college. Here I was granted the freedom to conduct my lessons in the spirit of Pestalozzi and also to propose and to encourage reforms for the entire establishment, which would enable teaching and education in the spirit and style  of Pestalozzi. Unfortunately the state has now standardized teacher training for all cantons in Switzerland, forcing all private teacher-training establishments to close.

Between 1975 and 1993 I also founded and managed several advisory services for Child Guidance and School Psychology and had the opportunity to gather valuable teaching experience that I was able to expand upon while bringing up our five children. I retired in 1997 and, amongst other things; I now look after the Pestalozzi website www.heinrich-pestalozzi.info – together with Prof. G. Kuhlemann.

 

1. Pestalozzi’s basic ideas on teaching

The key principle: in accordance with nature

Anyone who wants to find out more about the nature of man gains a great deal of knowledge simply by comparing man with an animal. For example, if we look at the honeybee, we discover that its life in the colony takes place exactly as it did two thousand years ago and will still be the same in another two thousand years. It is therefore sufficient to study a single colony of bees to find out how the bee lives, in other words, the nature of the bee. In the case of human beings it is a very different matter: firstly, the life of every individual differs so greatly from that of the others and secondly, humans are living and have lived within very different social systems that will also change in the future. This could lead to the assumption that nothing about man is fixed, everything is variable, depending on the prevailing social conditions.

Pestalozzi contradicted such views with the doctrine on man that I have explained in detail in the ‘The Fundamental Ideas of Pestalozzi’. He is convinced that despite the many individual differences and despite the constant change in social conditions, there is still something in man that is constant and eternal, something in the life of every individual that retains its validity regardless of social change. Everyone, no matter where, when or how he lives, has his physical and spiritual needs, everyone possesses physical and intellectual power and talents, everyone has to grapple with his own egoism, everyone suffers from the limitations imposed by society until he has risen to morality and every individual achieves a truly fulfilled life only through this moral stability. Everyone, without exception, is talented, with a higher nature. This unfolds through a life spent in truth and love and makes human existence appear meaningful. Pestalozzi often describes this constant, eternal element as human nature, and often quite simply as nature.

Now, according to Pestalozzi’s conviction, the disposition of human nature is such that the individual cannot reach his true destination, humanity, without education, i.e. without the influence of his fellow human beings and of social constraints. Left to their own devices, young people would simply run wild and fall into bad ways. The entirety of what the relevant educational powers think up in order to influence a child is often described by Pestalozzi as the art of education, but mostly abbreviated to simply art. The word ‘art’ has, of course, a completely different meaning today and this results in Pestalozzi being misunderstood by many people who read only a few lines of his and do not know the true sense of his words.

Thus, in the development of every person, there are two opposing ‘powers’: on one side is invariable human nature in its particular individual form, on the other side is art that is variable depending on the social condition.

Now the question arises, which of the two powers, nature or art, is entitled to priority. For Pestalozzi there is no shadow of doubt: nature takes precedence over art. That is really only logical, since, if nature is unchangeable and art changeable, then art must be guided by nature. Pestalozzi therefore demands that art is subordinate to nature that teaching and education must be in accordance with nature if a person is to reach his goal of humanity. The call for conformity with nature in teaching is the absolute fundament of Pestalozzi’s teaching system and every demand beyond that is nothing more than the elucidation and concretization of this first basic demand. Everything that is asked of a child that goes against his nature, in other words not natural, mis-educates the child and leads it away from the ultimate aim of teaching and education: from humanity.

And so it is of paramount importance that a teacher who intends to teach and educate in the spirit of Pestalozzi asks himself at all times and in everything he undertakes: is what I am intending, what I am doing, what I am asking of the children, what I forbid them to do, is this in accordance with human nature, with the children’s nature, is it really natural?

Here of course the practising teacher immediately asks himself a further question: how do I recognize whether what I am doing with the children is in accordance with nature? The experienced teacher who has familiarized himself with the ideas and theories of Pestalozzi usually knows this in advance, for he knows the pupils, is able to empathize with them. However, for the less experienced teacher there is a simple rule: if the pupils are unwilling to learn, appear unmotivated, show signs of disapproval or lack of concentration when faced with certain material or when a certain teaching method is used, or when they are faced with a certain situation, this is a sure sign that the lesson is not in accordance with nature. On the other hand, if they derive pleasure from what they are doing, then the teacher can be certain that his lesson is indeed in accordance with nature. Then conflicts between the pupils or between pupils and the teacher will rarely occur.

‘Conformity with nature’ has many varied aspects and so there are often several different reasons why pupils are pleased to take an active part in one case and in another case are reluctant to learn. I cannot list all violations against conformity with nature at this point as in the following chapters I really do nothing other than develop my thoughts on teaching that is in accordance with nature. For this reason I will confine myself here to a single example of a violation against conformity with nature that, unfortunately, can be observed only too often in our schools: the non-observance of the appropriate age of the pupils in the choice of material or a teaching method. Our syllabus and teaching aids or unknowing teachers very often confront their pupils with material that doesn’t mean anything to them or for which they fail to summon up any interest. The younger the children, the more concrete, the more appealing to the senses, the more tangible the material must be. Unfortunately we repeatedly see in the course of mathematics lessons that school beginners are instructed far too soon to write abstract formulae although they are not yet able to grasp how these are related to practically understandable actions. Or, during language lessons children are troubled at a much too early age with lines of thought concerning the theory of language instead of using exercises appropriate to their age to awaken in them the joy of the richness of the language, of correct pronunciation and the pleasure of writing. Or, during history lessons they are confronted with theoretical, social and political thoughts and are expected to provide all kinds of results from their own research instead of being introduced to the life of people in bygone days by using exciting, descriptive stories. And they are supposed to interpret statistical tables in Geography, or explain natural phenomena that occur globally, instead of making the acquaintance of the variety of landscapes and the people who live there – through pictures, travellers’ accounts, or if possible, by going to these places. In Biology pupils are often confronted with molecular biology, genetics and systematics at an age when they should really be looking at a flower, be finding out which are the most common plants, or observing an animal and learning how to treat it. We once experienced how children were given a reading book, which was intended to explain Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to them.  This was expected of pupils who had not the slightest basic knowledge of the laws of physics, who, for example did not even know the lever law, the laws of falling bodies or energy equation. This book fortunately disappeared from the market.

 

The development of powers and talents

As explained in the previous chapter, the nature of man takes absolute precedence over art, that is, over what a young person is approached with from the outside. This decision is based, amongst other things, on the conviction that the ideal we strive for in education, that is humanity, lies so to speak, as an embryo that is yet to be developed in the nature of the person himself. This distinguishes Pestalozzi from those theorists who consider man allegorically as tabula rasa at his birth, believe him to be totally empty of ideas and therefore think it possible to make out of a person whatever springs to mind. According to Pestalozzi education should not put anything into a person, but rather develop something out of him, to be precise, humanity. The natural prerequisite for this is that everyone is endowed with powers and talents that are lying dormant at birth. Hence the fundamental task of teaching and education is the development of powers and talents.

When Pestalozzi speaks – as he often does – about the ‘development of powers and talents’, I must add that the individual genetic make-up, that may be the reason for greatly varying aptitudes, is not foremost in his mind; by ‘powers and talents’ he means primarily ‘the general human possibilities’ that permit the individual awareness of truth, reasonable judgement, love that comes from the heart, religious belief, the active handling of all his affairs and much more besides  – in fact, humanity. But these powers exist in every individual in a somewhat different form and for this reason everybody should achieve the goal, humanity, in his own way.

 

The principle of independence

Now the question arises, by which means can human power be developed. Pestalozzi’s answer is simple and universally proven in practice: powers develop only through use. Only when a child is in some way active himself – whether this is outwardly visible or remains hidden inwardly – that is, when his power is used and is active, is learning taking place. Pestalozzi formulates this thought as the Principle of Independence. Power that is not stimulated and used, withers.

For the practising teacher this means that at every moment of his teaching profession he must ask himself: “Has power been activated in the child and is the very power I want to develop really active?” If the answer is no, his lesson has neither sense nor purpose. One of the most important abilities a teacher must possess is to structure his lessons and to behave in such a way that powers are activated in all his pupils. 

At this point I would like to mention a differentiation that is of great importance to Pestalozzi: knowledge and ability. It is clear to him: a person who knows a lot but lacks ability is unsuitable for life, is a misshapen person. Knowledge alone does not help a person, even if he fills his whole head with it. What is really effective in life is ability. Mere knowledge can quickly be forgotten whilst a developed ability continually proves itself helpful and useful. For this reason Pestalozzi clearly focuses attention on ability, and knowledge has to be at the service of ability. By no means should school simply fill the heads of young people with a large amount of undigested knowledge, but must always aim for ability, for the command of skills in all its activities.

This can easily be demonstrated by an example of grammar in the field of language acquisition. It is quite possible that a pupil knows all the rules of grammar that apply within a language and yet still cannot formulate fluently and correctly, cannot express himself verbally and has a very limited vocabulary. He is in fact lacking everything that is important in life, that is, to have a good spoken and written command of the language. None will be interested in his extensive knowledge of the language. On the other hand, it is possible that somebody has a very good command of a language but knows only the most important rules of grammar. Perhaps he will discover one day that to broaden his knowledge of grammar might improve his language ability, and then this acquisition of knowledge is in the correct relationship to the ability: it is serving the ability.

What has been demonstrated in the field of language applies to all subjects. It becomes most obvious in the areas of physical and craft skills. To know how to knit, how to use a plane, how to deal with a ball and so forth is perhaps interesting but is only of use to a person when he is actually able to do all this, and as we all know, this can only be achieved through doing, through practice – in fact, precisely through the use of powers.

And so, a teacher carrying out his profession according to Pestalozzi’s views will repeatedly ask himself: have I merely passed on knowledge that will soon be forgotten, or have the pupils improved their ability? For example, in Mathematics, do they now know how to carry out a division or can they now do it and, can they do it better than before? Or, in Geometry, do they now simply know that in a right-angled triangle the area of the square over the hypotenuse equals the sum of the areas of the squares over the other two sides, or can they prove it and put it to use in everyday life, e.g. when they need to construct an exact right angle using a long piece of string? Or in Physics, do they only know the formula of the law of falling bodies by heart, or can they use it to describe the fall of a stone mathematically? Or do they know that on a lever the ratio between load arm and force arm corresponds to the ratio between load and force, or can they apply this to a wheelbarrow? Or in Geography, do they merely know how to illustrate the ground relief on a map or can they actually imagine the landscape on the basis of a map and describe it? Or, quite simply: do they know how clear legible handwriting looks or are they really able to write neatly, quickly and legibly? The number of examples could easily be multiplied.

Naturally the simple question arises: how does real ability come about? – and the answer is just as simple: solely through persistent practice, which means through fresh repetition that is varied and imaginative, until proficiency (the ability) is acquired. The success of a lesson depends – viewed as a whole – on two didactic measures: on the one hand material must be gone through in a manner that makes it clear for the children and is deliberately experience-oriented; on the other hand all skills must be persistently practised in a way that is suitable for children. (Both will be dealt with later.) Anyone who neglects these two mainstays of good school management will fall short of what could really be achieved in school.

In Switzerland and in other European countries we can perceive pedagogic tendencies that seem to demand hardly any work performance from a child. Many find it inappropriate for a child to have to exert itself or dwell on a topic for any length of time. This is not at all in line with Pestalozzi’s thinking, as he was convinced that real education comes about only when a child is active himself. But this means nothing more than performance. Only if a child accomplishes something does it move forward. But Pestalozzi opposed the idea of getting work performance from the pupils by false means, by prodding their ambitiousness or through intimidation. He disliked the system of school marks that was in its infancy in Pestalozzi’s time and is now the standard system throughout the world. The documents that have been preserved from Burgdorf and Yverdon show that Pestalozzi’s pupils were able to produce very good results at school without using a system of marks at all.

At this point I would like to say a little about the experiences I had in my capacity as teacher trainer, or to be more precise, about how the practising teacher notices that the pupils’ powers and talents are active. I visited many school classes where it was always plain to see: if the pupils lacked concentration, were fooling around with their neighbours, working carelessly and fast in order to finish quickly, there was no development of powers as defined by Pestalozzi. If young energies are really active, we see a completely different picture: then everyone concentrates on his work, a calm atmosphere prevails, if anyone speaks at all then only about the subject and task in hand, nor do the children wish to be disturbed or distracted from their work (not even by the teacher), and should the teacher leave the room for any reason, this does not result in chaos and there is no more noise in the room than before, and the children work as if this were nothing unusual. I have often observed that the children's cheeks turn red and their eyes sparkle and that they find it a nuisance when the bell rings and they have to interrupt their work. 

Many a teacher will ask himself: how do I manage to get my pupils to work in this encouraging way? The first reply is of course: by observing all the principles that Pestalozzi recognized and formulated, which means, by arranging lessons that correspond to the emotional state and the emotional needs of the children concerned. This applies at all times. But at this point an answer must be given to the question, which educational measures and which behaviour patterns on the part of the teacher make this success possible. There is no doubt: such an atmosphere of learning can never be achieved by pressure, threats and punishment. The most suitable means to get the child to exert itself and thus use and develop its faculties are, first of all, the example, love of the child, acceptance of his individuality, encouragement as well as interest in his task. I will come back to this point again later.

One should not believe that it is particularly difficult to motivate pupils to such heartening learning behaviour. The reason is that children, by nature, want to learn. This was also Pestalozzi’s observation and the reason why he always emphasized:  a child wants to be active of his own accord, his energies urge to be developed. He writes in ‘Swan Song’, his last great work (1825): “Man is also driven by the nature of each of these powers within himself, to use them. The eye wants to see, they ear wants to hear, the foot wants to walk and the hand wants to seize. But in the same way, the heart wants to believe and love. The mind wants to think. In every gift of human nature lies an urge to rise from the state of inactivity and lack of dexterity to that of a trained force which, if left untrained, lies within us like a seed of strength and not as strength itself” (PSW 28, S. 61). Pestalozzi also describes this urge to unfold that lies in every natural talent as ‘the power of aspiration’.

Anyone who lives or works with children and observes them closely can see the effect of this power of aspiration for himself day by day. (At this very moment, as I am writing, my nine-year old granddaughter has come to me and takes great pleasure and pride in telling me which articles she can name in English. This is the result of her grandmother giving her her first English lesson whilst carrying out her household chores, and all purely for fun). For the teacher and educator it is therefore a matter of supporting this urge for development of the driving powers, or expressed more vividly: of holding out one’s hand to them. (This is what my wife did with my granddaughter. She sensed that she was ready for such a task and so her suggestion to learn English with her fell on fertile ground. My wife, incidentally, behaved exactly as Pestalozzi would have expected mothers and fathers to behave: that is, since they know their children and are in close contact with them, they use every opportunity arising from normal everyday situations to develop powers within their children. The power which came to the fore in my granddaughter is described by Pestalozzi as language power.)

The results in all our schools would be far better than they actually are if our teachers would, in the first place, pick up and develop those activities that pupils themselves want to carry out. This would naturally lead to a change in the belief that all pupils always have to be doing the same thing and must achieve the same objectives at the same time. Nevertheless all fundamental targets would certainly be reached (reading, writing, arithmetic and so forth) because the pupils encourage and support each other and let themselves be easily stimulated by the teacher when they are working in an atmosphere where they feel that their keenness is taken seriously. 

A schoolroom where teaching takes place according to Pestalozzi’s doctrine is therefore filled with the joy of life. The teacher does not simply talk at the pupils but develops understanding in talking to them, he listens to their ideas, he allows them to observe and research themselves, he shows an interest in their learning requirements, he encourages them to use their own imagination and creativity, and above all he allows, yes, even encourages them repeatedly not to all do the same thing, but permits each child to learn according to his own state of development. And so, if children are unwilling to learn, this shows that either the learning matter or the manner in which  something is to be learned, does not correspond to a child’s nature, or it is a question of children who have been miseducated and neglected due to extremely negative environmental circumstances.

 

Harmonious development of the three fundamental powers

Apparently we humans are equipped with very many and varied powers and aptitudes that we can employ to form our life. Pestalozzi therefore made an effort to divide these into three main groups. He does this following the arrangement of emotional life dating from antiquity into thinking, feeling and wanting (acting) and arranges the powers into three large groups. These ‘basic powers’ are the intellectual, the moral and the physical powers. A symbolic reflection of this threesome can be found in the organs: head, heart and hand.

Pestalozzi attaches to this famous division of powers into head, heart and hand the well-known demand that none of these powers should be neglected and similarly that all should be optimally developed. 

 

Primacy of education of the heart

And yet Pestalozzi does not consider all three power groups to be equal. Unquestionably valuable are, in his opinion, the powers of the heart, as only they enable a person to achieve his real goal: humanity. The powers of head and hand must certainly be developed as far as possible, but Pestalozzi is convinced that they contribute towards the salvation of a person only when they are penetrated by the acquired powers of the heart, which means: when they serve the heart. Thus, a person may be very intelligent or possess physical skills – but if he does not combine his intelligence and skills with his love and his desire for goodness, he will become a monster who will bring unhappiness to himself and his fellow men.

The call for harmonious education, that is, for training of all three groups of power, is fundamental for a teacher who intends to teach in the spirit of Pestalozzi. Certainly it is not possible to always address all three groups all the time, for in certain subjects (for example, in Mathematics) the focus is on the head and in other subjects (for example, in Arts and Crafts or in Gymnastics) it is on the hand. But in every case it is possible to activate the powers of the heart at the same time. Whoever has his mind on his work with joy and enthusiasm, but at the same time exercises consideration towards his fellow pupils, is always employing his heart. That is why one rule for Pestalozzian teachers is: the heart must be in everything! For only when all concerned – teachers and pupils – put their heart into teaching and learning can real education of people in the spirit of Pestalozzi take place.

In the German language, education of the heart is often described as ‘Gemütsbildung’ (‘education of the soul’). The word ‘Gemüt’ is difficult to render into other languages. It is usually translated by the term ‘emotion’ (English and French). But not every emotion is part of our ‘soul’. Rage, anger, hate, boredom, reluctance, pain, dejection – these are also emotions but they are not the essential part of what we understand by ‘Gemüt’. Not until the powers of emotion have united with moral and aesthetic values inside a person can we speak of ‘Gemüt’. For this reason Pestalozzi calls for the ‘ennoblement’ of emotions. A sensitive person does not really posses soul until the ‘moral feelings’, such as sympathy, love, joy, thankfulness are the supporting elements in his emotions. A soulful person is therefore always a good person. There is always something going on in his mind. He is tactful, sensitive and has a wealth of experience. He has a feeling for all things that are fine and beautiful. He loves the truth implicitly and so he never spurns clarity of thought. He is a person of true reason and does not mistake reason for cold intellect. His religiousness is a matter dear to his heart, which is why he prefers to avoid theological bigotry. 

The significance of this at school is that in everything undertaken towards learning, the children's souls must be appealed to and stirred. This begins with the children repeatedly being made to really marvel. The soul is also apparent when a person can feel awe in the face of what is truly great and magnificent. Pestalozzi emphasizes repeatedly that children should also anticipate and learn to love the Creator in this awe. Then they should be able to experience all their doings as actions carried out with pleasure. Pleasure develops particularly when children really feel their own strength and achieve the goals they aim for. But this is only possible if they feel themselves accepted and loved by the teacher and their fellow pupils. In everything they do beauty should always be expressed and felt by them. For this reason it is important that children, do not only, for example, write, but write neatly. This soulful learning, in which awe, pleasure, friendship and beauty are united, is then capable of awakening love for the cause in the child, and from this grows love for the world. If the powers of head and hand are bonded with the powers of the heart and are subordinated to them, then every one of the child’s activities will become a loving and graceful act.

For school teaching, the endeavour to educate all powers in harmony and to give the powers of the heart priority has far-reaching consequences. Every time we manage to come up to this Pestalozzian ideal, the result in the lesson is what is aptly described as ‘experiencing’ or ‘experience’. If this is achieved, learning takes place out of interest and one ceases to strive for a good mark and devotes oneself totally to the task, with head, heart and hand. The way to results is no longer perceived as tiresome but is, on the contrary, exciting and fulfilling. The pupils work hard and are committed, and most of the conflicts such as always occur between pupils and pupils or between teacher and pupils and disturb lessons that do not conform to nature, are avoided.

 

Laws of development

One may ask oneself why Pestalozzi separates the powers of man into the three main groups – head, heart and hand, in the first place. He does so because he has realized that these three elementary powers unfold each according to its own laws. From this emerges the task of every teacher and educator, to trace these varying inherent laws and base the development of powers on them.

 

The stages of moral development

Firstly Pestalozzi investigated and described the law of moral development. It is essential that one does not begin moral and religious education with the usual moral preaching. The foundation for education of the heart must namely be laid at an age at which the child does not yet have the possibility to grasp moral teaching. 

Moral elementary education, according to Pestalozzi, takes its course in three stages. The first stage is the awakening of a moral state of mind. This happens when a mother satisfies the physical needs of a child and creates a bond of love with the child's heart. At the same time the basic moral feelings of love, trust and belief as well as thankfulness develop. The predisposition towards these feelings can nevertheless only be developed because the readiness for these feelings is existent in the child by nature. It is however decisive that they only develop naturally if these feelings are also alive in the mother.

With this, Pestalozzi has recognized and placed a focus on a process in human relations which has a significance for education and human coexistence that cannot be rated highly enough. It concerns the general understanding that moral life in another person is always only aroused and supported through the morality that is lived by his fellow beings - in particular that of the educator. In the field of the head and the hand maybe pressure, force and intimidation still promote a certain progress, although the activation of such forces is generally not desirable here either; but in the sphere of the heart all attempts to force progress in development by using pressure from outside fail. A person can never really successfully be ordered to open himself up, take pleasure in good, love his fellow men, develop trust and thankfulness, show awe in the face of what is venerable and feel and respond to the works of the Creator in his heart. In the worst case this would turn a person into a hypocrite; someone trying to make a moral impression outwardly because he is afraid.

This thought is of such importance to me that I wish to further illustrate it by drawing a comparison with the viola d’amore. This baroque stringed instrument has at least 14 strings, that is, 7 playing strings and 7 sympathetic strings (lying a little deeper). The sympathetic strings cannot be played by drawing the bow across them, and only begin to sound when the corresponding tone is produced by the playing strings. This is brought about by the Law of Resonance, and gives the instrument a unique and sweet sound. The same law can be transferred to the possibilities of the educator in the field of education of the heart: the playing strings can be symbolic of the educator’s possibilities for a moral life-style, the sympathetic strings those of the children. In the same way as a playing string has no possibility of making the sympathetic strings vibrate other than by beginning to sound itself, we teachers can only arouse spiritual powers in a child through our own inner life.

In other words: a moral life can only be developed through Resonance. Love generates love, trust creates the willingness to trust, awe demands respect, personal honesty opens mind and soul, a personal sense of responsibility prompts behaviour that is conscious of responsibility, a personal relationship with values encourages worthy action. To the same extent as the teacher has aroused a mental and spiritual life in himself and it remains alive in him, will he succeed in arousing the corresponding powers in the young people entrusted to his care. A moral life is developed solely in a bond of human relations. Pestalozzi: “Our species basically grows human only when face to face, heart to heart”. For Pestalozzi it is therefore of decisive importance for the moral development of a child that it is embedded in family life during early childhood and experiences love, trust, consideration and understanding during its formative years.  This life is in itself an education, offering the child the possibility of direct perception, which combines understanding gained through use of  the outer senses (Pestalozzi calls this ‘sense-impression which serves the development of the spiritual powers) and inner conception, which strictly speaking is perception of the heart, the ‘inner perception’. Totally in keeping with Pestalozzi’s judgement, the French author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, in his book about the Little Prince, has the fox speak the famous sentence:  “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly.” For Pestalozzi this inner perception is the fundament for education of the heart.

And so we see that it is not the things of nature that educate man during the first 15 years of life, as Rousseau assumed to be the case, nor do electronic devices, as many people today believe. Only a human being – namely one who strives for morality – is capable of educating another human being and he will only succeed if he associates himself with the minds and souls of the young people he has been entrusted with and treats them as true fellow human beings. Then the small child lives with inner perception, and his moral powers can be awakened, through resonance, to activity of his own.

For the teacher who wishes to not only transfer knowledge but also use his lessons to teach humanity, this has serious consequences: he must become aware that that his own lifestyle and his own striving for goodness are an essential prerequisite for the success of his teaching. That is why a teacher working according to Pestalozzi’s principles looks upon his own course of development, up to his goal of humanity, and the thorough preparation and execution of his lessons as tasks that are of equal importance.

And now back to Pestalozzi’s 3-stage course of development of the powers of the heart: the first phase, the awakening of a moral state of mind, is achieved at school through the teacher’s own moral life, on the basis of the Law of Resonance.

Pestalozzi considers doing good as the second phase, with obedience as its fundament. In this sense, he himself – by way of example – encouraged the children at the orphanage in Stans to share their bread with starving children in a neighbouring valley. By doing so he let them experience what affect such a deed has on those who receive the benefit, and on the other hand, how those feel who are doing good themselves. 

A teacher, who makes the effort to incorporate this perception in his lesson, is always searching for opportunities to combine school learning with moral deeds. As an example I would like to mention the teacher who carries out a large project every two years, together with his pupils, during which he creates a year calendar consisting of 26 sheets, each covering two weeks. The didactic basic fundament is the intensive analysis of a theme that is of great significance in human life and also in the pupils’ experiences, e.g. water, forest, house, traffic, crossing borders etc. Every pupil designs one of the pages, illustrating his ideas and discoveries in an attractive and original manner with drawings and a few words. Finally the weekly sheets are copied, bound to make wall calendars and sold to the public. The proceeds from the sale are then used for a project in a developing country. If, for example, the theme on the calendar was ‘water’, then the money would be used to finance the construction of a well somewhere in Africa. This way the pupils not only learn the far-reaching significance of water but also feel at all times during their involvement in the production of the calendar that with their work they are helping to relieve the suffering of people in distant Africa.

It goes without saying that not all subject matter on the curriculum can be linked to such moral deeds but anyone wishing to teach in the spirit of Pestalozzi searches constantly for opportunities to live up to these demands.

Finally, as the third phase in moral education, Pestalozzi places reflection and discussion about goodness. He is convinced that pupils are not ready to speak about moral laws until they feel goodness within themselves and have already experienced what it means to do good. 

During lessons at school there are many opportunities for discussions in the course of which the motives for people’s actions can be examined to clarify to what extent these count as ethically valuable or morally condemnable. History lessons are in the foreground. Here the pupils repeatedly come across the deeds of particularly outstanding people who have acted either very scrupulously, or in an exceptionally moral way. The same applies to reading lessons and lessons in literature. Every good story exists to show  people how they are always supposed to decide between what they recognize as good and what can harm others. After all, even coping with actual conflicts that occur in every lesson can give occasion for reflection on the essence of moral behaviour.  

 

The stages of intellectual development

Pestalozzi’s line of thought shows clearly that endeavours to achieve moral education through the teaching of morals do not conform with nature as the fundament is missing, namely inner involvement through the soul and personal experience of moral behaviour.

Pestalozzi opposed the method of school lessons practised in his life-time, not only in the field of moral power (heart) but also in the field of intellectual power (head): in those days it took pupils years of painstaking work to learn to read scripts they did not understand and they talked about things they had neither experienced personally, nor understood the nature of. Pestalozzi fought an unrelenting battle against this use of empty words. To him it was obvious: before you can read, you must be able to speak and a person can only speak genuinely if he truly thinks what he is saying. Thinking is founded on clear concepts and these again are based on the real conception of things gained through sense-impression. This is why Pestalozzi arrives at his theory, “sense-impression is the absolute fundament of all knowledge” (PSW 13, 309).

Therefore a teacher wishing to develop the powers of the head in his pupils according to nature must always ensure that real things are detected by all the senses. To do so, he seizes every opportunity to train the conscious and precise use of the sensory organs: seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting etc., i.e. he uses sense-impression as a fundament on which to build all further thinking and speaking about an object of his teaching.

Pestalozzi distinguishes between four steps of perception:

In an actual school day these four steps cannot be easily separated and for this reason the teacher must know what is important, namely:

With the acquisition of perception the foundation is laid for two of the most important human abilities which are closely connected to one another: thought and language. Yet, the highest goal of the pupil’s intellectual development is not reached with these alone, since the mature thoughts of a mature person lead to correct judgement. If thoughts are based on true perception, then the judgements based on these thoughts are born out of real expert knowledge and are not merely a repetition of the undigested ideas of other people. In other words: in a form of education based on sense-impression and conception, the young person finds his path to perception and truth. Therefore, a life spent in truth is the ultimate goal of intellectual education.

Naturally, such a development requires time. Judgement is therefore not appropriate for little children to make but is something that does not mature until later. Pestalozzi states quite clearly: “I believe that the time of learning is not the right time for judgement; the time of judgement begins when learning has been completed, it begins with the maturing of opinions, for the sake of which one judges and is allowed to judge; and I believe that every judgement should be an inner truth of the person expressing it, must come from a comprehensive knowledge of these opinions, as mature and complete as a ripened seed falls out of its shell, perfect, free, without force, by itself”. And at this point he emphasizes that he “is not at all in favour of making the premature judgement of a child on any subject appear mature, but favours withholding such judgement as long as possible until the child has considered the subject on which they are to express an opinion from all angles and in all circumstances, and is completely familiar with the words used to describe the object and its characteristics”.

 I would like to illustrate with one of my own experiences what it can mean to learn before one judges: for almost twenty years I attempted to develop a feeling and appreciation for classical music in student teachers in their first year (16-year old boys). Within the framework of a special pedagogical project, all lessons in German, History, Religion and Didactics were assigned to me and these were scheduled to take place on one weekday so that once a week I was able to work with the pupils for a whole day from 7 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon without the necessity to keep to a specified time for each lesson. In the spirit of comprehensive education according to Pestalozzi’s principles, I linked discussion on works of art of all kinds (literary works, music, pictures etc.) to issues from German, History and Religion lessons. When listening to pieces of classical music it was above all important to me that students laid aside their prejudices and became involved with the sounds which were unknown to most of them but are in fact an essential part of Western culture. It often seems to me as if fast judgement, which results in pushing aside anything new instead of openly listening and allowing something to perhaps meet with one’s own approval, is virtually self-taught. Once, during the first hour of lessons (which was practically the first experience of learning for the new students at the Institute of Teacher Training) I put the aria from Bach’s Goldberg Variations, performed by Glenn Gould, onto the turntable and asked the pupils to express their opinion on what they heard. Their statements were unanimously negative: “The person playing is obviously a beginner, this is probably a recording made after the first few piano lessons.” – “No, it is not really badly played, but here and there it ought to be a little louder and a bit faster.” – “The piece hasn’t enough class, no tact.” – “The piece ought to be played on the violin, then it wouldn’t sound bad.” – “The piece is too long.” – “Why isn’t anyone singing?” – “To be brief: this composer isn’t up to much.” After this comment I could not help shocking the students a little by telling them: “What are you talking about? This is a composition by one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived and the pianist is one of the most significant artists of our century. It is not a matter of your passing judgement, but far more of listening carefully to what is happening and paying attention to what is happening inside you. Nor is it a question of whether you like the composition, but of to what extent  you are all able to get something out of it and at the most, understand it.” Then I played the piece once more, and lo and behold: the students’ comments related to what they had actually heard or were reports of what had been going on inside them while they had been listening.

From this experience I picked up the thread of Pestalozzi’s way of thinking, that before any judgement takes place one must know all the facts if one does not want to get bogged down in nothing but prejudices. One can really learn only when one is prepared in principle to refrain from passing judgement until one has taken very thorough note of the facts. This basic attitude of a learning person can best be described as openness. ‘Education’ always means some form of change in a person and a person can only change if he is open to new things. Anyone who insists on staying the same person he has always been is not educable. So, education is always a risk, a jump into the untested, the uncertain. The mind and soul of the learner must be prepared and willing to accept new things. 

The incident I have described gave me the opportunity to speak to the students about the attitude of openness, and I was pleased to hear that it quickly became clear to them which demands must be made if education is to come about. This attitude of openness could be formulated more or less in this way: “I see the danger and recognize it as an obstacle to learning if I am always sceptical about and have a defensive attitude towards new content, as this causes me to pass judgement not founded on expert knowledge. For this reason I am prepared to drop all prejudices and accept what I have to tackle with composure and allow myself to take it in. To what degree this new thing suits me and in which way I can and must find a place for it amongst what is already inside me, will gradually prove itself through an honest attempt to come to terms with its content.”

For us teachers the question now naturally arises, how can we succeed in achieving this open attitude in a pupil? Speaking from experience I can say: it is possible only through genuine authority that is synonymous with credibility. If at that time I had not sensed that I was generally accepted by the class and therefore that my words could count, I would surely have achieved the opposite of what I intended by cutting in on the discussion so resolutely. Letting oneself in for something new is in any event a risk and the trust generated by genuine authority encourages the pupils to be venturesome.

 

The development of craft skills

Let us now turn to the laws at work in the development of the physical forces, of the ‘hand’. As previously mentioned Pestalozzi uses very differing expressions to describe what he understands by ‘hand’. We read, for instance, when he means education of the hand, of ‘education of the physical powers’, of ‘education of the body’, of ‘art education’, of ‘craft education', of ‘vocational education’, of ‘education of domestic powers’ or of ‘education of the work powers’. The development of the hand is therefore concerned with the development of general physical strength and dexterity, also with training quite specific physical abilities as well as learning certain jobs and finally acquiring a kind of ability that he often describes as ‘art’.

From Pestalozzi’s point of view, the following principles must be observed during development of the ‘hand’:

That this principle is still recognized by sports specialists even today is seen (for example) when javelin thrower does not only train by throwing and running but is active in many other disciplines in order to achieve as great a success as possible.

Yet, it is my personal opinion that this particular principle of Pestalozzi should not be applied too one-sidedly. If, for example, a child learns to ride, it is not only acquiring the specific technique of horse-riding but its whole body grows physically stronger and the child becomes more agile and dextrous. Pestalozzi’s concern can be better understand if, during the acquisition of a specific skill, one always contemplates the whole and compensates one-sidedness with other activities.

With regard to the acquisition of a specific skill, of a clearly outlined ability, Pestalozzi has provided a course of development in four stages:

Having said that, we should remember that this sequence of stages is in fact a logical sequence that permits many practical variations. In practice these stages are linked and often overlap in manifold ways; particular if a child’s creativity makes itself noticeable at an early age. It is then up to the educator’s skill to take up the pupil’s creative impulses and reconcile them with the technical requirements for the ability to be passed on as far and as meaningfully as possible.

If we are talking about the development of craft skills as defined by Pestalozzi, we should not overlook the fact that his main concern in this matter is always to qualify young people for work for the purpose of earning their own living. For example, in accordance with Pestalozzi’s ideas the girls in Switzerland learned the basic techniques like sewing, mending and knitting until well into the second half of the 20th century at a special school that was called ‘Work School’. And at ‘Housekeeping School’ they not only learnt how to cook, but also everything that was needed to run a household. These schools were set up in the 19th century owing to demands made in those days on future mothers and housewives. Similarly, the boys learned woodwork and the basic techniques of carpentry. This meant that they were capable of making simple pieces of furniture themselves. There was also the opportunity to learn how to look after a vegetable garden at school. 

Prosperity in general and increasing industrialization have now led to a situation in our country where these tasks are no longer necessary. Clothes and other consumer goods are almost never repaired or self-made now and many things that used to be produced by hand with a great deal of effort are now machine-made. For this reason it is hardly an economic necessity to teach children the old work techniques.  The Work Schools were done away with, lessons in housekeeping reduced, and in particular the acquisition of craft techniques for boys and girls standardized.

What remains is a subject known as ‘Arts & Crafts’. It is not easy for the teacher to motivate the pupils to learn a technique for which there is no necessity in adult life. To use an example – it is possible to get through life nowadays without being able to knit or use a plane. That is why, when boys and girls learn these things in Arts & Crafts today, they are actually learning only the principle and attain only the most basic skills. There is not sufficient time for real thoroughness as so many other techniques are waiting to be learned.  

And so the former Work School, that used to be a real fundament for work, has turned into the subject ‘Arts & Crafts’ where useless things are generally made. One of the main aims of this subject is the development of creativity, which, strictly speaking, is something positive, but the development of craft skills comes off worse because in fact not a single technique is acquired in sufficient detail.   

However, all this is not in accordance with Pestalozzi’s principles, as he wants to train the child for work through the teaching of crafts. He looks on the necessities arising from the organization of a serious task and those the worker will subsequently have to submit to in the interests of success, as more or less healthy pressure to exert all one’s energies, which means that consequently these would then all be developed in a natural and harmonious way. Now the question arises, what should a teacher do if he wishes to develop the craft skills according to Pestalozzi’s teaching?

I see two possibilities: on the one hand, in poorer countries there are fortunately still plenty of tasks requiring craft skills which can help one to earn a living if one has mastered them. It is therefore advisable to incorporate precisely these tasks in the curriculum and to develop the craft powers of the children while they learn them. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why such skills should not be included in the curriculum that, for example, enable the pupils to make good use of their leisure time. But in this case it is important that one concentrates on a small number of abilities, at the same time practising these thoroughly so that a certain mastery can be achieved and so that the pupils reach a point where they can also apply the ability with joy, and of their own free will.

 

The principle of nearness

In the development of the intellectual and also of the moral powers, it was illustrated that in any event sense-impression must count as the fundament of education, i.e. the real experience of objects or circumstances that are accessible to the child’s senses. Pestalozzi now also asks himself which objects and contents should therefore be placed before the children’s conception. In the reply to this question he again bases his theory on nature i.e. on natural perception, and realizes – what there is really no doubt about – that we can all understand objects with our senses better, the closer they are to our sense organs. The distance is in any case of decisive importance for the quality of sensory activity. This fact makes every person the centre of his own world. From this Pestalozzi concludes that the training of all powers and talents must begin with the help of all objects, facts and living conditions that can be found in the child’s vicinity. Pestalozzi is convinced that basically every environment is suited to awaken and stimulate sensory activity, sense-impression, conception, perception, thought and judgement in a child, but at the same time to challenge its physical and moral powers. Nevertheless, it is the task of the educators - parents and teachers - to consciously make use of the actual environment where the child is living towards its physical, intellectual and moral development. If this happens, then this education in the close vicinity will finally lead the young person to such a close connection with his own world that he feels responsible for it and will be able to prove himself by coping with the tasks waiting for him there.

In order to be able to better understand this thought of Pestalozzi’s it helps to make clear to ourselves the difference between formal education and material education:

According to Pestalozzi, the claim to formal education is at all times and in all geographic locations the same: in the field of intellectual development it is always a matter of the development of intellectual capacity, the power of imagination, of the memory, the power of judgement and the fluency of speech. In the field of moral development the concern is always the development of the essential powers of the heart, and in the field of physical development the goal is always the development of physical strength, skill and dexterity.

But the material part of education – the specific knowledge and skills – is subject to social change and therefore different from place to place, and also from period to period.  

With Pestalozzi’s demand for education to take place in the close vicinity it is therefore possible to achieve both: the human powers and talents can be developed equally in all people according to invariant laws, but this happens with the aid of concrete objects which lead to sense-impression and living conditions that are fitting for the individual. Or, in other words: what is unique, what is unmistakeable in the individual’s situation in life becomes means by which to develop what is common and equal in all people. Or, in other words: material education serves formal education.

A teacher who has understood this association teaches very differently from one who is not familiar with Pestalozzi’s concern. One recognizes immediately whether a teacher is striving simply to achieve the goal set out in the curriculum and is content if, for example, certain knowledge is learnt by heart, or whether he is aware at every moment  that the material the pupils are  working on always serves the purpose of developing human nature. In this case not only the measurable result of learning is important; more important for the teacher the way in which this was achieved. He takes the questions seriously that are asked by the pupils during work on a subject and responds to them with intuitive understanding. Above all he pays attention to thoroughness, clarity of thought, mutual consideration, aesthetic development. He seizes every opportunity to deal with the material in such a way that the basic powers are active in the sense of general education. If this happens, then he is not disheartened when he discovers that the pupils again gradually forget all the concrete knowledge that they have previously acquired. The powers that were developed during the acquisition of knowledge remain developed and stand strengthened, available for other tasks. This association is expressed perfectly in a saying, namely:

Education is what remains when everything has been forgotten.

Naturally, Pestalozzi is not of the opinion that education is complete with an analysis of the close vicinity. But the individual world in which every person lives must be the starting point of his education and remain so for a long time so that the widening of his horizon has a firm foundation.

In certain West European countries in recent decades an education reform has taken place aimed at doing away with the small village school and taking the children by bus to larger school centres where there are up to 4,000 pupils. The intention behind this was to make an equal and equally sound education possible for all pupils. From the perspective of Pestalozzi’s teaching this tendency is a mistake as a young person is uprooted in this way and education in the close vicinity made impossible. In addition, in such large schools it is no longer possible to respond to the needs of the individual child and to understand him in his individuality, as Pestalozzi demands. With these reforms one was apparently striving for the ideal of equality, but one failed to recognize that equality for all does not necessarily lie in the actual material that is dealt with, but in the harmonious development of all human powers and talents. Yet, that human nature always knows how to claim its due can be seen in the fact that in some countries small village schools are in some cases now being introduced again.

 

The principle of completeness

As illustrated, the three basic powers develop according to their own laws. That should however not conceal the fact that besides these there are also other laws which apply equally in all three areas. I have already mentioned education in the child’s close surroundings, a demand that applies for the development of all the basic powers (head, heart, hand).

The principle of completeness also applies in all three areas. With the call for completeness in education, Pestalozzi expresses his conviction that education is only in accordance with nature in as far as everything new follows on from the previous fundament in a convincing manner. For this Pestalozzi uses the picture of a tree: the trunk rises up from the root, the branches grow from the trunk, the twigs shoot from the branches and from them the leaves, blossom and fruit. Similarly the entire educational assets of a person ought to form an organism that is self-contained but outwardly open. One should connect organically to the other. In the same way as a young tree is always a whole and never half a tree, a young person must always be complete in every phase of his development and not half a person first. And as nature itself does not jump around, in the same way gaps in human education should not arise. Every new experience, all new knowledge, every new ability should connect organically to what the child has already realized and understood.

I illustrate this thought using an example in which there was a serious violation of the principle of completeness: in July 1969 (during the pupils’ summer holidays) American astronauts landed on the moon. Some of my pupils had watched this landing on television and on the first day back at school after the holiday, they enthusiastically talked about this overwhelming event. Conrad, a second-year pupil, told how the astronauts climbed out of their spaceship, performed strange jumps and left their footprints in the dusty lunar landscape. In one of the next lessons (subject: General Knowledge) I chose the moon as topic and let the pupils tell what they knew about the moon and how they imagined it to be. When I asked Conrad how large he thought the moon was, he used his hands to show how he imagined the moon to be the size of a football. When I asked how far away from us it could be, he mentioned a stretch to a farm that was situated about 1 km away. His answers corresponded to the ideas often found in children of kindergarten age, so Conrad was slightly retarded in his development. And now he was watching man’s moon landing on television. What he saw and what he talked about in class had nothing whatsoever to do with each other , i.e. he was unable to bring the new experience into line with the way he imagined the moon. Two realities in his experience were side by side but not connected.

To make Pestalozzi’s concern with a complete education comprehensible, it will help if we take a brief look at Denkpsychologie (Cognition Psychology). This can prove that ideas only make appropriate thought and language possible if they do not lie waiting inside us, side by side without any systematic arrangement, but are woven together in a sensible manner to form a close weave. This network reflects any relationships, contrasts, interdependence, or logical connections of those contents that are contained in the respective idea. Things which essentially belong together in any way are also linked and grouped in a corresponding manner in our consciousness. A group of concepts whose concepts are meaningfully connected is described as a cognitive structure. When Pestalozzi calls for completeness in education, - he means – expressed in modern terms – that the teacher must strive for a proper composition of cognitive structures in the pupils’ awareness.

What is now the practical significance of this for school teaching? This can be most easily illustrated in the field of mathematics. Anyone without a well-founded command of figures will fail at every stage of arithmetic. Anyone who has not grasped addition will never understand multiplication. Anyone who does not know how to raise a number to a higher power will not be able to extract the root of a number. These are, of course, very crass examples. But an attentive teacher sees such associations in every mathematics lesson and goes to great pains to make sure that mathematical ability stands on a firm basis in the same way as someone building a house makes sure that the foundations are firm and only adds an upper floor when he is certain that those below can support it. There are possibly worldwide not only hundreds of thousands but millions of pupils who only fail in the upper classes in mathematics because they did not understand certain associations and did not acquire certain skills while in a lower class. Many of them can still hear the notorious words of the teacher: “I can’t wait for you, I have to teach a whole class and must move on.”

Of course, completeness demands attention not only in mathematics but in every single subject. The motto is: from easy to difficult, from near to far, from concrete (sense-impression) to abstract (conception, perception and thought).

It is particularly difficult to honour the demand for completeness when teaching history as no historical occurrence can really be understood if the previous situation is unknown. For this reason systematic history teaching begins in many schools with prehistory, with the result that the pupils – for lack of time – have hardly heard anything about more recent history by the end of school. In history lessons it is therefore almost inevitable that certain eras are treated very summarily and only those facts are presented that are essential in order to understand later epochs.

Precisely this problematic aspect of teaching history shows that Pestalozzi’s claim for completeness could be totally misunderstood: namely as a demand to structure complete knowledge in all subjects. This is not only impossible to achieve but is also not desirable. Nobody would oppose a senseless accumulation of knowledge more vehemently than Pestalozzi. The principle of completeness is not concerned with the volume of material but far more with the fundamental observation of the steps to be taken as described here, and the fundamental methodical demand that, if real education is to take place, it is essential to step from what is easy to what is difficult, from simple to complicated, from near to far, from concrete to abstract and from development of the powers to use of the powers. This all requires that the teacher allows the child time to dwell on every step of development, that the child can learn at leisure. Nothing is more harmful than to want to achieve a lot within a short time. Pestalozzi clearly recognized that this is what brings about voids, causing knowledge and ability to remain superficial.

 

Individualization

When we look back on the laws governing the development of the three basic powers, it becomes clear in all three areas that education can only be successful when there is interplay between what the child is endowed with (powers and talents), and the influence of the teacher. In the moral field it is above all the moral life of the teacher himself, in the intellectual field it is mainly his verbal guidance and in the field of craft it is his demonstration by way of example and the knowledge of certain techniques used by the educator that come to meet the powers of the child that strive for development. 

Now, for the teacher there is not only the child itself, but always the very particular child that differs from the other children in some ways.  Although the ultimate goal of education is the same for everyone – namely the education of human nature -, in real life this is different again in every person. Therefore the teacher should not merely grasp the essential of everyone being human, but must also always recognize every child in his unmistakeable distinctiveness and must support him accordingly, i.e. he must be able and prepared to respond to the child’s individuality. Accordingly, Pestalozzi demands, “that in the person who has been given a great deal, a great deal must also be awakened, and in the person who was endowed with little, less must be aroused” (PSW 6, 490). Consequently he then refuses to compare a child with another child. No child should compete against another in his endeavour for development, but should always match only his own possibilities. The teacher should recognize the fact that the gifts of nature are not equally spread and therefore it is the duty of everyone to fully utilize his talents according to his possibilities and in doing so, place them at the service of the community. 

It is quite obvious that two characteristics of modern education contradict these principles: firstly the claim that all children born in the same year have to reach the same targets, and secondly the measurement of efficiency using a system of marks which forces a comparison of the pupils with others, which moreover brands the weaker pupils as permanent losers and lastly which nurtures in high achievers the illusion that they can sit back and take things easy as soon as they have fulfilled the demands for an average performance. Here the question naturally arises for a teacher wishing to teach in the spirit of Pestalozzi, how to deal with both these given circumstances.

A far as the marking system is concerned, the regulations differ from country to country and so it is a matter of making the best possible use of the scope permitted. A good possibility is to determine the marks in a talk between teacher and pupil and at the same time consider the true ability and knowledge and not to simply calculate the average of a few achievement tests. Private schools are naturally at an advantage as they can replace the common system of grading with something that suits all pupils and does not distort the motivation to learn, as happens with the traditional marking system. Various forms of self-assessment have proved successful and need to be learned systematically. With regard to the second point it is a matter of undermining the dictates of the standardized curriculum. This happens in two directions: firstly weaker pupils should always be given tasks they can willingly cope with. It is not natural, in fact it is inhuman, to impose unreasonable demands on a child who cannot possibly manage a task, merely because this is set down in a syllabus or textbook. Respect for the child should in every case be bigger than respect for a regulation that cannot be fulfilled whichever way you look at it.

It is far easier to ensure that high achievers are challenged and supported in keeping with their talents. There is no subject matter for which it is not possible to set tasks that extend and expand on the matter. Naturally, schools with a library well stocked with specialist books or with Internet connection have an advantage in this respect.

There is no question about it: both forms of consideration towards the individualities of the pupils demand greater involvement on the part of the teacher. But he is rewarded for this by the pleasant atmosphere in the classroom and by pupils who are eager to learn. All in all, it is a matter of planning individualized tuition. Didactically this is implemented by what is known as inner differentiation, which means:

 
 2. Demands on the teacher

Anyone familiar with the problems of teaching at school will inevitably realize that when all is said and done, the quality of education depends very centrally on the teacher himself. This fact is very disillusioning and one that irritates many educational researchers and politicians. Efforts are made to solve this problem, in order to ensure successful education, by, on the one hand, giving the administration responsible for the preparation of teaching aids and dictating methods the clearest possible guidelines for educational goals and, on the other hand by the execution of increasingly strict controls on the teachers. It cannot be denied that somewhat limited success is achieved; however a fundamental increase in the quality of education is not possible using these measures. A classroom atmosphere that is really conducive to learning calls for a teacher who himself feels really free from constraint and is able to determine and carry personal responsibility for everything that happens in the classroom. Only unconstrained people can kindle the spirit that enables true education, and only unconstrained people are in a position to respond to the individualities of the respective pupils in the necessary manner and deal with the requirements of the moment.

And so one cannot help but realize that not all people are suited to carry out the teaching profession. It seems that in European countries educational policy is united in the opinion that, assuming a minimum average intelligence, the qualifications necessary to carry out the teaching profession can be imparted to every person during a course of education at a an advanced technical college. I do not share this opinion. To my mind, the essential qualities a teacher must possess and which qualify him to use his freedom with a sense of responsibility cannot be acquired merely in the form of knowledge as is passed on at colleges today. For example, a healthy portion of idealism on the part of the teacher is required in order to be able to teach well with a long-term effect, i.e. an ethical way of thinking that definitely exceeds anything a college can convey as knowledge or a superior can demand and control in an employee’s lists of duties. In addition, there are undoubtedly certain character traits whose existence either favour or hinder professional success. Accordingly, the educational administration of a country would do well to exert the same amount of care in the selection of teachers as it does in the preparation of programmes for education.

In this chapter I attempt to describe those requirements a teacher must meet in order to enable him to teach as well as possible in the spirit of Pestalozzi. At the same time I am well aware that nobody can fulfil these requirements to the full extent. It is quite possible that someone is a good teacher even though weaknesses in one or more of the sections mentioned are easily recognizable. It is vital that a person is aware of the demands and never ceases to strive to improve the requirements mentioned.   

 

Love for the child

Modern educational science does not tend to make an issue of this fundament for the fruitful work of a teacher and educator. It almost seems as if love for the child is considered a natural thing in all people or otherwise insignificant for successful teaching. It is true that the implications of love for the child are raised as a demand, such as ‘responding to the child’ or having an ‘atmosphere of courtesy’, but these are behavioural patterns which can, if necessary, be practised and do not require that this mysterious Something – this very love for the child – is alive inside the teacher. Yet, in Pestalozzi's view, love as the basis for development of moral powers cannot be reduced to moral behaviour patterns. Rather, it is a given mental and spiritual circumstance that lies far beyond any actual situation, and therefore stays alive even if, for the moment, there is no interpersonal contact. Love always nurtures a sense of responsibility, empathy, the will to work and self-criticism as well as the readiness to tackle and overcome difficulties.

At the same time we must make a distinction between the two forms of love: love for children as such on the one hand, and love for a particular child on the other hand.

To prevent any misunderstanding: love for children as discussed here has nothing to do with sensuality. It is far more a matter of the teacher as a person feeling open to the very nature of children. This can be compared with the behaviour of a person who is fascinated by the blossom of a wild flower and stops to marvel and contemplate whilst others walk by without noticing. The teacher who is fond of children can be moved by the spontaneity with which life is sparked off in a child, by its imagination and creativity that always prove surprising, by the works of a mysterious power of development, indeed by the secret of life that reveals itself in every child in so many new ways. For this reason such a teacher can never be bored with children. Deep inside he feels himself to be a kindred spirit of the child’s nature and therefore always sides with the child when this nature is in danger of being suppressed by the harshness of reality.

It is precisely this love for the child that then makes the teacher an expert on children’s weaknesses and what endangers them. His love is not sentimental; it is – to use a word of Pestalozzi’s – ‘seeing’. This seeing love can distinguish between genuine childish naivety and shrewd coquetry. It knows the difference between stubbornness that always puts in an appearance when someone wants to disobey something or derive an advantage at the expense of someone else, and independence or obstinacy that are expressions of the essence of man. A loving teacher does not think of the pupils’ irritability as liveliness, nor does he see bluff, bungling and poor imitation as creativity. Neither does he mistake a cheeky manner, the craving for recognition and precociousness for self-confidence and healthy self-esteem. And finally, he does not misinterpret audacity and rude behaviour as honesty and frankness, nor the fear of becoming involved in something new as strength of character.

As previously mentioned, inside a successful teacher lives not only the love for the child in general, but also the love for each individual child will always be experienced. From this grows the teacher’s urge and ability to understand the child as an individual, i.e. as a unique personality which cannot be reproduced. Although it is essential to take an interest in the achievements of every child, the loving teacher does not stop there but wants to perceive every pupil as a person, and learn to see him as he really is. This only succeeds if one accepts and loves him as a person and takes an interest in his specific character, his living conditions, his interests and inclinations, his talents, his state of development, his thoughts and feelings, his weaknesses and difficulties. All this belongs to what Pestalozzi means by ‘seeing love’. This comprehensive perception of the child qualifies the teacher to empathize with the child, to respond to him with understanding and stand by him and support him in his difficulties instead of – as unfortunately often happens – punishing him.

In this connection there are often objections that it is impossible for a teacher to like all pupils in equal measure, since even he is subject to feelings of like and dislike. Basically this cannot be contradicted as none of us are supermen. But experience has shown that personal likes and dislikes take a back seat when we succeed in really understanding a person – just as he presents himself to us. Having said that, we must ask what needs to happen so that  understanding for a person can grow. I am convinced that honest dialogue is one of the essential requirements for this. As far as this is concerned, the art of conducting a dialogue as we are, for example, taught by Thomas Gordon (see the later chapter on Resolution of Problems), is very important for a teacher. Someone who really understands how to listen understandingly will notice that his affection will grow for the person who is opening up to him.

As a rule, love is returned. A teacher who loves his pupils will be loved by them. The younger the children, the more willing they are to try hard for the teacher’s sake. Naturally, the objective is not that the pupils learn well for the sake of the teacher; after all, they should do their best because they realize that this is right, or simply because they themselves find it rewarding and interesting to do so. But in younger children it is a very human motivation for learning if they want to win – or even better – return the love of their teacher with their diligence and efforts. At the same time acquire many good habits, develop interest in the material and a love for working conscientiously, and all this remains with them later when they no longer do things for the sake of their teacher but have their own motives for wanting to do things. 

To close this chapter on the love of the teacher for the child, I take the liberty of quoting Pestalozzi. This passage is from the last version of his novel‚ ‘Leonard and Gertrude’, where he describes the teacher, Glülphi, after the latter had become acquainted with the essence of natural teaching through the mother Gertrud: “The very next morning, the moment he entered his school he forgot his dream, the world and all the thoughts of his heart concerned with bettering the world and its peoples. He was the schoolmaster again, with body and soul, the teacher who saw only the moment before him as he stood there, a father and teacher in the midst of his children. He lived completely in this moment of present time. It was as if the past, like the dream of the future that had filled his very soul the night before, had vanished. He saw only his children again. Their existence engulfed him now in these hours of duty, as if there were no world for him outside his children. Oh, if only I were able to describe the strength he experienced as schoolmaster at this moment, as it really was! It consisted for the main part in focusing his attention increasingly on every single child, and in between I should  add: real human care is individual; the gods can look after the whole, the gods can look after the world; the care that people show for people is individual care and Christianity is the sanctification of this individual care, for it leads each person as an individual, as he stands, into the arms of his  Father and brings him  closer to the heart of his  Redeemer – Glülphi no longer saw the crowd of his children. This mass, as it stood there, was no longer apparent to him. Every child stood alone before him, and he lived completely within the child when he saw him, or even if he only thought of him,  as if there were no other besides him. But there was not a single one he did not contemplate in the same manner when he saw him or thought of him.

In his duty as schoolmaster the man had risen to the strength of a mother, to the strength with which the most noble woman, at the moment she holds her baby to her breast, no longer thinks that another child exists, and yet, now and again, when the brother runs to her with just a small pain in his finger, lays the baby aside and does not think of it again until the brother’s finger has been bandaged with motherly tenderness and the boy runs away again, thankful and happy. – And so he carried all the children of his school inside his heart. By doing this he came to know exactly, day-by-day, on which step in his lessons each one of them was standing. With every day that passed he looked deeper into the heart of each child and with every day that passed he knew more about the imagination of the thoughts of their heart...” (PSW 6, 515).

 

Familiarity with the child’s conception of life

A person who becomes involved in the way of thinking and manner of conception of children will soon notice that these differ considerably from those of adults. This fact is treated in detail in numerous publications concerned with developmental psychology, which is why, at this point I am making do with just a few observations that seem to me to be significant in a special way for practical use in school.

The younger the children, the more they live in a magical world of pictures. Very small children cannot make head or tail of the difference between ‘alive and dead’, for, strictly speaking, they see life in everything. That is why they find it quite normal to talk to objects, in the belief that they will understand them. They can easily follow the narration of fairy tales in which spells are cast and transformation of creatures and things takes place and time and space are effortlessly overcome, and the existence of mysterious magical worlds, of gnomes, elves, fairies and other marvellous creatures is accepted as perfectly natural. The understanding teacher of children of kindergarten age and those in lower grades complies with these experiences by covering this world of fairy tales and pictures in his language, drawing and arts and crafts lessons and always using carefully selected (or self-written) stories to convey fundamental moral values in illustrations by means of this symbolic world.

A child’s understanding of nature differs in a particularly impressive way from that of the adult. An adult tries as a rule to understand natural occurrences by searching for the operative causes. If an adult is asked why it is raining, he remembers about condensation of water, going back to moist air which cools off. This means: the rain is the effect, condensation the cause – the phenomenon is explained causally.