Pastor Oberlin had tried to do the same work for young children in Alsace as far back as 1767, and Madame Pastoret, Madame Millet and Monsieur Cochin were absorbed in a like effort to solve this social problem for France. Some of these preceded Froebel, while others were contemporaries and successors, but as far as we know Froebel knew nothing of them or their work on the problem which he had in hand.
It would seem from a comparison of the work done by Great Britain and France with that accomplished by Froebel, that, while they were working for the children of the poor from a philanthropic and preventive point of view, Froebel had in mind the development and education of children of all classes. There was no industrial problem to speak of in the isolated locality in which Froebel lived in Ger many. He was surrounded by simple plain folk, largely undisturbed by the changed in dustrial and social conditions which were stir ring the municipal centres of Great Britain.
There were two motives which stirred Froe bel in his experiments with these young chil dren — first, the practical one which grew out of his experiences in teaching older boys. Here he saw the effects of a poor foundation laid in early education, as well as the neglect of powers which developed before the school age. In the second place, his interest in the educa tion of women and young children was greatly stimulated by his contact with the Romantic and Idealistic philosophy which was influencing thought and action so profoundly at this pe riod. Romanticism particularly, with its em phasis on feeling, intuition and the study of nature, brought a new sentiment toward both women and children—a sentiment which easily slipped into sentimentality. In his early educational experiments Froebel was distinctly under the influence of Romanticism, but later he came into touch with the Idealistic move ment — the kindergarten being the most noted attempt to apply the ideals and principles of this philosophy in education.
While we know that Froebel was un familiar with what was being done in Great Britain and France with children of the pre school age, we have every evidence that he was somewhat familiar with Rousseau and his emphasis upon nature as the surest guide in re constructing education and social life. We also know that Froebel was familiar with Comenius, and while he studied with Pesta lozzi, and was profoundly influenced by him, he was never in complete sympathy with many of his most fundamental ideas. Pestalozzi em phasized the importance of sense impression and industrial training, but to Froebel, self expression in play and creative work was the keynote of education. In this sense he was in closer sympathy with Rousseau's °return to nature" than with Pestalozzi's C of sense perception;° and training for the imme diate. practical demands of industry.
There are times when Froebel comes very close to the idea that education is a mere mat ter of removing obstacles, so that the self may have unrestricted freedom in expression; but in practice he nuts much time and attention on the educational value of the outer world and environment, especially as it affects young chil dren. In this he is not always consistent, as there would be no need of planning the ex ternals of environment so carefully for young children with a selected educative stimuli if education consists solely in removing all obstacles that nature may have free play and an unrestricted expression. In fact the kindergarten may be defined as one of the first conscious efforts to provide young children with a carefully selected, educative environment,— an environment which offers not only the best sensory impressions, but what to Froebel was a still more important point, the very best materials as stimuli lo the self activity of the child. To Froebel, children were by nature good, and he looked upon humanity, nature and God as one. He was an optimist, as well 2s an idealist, and was so convinced of the possibilities in education that he said, "I see in every child the possibility of a perfect man." While Froebel lived in a day when psychol ogy as a science was just dawning, and scien tific child-study an unknown factor, he un doubtedly saw, as no predecessor or contempo rary, that the natural powers of the child must be used. He sincerely believed that the native instincts of children could all be utilized so as to gain the child's co-operation in his own education. As he believed that child nature and human nature were inherently good, he looked upon every expression of child life as worthy of respect and reverence. His deeply rooted faith in the oneness of God, nature and man made him take this new attitude toward The apparently aimless activities of play and the so-called bad child. As Rousseau laid the blame for most of the evils in society upon civilization, so Froebel traced most of the evil tendencies in child life to wrong curricula in the schools. For this reason he tried to create a new curriculum—a curriculum made to fit the nature and the needs of the child. He firmly believed that if we could create such a curriculum, the old war between the child and the curriculum, the pupil and the reacher would cease and peace be declared. In his daily con tact with children we see practical evidence of his faith in the native instincts and interests of children as worthy of study and utilization. He believed that happiness indirectly resulted when the needs of nature were met with an intelligence and sympathy which provided the right kind of materials for children to act upon.