It is unfortunately true that there was a tendency in kindergarten circles for many years to cling too tenaciously to Froebelian theory and practice. In the early history of the kindergarten, it was far in advance of primary education, in both theory and practice. This explains the transformation of primary prac tice wherever kindergartens were introduced. In time, however, an unwholesome pedagogic self-satisfaction grew up within the kindergar ten ranks, which finally resulted in a period of arrested development for the kindergartners and the system. This followed the reconstruc tion of the primary in the light of kindergarten principles and practice.
When the new science of child study came into education, kindergartners as a whole turned a cold shoulder to its observations and returns, if they did not coincide with the in terpretations of child nature made by Froebel and his immediate followers. It must be ac knowledged, however, that a small minority of kindergartners gladly gave ear to the new sci ence of child study, especially when it seemed to correspond to their daily experiences in studying and training young children. Dif ference of opinion was very decided, and grad ually and unconsciously, kindergartners divided into two parties — those in favor of modifica tion and reconstruction of kindergarten pro cedure in the light of modern psychology and child study, and those who clung with loyalty and devotion to the traditions of the past. The progressive movement among kindergartners immediately won the support of psychologists, physicians and the leading educators of the day, all of whom cooperated in reconstruct ing kindergarten practice. The first form of the reconstructive movement was noticed in the demand for larger handwork for the children in the place of the small processes and materials involved in the perforating, weaving and sewing in use in the early kinder gartens. Later, this was either discarded or enlarged, as psychologists, oculists and nerve specialists repeatedly criticised this minute work in both kindergarten and primary. They were equally urgent in demanding that there be less minute accuracy in the use of the small undeveloped muscles of the eye and hand in all of the work done by the children in the kinder garten. Another criticism which followed was that the work with the hand was cultivated at the cost of play with the larger muscles of the body. Sedentary habits were encouraged, when children should be running, jumping, climbing and throwing. It was urged that larger materials be introduced, where the fundamental muscles of the legs, arms, hands, back, thorax and abdomen be called into play. The vigorous use of these larger muscles was urged, because through this type of play respi ration and circulation are deepened, promoting the health of the child at a period when phys ical growth is more important than any intel lectual acquirement the child may make. As a result, the so-called new school of kinder garten introduced swings, slides, seesaws, ropes, etc., in order to offer every inducement to the children to vigorous physical activity. There was also a demand for introducing larger and more durable materials for the handwork, instead of sewing and weaving with narrow paper strips and cardboard. Weaving with strips of cloth, and sewing more in ac cord With the type of sewing in use in the schools and society, gradually came into use. One of the first effects of this type of work was seen in the health of the child, but an equally beneficial intellectual stimulus was ob servable. With this larger and more durable material the child could make articles which were both interesting and useful in his play and home life. Instead of sewing geometric designs on cardboard, the child was given a coarse needle, thread and cloth, with which dolls could be dressed. As a substitute for
paper strips which were woven into geometric designs in a flat paper mat which was of no use to him or to society, the children were given opportunities to make rugs, or hats, or hammocks for the dolls. Instead of folding, cutting and pasting a geometric figure vaguely resembling a kite, the children were given material which made it possible to construct a real kite which could be taken into the open air for experiment. The immediate effect was deepened interest, and marked increase in effort and self-initiative. As a result the necessity for direction and help from the teacher declined and ability to pursue an end with determination and perseverance increased.
All kindergartners who experimented in the reconstruction of the kindergarten were con vinced that this new type of work exemplified Froebel's principles of self-activity and crea tivity far better than the traditional handwork supposed to have been originated by Froebel himself. As time passed, less emphasis was laid upon the practice of Froebel, and more time and attention was given to better applica tions of his fundamental principles. Froebel's small building blocks were either enlarged, or new ones invented, better adapted to stimulate healthful, active play. The very mediocre music of the children's songs and games com posed for Froebel gave place to standard folk music, or modern music written especially for the kindergarten by musicians of high grade. Gradually the whole scheme of practice, in cluding songs, games and stories, building and occupation materials, was reshaped, until, in many of the most progressive kindergartens of to-day, little of the traditional material is left. The kindergartners grew bolder in throwing off tradition, introducing not only better mate rials, but better methods, in their effort to meet the nature and needs of young children, un trammeled by the interpretations of Froebel and the pioneer workers.
The effort to cling to Froebelian material and methods is dying out, and kindergartners on the whole seem to be more than eager in their study of children, and their search for better means of educating them. This recon structive movement was greatly increased by the appearance of the first rival institution for educating children of the kindergarten age. At first there was some marked difference of opinion regarding the value of Dr. Montessori's experiment with children of kindergarten age. Some kindergartners utterly denounced the whole movement without investigation, while others, with equal lack of discrimination, went over into the Montessori ranks, with little evi dence of distinguishing between the values of the two systems of education. It seems fair to say, however, that in America kindergartners have made an intelligent adaptation of the values of the Montessori System to kindergar ten practice, making an effort to discard the weaknesses of both, and organizing their strong points into a new and most promising educa tion for children of this period.
To-day it can be truthfully said that there is no body of teachers more earnestly recon structing their theory and practice than the kindergartners. They are to be found in large numbers in all summer schools—whether in normal schools or universities, and the number of teachers asking for leave of absence to se cure their degrees in the universities gives un questioned evidence of the fact that the ambi tion of the kindergartner of to-day is to hold as high a standard for her preparation as a teacher as that required for the teachers in high schools and colleges.