# 32. The German Education System (In Austria) and Mr. von Gautsch

The public discussions about our education system, which have been rekindled by the clerical onslaught against the elementary school and by a number of government measures, reveal the complete lack of insight and superficiality that is evident in the assessment of questions of popular education. Almost nowhere is there an awareness of what is important here. As far as journalism is concerned, thoroughness is not a characteristic that distinguishes it in any matter, but the representatives of our public opinion are hardly as dilettantish as when it comes to education. But even in parliament we hardly ever hear a word that hits the nail on the head when school and school legislation are discussed. And it is due to this lack of deeper understanding of the matter that our school system, to which so much good will has been applied by the legislative factors for two decades, is by no means moving in a direction that is satisfactory from a pedagogical-didactic point of view. However, the most decisive evidence of the errors in which public opinion finds itself in this direction must be seen in the reception given to the work of the present Minister of Education. Soon after Mr. von Gautsch's first announcements, loud voices of satisfaction could be heard from all sides that an energetic man was now in charge of the education system, who would lead the government unperturbed by left and right, purely in accordance with objective considerations. The energy with which he went about his work was admired. One decree followed another. There were two reasons for this phenomenon: firstly, the general feeling that there was a great deal to improve in our education system and that we needed a "man of action", and secondly, the desire in which almost all the various party groups in Germany are united today: to see the present government replaced by a civil service ministry. In Mr. von Gautsch, one saw a man of those tendencies with which one would prefer to have all other ministerial chairs filled. There was a widespread opinion that it was impossible to form a ministry from any party under the present circumstances. The bureaucracy, which is colorless in national terms, is considered to be the only suitable body to lead the government in the near future; indeed, it is considered to be the only salvation. Now it cannot be denied that such a purely administrative ministry, which leaves every initiative in political and national matters to parliament, can do little harm, because as a rule it does not actually govern, but is *governed* by circumstances and other power factors. Indeed, it must be regarded as particularly fortunate when such a government takes as few positive measures as possible, for nothing can hinder the progress of a people more than when a bureaucratic spirit leads the living life of the state to ossification. The worst thing, however, is when this spirit of ossification asserts itself where a lively view of the matter is most needed: in education. And unfortunately, in Austria in the last twenty years, the good will of which we spoke has been joined by that bureaucratic spirit even among those governments to whom it was completely alien in other areas. Above all, this spirit manifested itself in the fact that too little attention was paid to the reform of the teaching profession and too much to that of the subject matter. A syllabus that has been worked out down to the smallest detail, a system of regulations that prescribes the teacher's every action down to the smallest detail, kills teaching. Today, teachers not only prescribe what to take from each lesson, but also how to proceed. And in order to be as complete as possible in this direction of error, efforts are increasingly being made to turn our teacher training colleges into a kind of methodical drill institute for prospective popular educators. Candidates are to be taught in a series of methodical terms of art how they must approach the youth entrusted to them. Such an approach makes any development of individuality impossible, and yet the prosperity of the teaching system depends solely on the cultivation of the individuality of future teachers. They must be given scope to develop as freely as possible, then they will have the most beneficial effect.

And if the teacher, whose thinking has been sufficiently constricted by the so-called "methodology", encounters a regulation at every step he takes in school, then it must be a burden for him to work in a professional circle that leaves no room for his own thinking. We had a period in Austria when the main task of educational administration was seen as being to attract good individual teachers. At that time, of course, care extended more to the secondary school system, which, however, experienced an upswing that has no equal in the history of Austrian education. Strangely enough, this period coincided with the reign of the clerical minister Thun. We still remember the spirit that permeated our grammar school system at that time, and how Thun, even disregarding his personal opinions and his clerical point of view, made it his concern to elevate higher education by drawing on individuality wherever he could find it. We believe we can speak all the more freely on this point because our position certainly cannot be accused of any bias in favor of Count Thun's political tendencies. But it is an incontrovertible truth that Thun emphasized the individual, while the liberal school legislation of the last decades emphasized the paragraph. Instead of wasting time on this collection of paragraphs, which is of no help to the incompetent teacher, because it cannot instill in him the art of educating and teaching once he has lost it, but which only constricts the capable, talented teacher and deprives him of any pleasure in his profession, one should have started with an intervening reform of the teacher training system. And this should not be in the direction of a methodical judging, but by including such sciences in the curriculum of teacher training colleges that enable the teacher to have a higher understanding of his task. The future teacher should know the goals of his people's cultural development and the direction in which it is moving. Historical and aesthetic education should be at the center of this. He should be introduced to the spiritual development of mankind, in which he is to participate. To work blindly according to learned tricks and ministerial decrees is most unbecoming of this profession. Only if it is itself brought into connection with science, if it is introduced to the secrets of art, in short, if it is given an insight into the various directions of the human spirit, will it be able to be brought to a level that makes a lively grasp of its profession possible. In our schools, we can experience the most unbelievable things that the stereotypical treatment of our teaching system has brought about. The mindless way of working through the subject matter, which we often encounter in our elementary and secondary schools, is solely due to the shortcomings of our teaching system that we have mentioned. We have to learn that there are teachers who make teaching a real torture for young people by making almost insurmountable demands which kill rather than encourage their spirit. A teacher who has been brought into a living connection with his science, who is attached to his profession with a certain idealism, will achieve more or less with his pupils, depending on his greater or lesser capacity as an educator, but it will never be possible to raise this measure of what can be achieved by a learned methodical trick or by a regulation. However, the fact that this has always been believed by those who have participated in our more recent school legislation is a mistake that has sometimes had serious consequences. What has not been tried to force into paragraphs? After all, the intention was to establish a separate Austrian school orthography through ministerial decrees; indeed, this was done to some extent. What did this achieve? Nothing other than the fact that when the person leaving school enters a professional position, they have to unlearn their school orthography as quickly as possible and adapt to the generally accepted spelling.

As long as the errors alluded to here are not recognized in authoritative circles, our new school and its representatives will not be strong enough to effectively counter the anti-freedom parties. If we now ask ourselves in what way Mr. von Gautsch has intervened in this development of our school system, we can only say that his measures have gone the furthest in what the bureaucratic spirit can offer. Although all his regulations begin with the words: For *pedagogical-didactic* reasons it seems necessary to order, etc. ..., they all carry the one tendency: to restrict the teacher in the freedom of his work. The teacher should become more and more a compliant civil servant who only has to carry out the orders of his superiors. Who can deny that there is energy and the best will in the actions of the teaching system? But with any development of power it always depends on what it accomplishes. If the energy throws itself in the wrong direction and then does all it can to maintain this direction, then *this* energy will have a much less favorable effect than inaction, which leaves everything as it was. The pure civil service may be transformed for the purposes of an orderly state administration in a good sense by a direction such as that taken by Mr. von Gautsch, but the teaching profession and the teaching system will certainly not be improved by such a potentiation of the mistakes that have been made here for a long time. After all, cultural development cannot be based on laws and regulations, it must be based on people. An Austrian Minister of Education would have a great deal to do in this direction. And he could do so, because this is an area of his activity in which he needs to be least influenced by the other tendencies of the government to which he belongs. That would be the goal that he should keep his eyes fixed on, and from which neither calls from the right nor the left should distract him.

The behavior of our liberal parties towards the Minister of the Lower House has once again shown how little a truly liberal spirit permeates the views of this party, and how often *sham liberalism* is the stumbling block to real development in the spirit of *freedom and progress*.