The German Education System

The roots of Germany’s present education system can be traced back across centuries or, depending on the point of view, somewhat more artificially across millennia. It would be analytically convenient to refer to modern German education system as commencing in 1871, the year of German unification, the point at which the country became bureaucratically and politically integrated. Although nascent forms of school organization were extant prior to this point, it would be wholly impractical to attempt to comprehensively trace the diverse possible starting points for an analysis. Complicating the matter is the idea that education was not a significant priority subsequent to unification, at least not initially. The unification of Germany in 1871 brought about significant changes in terms of governance, awareness of the polity (i.e. nationalism) and the role of the citizen. Entirely absent from the initial unification program, however, was a codified set of principles for administering primary and secondary education within each of the then twenty-three federal states and three free cities, as exemplified by the fact that the constitution of 1871 omitted articles pertaining to education (Geiβler 2013: 185).

As Ulich (1962) observes, “The division of Germany into many small principalities did not allow for the development of schools and movements that could foster political maturity and independence” (192). Within these small principalities, one can locate the beginnings of the structures which would come to comprise the national education system.

For example, the first law mandating universal school attendance for children was minted by the Duchy of Pflaz-Zweibrücken in 1592 This was followed by similar edicts in Strasbourg (1598), Sachsen-Gotha (1642), Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (1647), Württemberg (1649), Prussia (1717) and Saxony (1835) (Sehling 2006: 406). In other words, the seeds of compulsory education were planted long ago.

Universal school attendance across Germany, however, was not enshrined as an official law of the land until the publication of the Weimar Constitution in 1919 (Weimar Constitution, Part IV, Article 145). Universal education until the age of eighteen became law via the constitution, although any student of history will be quick to realize that that particular document had but only a truncated shelf-life. Important to note here is that the language of Article 145 does not refer to the right (Recht) to go to school; rather it refers explicitly to the obligation (Pflicht) to attend school.

140

The next article in the Weimar Constitution, Article 146, is more pertinent to the contours of the education system as a whole. It is phrased thusly:

The public school system is to be formed organically. The intermediary and secondary school systems are to proceed from a common or comprehensive elementary school. For this progression [from elementary school to intermediary/secondary school], the plurality of occupations in life is decisive. For the acceptance of a child in a particular school, her or his composition and aptitude are decisive, not her or his economic or social status or the religious denomination of the parents (Weimar Constitution, Part IV, Article 146; translated by author; emphasis by author).

The influence of the functionalist imagination of the connection between the school system and the division of labor is made overt via the word organically. This is what is meant by educational conservatism in the German context.

The structure of the modern German school system, the tripartite system, can be traced even further back than the Weimar Constitution, namely to the Prussians and the General School Regulations (Generallandschulreglement) of 1763 (see Neugebauer 1985), underscoring the idea that the Weimar constitution can be viewed as a consolidation of earlier approaches. Perhaps recognizing the benefits of specialization in education in the context of emergent industrialization processes, Prussia’s minister of justice under Frederick the Great, K.A. von Zedlitz, seemingly dissatisfied with Prussia’s approach to education, suggested in 1787 that the structure of education follow a tripartite system: one school for future farmers;

one school for (petit) bourgeois townspeople; and a third for academics, scientists and scholars (cited in Michael and Schepp 1993: 74). His ideas, of course, did not come randomly but were likely formed by discussions in the smaller principalities surrounding enlightened school reform (aufklärerische Schulreform) in the 1760s and 1770s (Behm, Lohmann and Lohmann 2002: 7). Zedlitz’s reason for introducing such a system, however, was fairly straightforward: it would render each member of society useful. His argument was that it made but little sense to offer pupils from different social backgrounds the same education. It would be thoroughly impractical, for example, to raise and train a carpenter or tailor in the same art and manner as a school director or lawyer (Michael and Schepp 1993: 75).

141

Throughout the 20^th Century, outside observers attempted to draw a connection between Prussian militarism (and the expansionist and nationalist tendencies it entailed) and the Prussian and then German education systems. The most bald-faced of these, written by Thomas Alexander (1918), argued that: “…the Prussian citizen is to a large measure enslaved through the medium of his [sic] school; that his [sic] learning, instead of making him his [sic]

own master, forges the chain by which he [sic] is held in servitude…” (v). It seems these kinds of polemics find currency even in contemporary accounts of the rise of German militarism. “The militarization of everyday life in the Kaiserreich created an emphasis on hierarchy and obedience to authority. German educators became more nationalistic and defensive, as well as, simultaneously, imperialistic and chauvinistic” (Pine 2010: 8). While it could be the case that the structure or even ethos of the German education system contributed at least in small part to the rise of militarism, the historical record suggests little more than a correlation between the school structure and the rise of pathological nationalism. Such attempts to conflate the education system with the seeds of militarism should not at all be taken seriously. That being the case, the functionalism that likely seemed all too rational at the time has had a long lasting yet insidious effect, namely the systematic reproduction of social inequalities via an education system that funnels pupils onto largely predetermined paths.

This parallel between the conception of the tripartite system and its eventual enshrinement in the Weimar Constitution and Durkheim’s approach to society and education is key. Fresh off becoming a truly national society, the notion that education, in concert with the rationalized division of labor, could hold society together by creating, or more rationally reflecting, an organic solidarity likely carried with it a great deal of currency. There was probably a strong correlation between the rationalized and harmonized school system and the fact that Germany was able to industrialize and consolidate political and economic power so quickly and effectively. In any event, and without too large a conceptual leap, the German education system up until World War II can accurately be labelled as functionalist. This is not to say that all parts of all schools and educational approaches were functionalist through and through; rather, the system itself was conceived of in line with a professed functional logic, with an idea toward creating a modern society out of diverse principalities.

This short treatment of historical developments in German education is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is included here in order to help frame what is to follow, namely

142

the analysis of late-20^th Century reforms. There was, after all, a great deal of differentiation within the tripartite system concerning structure, content and the skills which were to be transferred from teacher to pupil (Holz, Rathgeber, Spenkuch and Zilch 2010: 74-76). The institutionalization of the tripartite system – Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule – unfolded over decades or, depending on the perspective, even centuries, with the historical genesis generally being traced back to the 19^th Century. One additional significant event in the history of German secondary education was the passage of the first Abiturreglement in 1788, which regulated the school-leaving exams upon which entry into post-secondary education depended. This was further cemented by the second Abiturreglement of 1812 and, finally, by the third in 1834, from which point onwards the school-leaving certificate would serve as the most important and oftentimes sole prerequisite for university admissions (van Ackeren, Klemm and Kühn 2015: 15-17). This nascent institutionalization of the school system was coupled with the development of standard curricula, with Wilhelm von Humboldt’s neo-humanism most prominently shaping the contours of the Gymnasium’s curriculum (17-18).

The Prussians – and eventually the Germans – were attempting to consolidate their power within their territories, and there was a necessity to standardize education and have the standardization be in line with a certain rationalization. This rationalization, however, was of a particular sort and was concerned with function, meaning the functionalist division of educational opportunities reified the functionalist division of labor in society, with the ultimate goal of building a national society. Understanding this, it is interesting to ponder the relationship of the Gymnasia to this rationalized, functionalist division of schools and society.

The neo-humanist approach which shaped the curricula in Gymnasia had as its goal the development of the individual “absent considerations of social and other prevailing necessities” (van Ackeren, Klemm and Kühn 2015: 17; translated by author). This tension between curriculum and structure has yet to be truly resolved. The future “elites” were and have been able to enjoy a rounded education divorced from functionalist considerations, with the idea being that graduates would be furnished with the abilities to effectively administer the state and economy. The pupils of the other two-thirds of the tripartite system were and have been afforded no such luxuries.

Attempts to reform the Prussian and then German education system(s) are as old as the systems themselves. If one attempts to understand the historical development of the

143

German education system, it is absolutely vital to understand something of Reformpädagogik, a concept that defies easy translation and, even more problematically, is often translated into English as “progressive education”, a translation which ignores the historical contributions of the field and presupposes a connection to John Dewey, whose ideas emerged much later. The tradition of Reformpädagogik in the German-speaking world speaks to an uncomfortable relationship to the educational status quo and, connectedly, to an imagination of how the social world might be improved via education. Developments in secondary education in Germany between the 18^th and mid-20^th Centuries can be viewed as a dialectical relationship between the tripartite structure as explained above and the currents in Reformpädagogik, which were in general skeptical of the tripartite status quo.