The Analytical Potential of Comparative Educational Research: Review of Two Historical Studies

The new edition of the first work on comparative education was published as volume of the ‘Heidelberger Studien zur Bildungswissenschaft’ (Lenhart, Buhl, Hertel, Sliwka since 1978). This did not happen by chance, but due to the fact that the former institute of education (Erziehungswissenschaftliches Seminar der Universität Heidelberg), the today’s institute for educational studies at University of Heidelberg, was in great part responsible for the differentiation of comparative educational studies, which had taken place over the previous 50 years.

The Comparative Educational Studies Research Unit, which was founded in 1966, promoted comparative research on developing countries, international and intercultural comparisons. Special focus laid on the pedagogy of the Third Reich.

In his introduction, Lenhart (Lenhart, 2015) tells the reader that Friedrich August Hecht – at that time headmaster of the Freiberg grammar school – published between 1795 and 1798 a very early work on comparative educational studies entitled De re scholastica Anglica cum Germanica Comparata about the comparison between the British and the German educational systems. As could be proven, it is not only a very early, but actually the very first written documentation of comparative educational science.

Following the introduction, Lenhart describes the works of Hecht in more detail. He explains that when it came to the principle of openness in British schools, it was Hecht whom had been repeatedly referred to. Although there are no British reviews of Hecht’s works, at least some entries in American encyclopedias mention Hecht and his comparative studies.

Concerning the author’s biography, Hecht is described as a craftsman’s son who before becoming a pastor and teacher worked as a home tutor. Lenhart sees a connection between Hecht’s close look at the British school system and the interest of the Freiberg people in the industrialisation of England.

Especially interesting are Hecht’s descriptions of the beginning of public schools, e.g.how they dealt with natural sciences. Hecht’s text is based on seven school curricula, four of them relate to a comparison between schools. A closer look is taken on the English text, as it is taken for granted that the German one is rather known.

He tries to make use of his discussion of the schoolbooks, which mostly come from Westminster and Eton, in order to record the most important curricular subjects of English schools. This overgeneralisation of trends in the so-called ‘Royal Schools’ is criticised by Lenhart and later by David Phillips (Phillips, 2016) as well. As Lenhart correctly points out, this comparison cannot be understood as one between two educational systems, but at most as one between German grammar schools and English public schools. Hecht’s text does not cover English charity schools or German schools for the common people in which craftsmen taught on a voluntary basis, and girls’ education is not mentioned at all.

Nevertheless, Lenhart is right when he emphasises not only the internationality but also the transnationality concerning noble families, educated people and the humanist European educational canon in Hecht’s work.

There is a controversial discussion about how far Hecht’s work can actually be associated with parallels between former ruling families and the OECD nowadays, between Latin and today’s lingua franca English, and between the humanist curriculum and the recent debate on competences/skills. The original text was published in Latin. Lenhart translated it into German and English, adding several supplementary notes. The German or the English versions are recommended to the modern comparative reader whereas the original Latin version is also available for an expert audience.

David Phillips, comparatist at Oxford University, emphasises that the rediscovery of Hecht’s work generally reminds us of comparative educational studies. At the same time, he criticises that 18^th century Westminster and Eton do not set a good example for the British educational system of today. Hecht’s deeper understanding of the British school system is based on an old tradition of male teaching at elite private schools. In addition, Phillips points out that Germany as a whole did not exist in those times; comparisons could only be made between different regions.

Yet, Hecht was not able to carry out empirical studies about the British school system. What he also did not include in his analysis, was obligatory schooling in Germany and later compulsory education in Britain.

From Phillips’ standpoint, it is difficult to decide which aspects can be transferred from Britain to Germany and vice versa. It still remains unclear, which kind of advantages Britain and Germany would yield if they related to the other’s educational system. Researchers in the 21^st century have to tackle this question.

However, it is worthwhile to study those early comparisons. In his epilogue, Phillips says:

What Hechtius achieves, however, is firstly a brave attempt at comparing manifestations of the curriculum of a kind that could be undertaken today in terms of what is prescribed or normal or expected in the two countries. He does this within narrow confines, using the extensive texts he had at his disposal, and he demonstrates throughout the exercise his profound scholarship (Phillips, in Lenhart, 2015: 162; Lenhart et al., 1978).

Considering Hecht’s humour when he describes his perception of the British school system, you can definitely agree with this statement. In fact, it is the task of researchers interested in comparative education to relate Lenhart’s thoroughly edited text to other early works on comparative educational studies. Because of the new edition by Lenhart and his research group, Hecht’s early works have become accessible to a wider readership. This deserves credit and is pedagogically interesting and fascinating.

When it comes to borrowing and the comparison between German and English schools, as well as the educational system, I recommend David Phillips’ recent studies. Phillips tells us about his first encounters especially with German vocational training. It was this vocational training which aroused Phillips’ interest in comparative education. From this point onwards, his interest in the German educational system grew even further.

This collection of essays presents Phillips’ work of the past 30 years. The German reader is quite surprised about what a British expert may like – or may even regard as ideal – about the German school system and the higher education system. Although Phillips’ work deals with the potential and difficulties of career training and school systems on an international basis, it is the German university which gains. centre stage again and again. There is quite a lot of information about how the German university was seen in 19^th century Britain, and which effects it had on international academic training. Certainly also worth reading are his essays about education in post-World War II Germany. What surprises is his discussion of the further changes in the aftermath of Germany’s reunification. From the British point of view, these developments stayed rather traditional although there were numerous suggestions from Anglo-American countries. For reasons which are quite understandable, a centralised education system was not accepted after the experience of German National Socialism.

During the reconstruction and re-education period, there was an age-related problem concerning teachers: 55% were 50 years or older; and they were used to the former system. As the British see it, the German educational system lacked reform processes. This was due to difficult economic and social situations in post-war Germany just to name some of the reasons. Time was needed for further teacher training, especially in the East of Germany. Curricula and teaching materials had to be revised. Democratisation of pedagogical and political everyday life was necessary. From a comparative point of view, the resumption of relations with the international and pluralistic outside world was required.

Not only does the text cover historical issues, but it also mentions interesting details about advancements in education in Germany during the 19^th century. Surprisingly, the author intensely deals with a study conducted by Michael Sadler, which focuses on comparison of educational systems at the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th centuries. Concerning his recent analyses, Phillips is able to rely on numerous reports and experiences. He describes, for instance, the impact of Helena Deneke at the Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford. Deneke played an important role in the development of women’s organisations in post-war Germany. Here, Phillips also covers education of adults and further education.

With regard to the field of universities and higher education, Phillips can partly refer to his own experience on committees as well as in the evaluation of teacher training and the German higher education system. The focus of his comparative studies is on educational development with special regard to universities in the 19^th century, and especially on the reconstruction of the educational system after the reunification of Germany after the Second World War. It becomes obvious that there is a close connection between education (in a political sense) and economic development, as both are always mentioned in the same breath.

Phillips manages to present his experience with Germany in a clear and at the same time precise way throughout his 16 essays. This may indicate the chances for reconstructing educational systems and gradual transitions after deep social conflicts. In doing so, it would also be possible to address pedagogical transition processes in such a way that we could compare and make use of them on an international basis. Of course, the German example is not always a good one. It is obvious that we need to learn from our mistakes.

From a current and – so to speak – more German point of view, it is important to examine the severity and ambivalence of changes in the German system of higher education in closer detail. These changes were caused by the introduction of bachelor and masters studies.

Concerning schools, Scandinavian countries are of special interest at the moment, even though they do not serve as a model. However, this is not part of this particular comparative and historical study from the British perspective, but of current and comparative projects about processes of educational policy borrowing from the German perspective.

All in all, both books are very suitable for showing the outcome and explanatory potential of comparative educational studies. Comparative education has great analytical potential. Therefore it is important to foster comparative education by appointing professorships with this denomination. Of course, there are fruitful comparative elements in international studies like PISA and PIAC, nevertheless, we need a broader interpretation of comparative education, which is stronger contextualized in regard to history, institutions, and politics.

From a methodological point of view we have to add: In addition to the theoretically and empirically rich comparative and in the last years international large scale studies, we specifically need another type of study for practical and political actions in an international context. In comparative educational science we should foster an evaluation-oriented implementation-research, because we have to analyze whether it is possible to transfer the educational experiences of one national context into another.