Translated by Gillian Horton-Krüger

Erich Weniger, born in 1894, completed his first state (teacher certification) examination in history, German, and Latin and his doctorate in history in 1921 at the University of Göttingen, with a dissertation on the Prussian reforms of the beginning nineteenth century. After a year of teaching in a higher secondary school and completing his second state teacher examination, he returned as assistant to the University of Göttingen. Weniger was strongly influenced by his mentor Hermann Nohl, a major representative of the German Reformpädagogik and human-science pedagogy.

From 1929-1933 Weniger taught at the teacher training academies in Kiel, Altona, and Frankfurt. He first was suspended, and then dismissed, from his position by the Nazis in 1933 and, until the end of the Third Reich, centered his work on military education. In 1945, Weniger returned to Göttingen and worked for three years as director and professor at the teacher training college. He was appointed a professor at the University of Göttingen in 1948 and taught there until his death in 1961.

Weniger was involved in the re-arming of the Federal Republic of Germany as a staff expert. He also was committed in school reform as a member of the German committee for the educational and school system (Deutscher Ausschuss für das Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen) from 1953 until his death.

Weniger’s main fields of work were social education, military education, the theory of political education, teacher education, Didaktik and the theory of Bildung.

His more than 400 publications include Die Grundlagen des Geschichtsunterrichts: Untersuchungen zur geisteswissenschaftlichen Didaktik [The Basis of History Teaching: Examinations from the Viewpoint of Human Science Didaktik] (1926); Wehrmachtserziehung und Kriegserfahrung [Military Education and the Experience of War] (1938); Die Erziehung des deutschen Soldaten [The Education of the German Soldier] (1944); Didaktik als Bildungslehre. Teil 1: Theorie der Bildungsinhalte und des Lehrplans [Didaktik as Theory of Education. Part 1: Theory of Educational Contents and of the Syllabus] (1952); Die Eigenständigkeit der Erziehung in Theorie und Praxis: Probleme der akademischen Lehrerbildung [The Independence of Education in Theory and Practice: Problems of Academic Teacher Education] (1953); Politische Bildung und staatsbürgerliche Erziehung [Political Education and the Education of the Citizen] (1956); Didaktik als Bildungslehre. Teil 2: Didaktische Voraussetzungen der Methode in der Schule [Didaktik as Theory of Education. Part 2: Didaktik Pre-conditions of Method in School] (1960).

Jörg Biehl

 Based on Erich Weniger (1952) Didaktik als Bildungslehre, Teil 1: Die Theorie der Bildungsinhalte und des Lehrplans (Weinheim: Beltz). An earlier version of this book was published under the title "Die Theorie des Bildungsinhalts" in Herman Nohl and Ludwig Pallat (1930) Handbuch der Pädagogik, Band 3: Allgemeine Didaktik und Erziehungslehre (Lagensalza: Julius Beltz), 1-55. This essay was also published in Weniger, E. (1975) Ausgewählte Schriften zur geisteswissenschaftlichen Pädagogik (Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag), pp. 199-294. This translation is published with permission of the copyright holder, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim and Basel.

Introduction: The Task of Didaktik

Didaktik is primarily, and certainly in everyday terms, the study of teaching and learning, the study of instruction. But instruction is more than simply the interaction of teaching and learning. It encompasses widely differing factors in complex interrelationships. Didaktik subjects everything that happens in instruction to its observation. We call the structured context within which the growing generation is taught and knowledge is handed down the "order of teaching" (Lehrgefüge). 1

The order of teaching is thus the specific connection of factors and elements in which adolescents &emdash; or indeed anyone engaged in a learning, assimilating or developing process &emdash; interact with the world of values, with objective intellect, with society, with the adult generation, and where education takes place. To this concept belongs the conscious will imposing itself upon the structure. Order of teaching is the system which is imposed or simply used to achieve formative (bildend) encounters, or confrontation, with the intellectual, historical and social world and to attain dominion over the natural world by recognizing one's place within it, as it were, to achieve acceptance of the world by the younger generation. As we will show, however, whatever is consciously desired and imposed is nonetheless tied to the precepts and influences of reality. It may be the case that nothing in the order of teaching is consciously desired beyond the will to use it, to fit with an educational intent into this structure of the world and life, everything else being predetermined.

Within the context of the Reform Pedagogy (Reformpädagogik) movement and modern theory of science, Didaktik of this kind is predestined to be located within the human sciences. This means that it proceeds from the actuality of the order of teaching, from the real-world educational situation, and not from theory or principles. Yet the context of meanings and effects which Didaktik tries to encompass is historical, i.e., must not be comprehended from the superficial aspect of form alone. Moreover, the context changes over time, as a whole and in its component parts. In the educative (bildend) encounter between the generations in institutionalized teaching and learning, and in whatever other forms of introduction there may be to the intellectual world, it is to a large extent the progress and change of the historical world itself which is taking place. Processes of Bildung are not, say, merely concomitant and consequential phenomena of historical life: history is also happening within them. With the historicity of its object, Didaktik itself now becomes historical, i.e., it cannot present insights of universal and eternal validity, but must always strive to understand the changing situation, and from there reshape the theory of action. . . .

Historical change in the order of teaching is accompanied by a change in the language in which Didaktik formulates its statements and gives its directives. Didaktik, too, is obliged to keep up with the times; it is bound to the changing and newly derived concepts in the historical work of Bildung. This linguistic "appropriateness" to the times is also expressed in the affinity between the concepts of Didaktik and the terminologies in which a particular period endeavors to express its most pressing concerns. . . .

To conclude this introduction, we now need to reflect on the relationship of Didaktik to the methodology of instruction. As these terms are nowadays often used synonymously, it would appear that consciousness of the singularity of Didaktik has been lost. . . .

Methodology is the study of methods to be applied in teaching. Method can mean either the objectively given way of comprehending a subject (scientific method) or the way given as a result of human dispositions and talents or inclinations and interests to enable a person to take possession of a particular subject matter. Method is always a secondary, a relative aspect, valid only under quite specific conditions. It is also susceptible to change over time. Method, therefore, can only be described and taught with reference to the preconditions of Didaktik. Of course, a theory of possible methods with a relatively high validity can then be developed. But the development of method must always be proceed from and refer back to practical requirements. What is needed, therefore, is a human-science study of forms of instruction and Bildung, i.e., of the structure of methods, referring, on the one hand, to the Didaktik of each teaching discipline and to general Didaktik as theory of education (Bildungslehre) and, on the other, to a reflection of the coherence of all educational and instructional measures in the course of education.

The Curriculum (Lehrplan)

Any form of Didaktik which aims to proceed from the order of teaching must first ask itself at which point its subject can best be observed in order to be most representative of all its factors and elements. It may be argued that the order of teaching should be sought and portrayed at any point where teaching takes place. After all, as the whole is present in all of the component parts, it could be depicted through any one of the details. Thus it would seem appropriate to address oneself to the immediate pedagogical relationship and to gauge from this the whole, the structure of the order of teaching. But this would be a most arduous task, for although the whole is most certainly echoed in every lesson, in each of the teacher's questions, it would be both difficult and time-consuming to infer the whole from each individual fact and to represent it conceptually. Therefore we must ask whether the order of teaching has already been represented, possibly conceptually, at some point, and is already accessible to us. Only the analysis of such a conceptual representation and its confrontation with the educational reality we remember and observe can lead us deeper, and show what is missing and what defies codification, in other words what can only be excluded or committed to a margin of free choice.

Such codification of the order of teaching is found in curricula (Lehrplan). This is not to say that the Lehrplan always express the didactic substance, the inner context of the order of teaching, in an adequate and conceptually appropriate form. And educative (bildend) encounters between the generations are not restricted to the organized framework of the Lehrplan, but occur as part of life itself in its whole breadth and variety. Yet the Lehrplan is the only conceptual order of teaching with the scope to subsume all given features, and which is relatively powerful in validating what is demanded. Even those aspects not themselves shaped in the Lehrplan can be understood and judged from the standpoint of the latter. We can more easily comprehend the irrational components of the process of Bildung if we see what can be directly determined and ordered through express directives, as are given by the Lehrplan. Thus, all reflection in Didaktik can be linked to a theory of the Lehrplan (Lehrplantheorie) theory and, as Aloys Fischer said, the struggle to create a new educational ideal and a reformed system of Bildung may be formalized as the struggle to design the Lehrplan. In this fight for the Lehrplan, which dates from the start of Reform Pedagogy, but to which political and social movements of the time contributed, the position of Lehrplan was elucidated and at the same time changed, so today we are in a better position than before to comprehend the conditions determining the systematic structures of the order of teaching and the preconditions created by the existence of a systematic structure for educational action. Thus, Lehrplan can be explored as an example to illustrate the whole issue of the content of Bildung, providing ready access to the way the categories of selection and concentration can best be obtained.

The task of Lehrplan is to establish the goals of Bildung, and to select and concentrate what used to be called instructional material, now referred to as the "assets" or "values" of Bildung, and which we prefer to term "contents of Bildung." The Lehrplan stipulates what is to count in instruction, and thus every factor of human life, every social group, every idea which wishes to exert broad and lasting influence on young people within the framework of school and organized learning must try to gain recognition and a position in valid Lehrplan. Any intellectual movement or tendency is, in the long run, only recognized and secure as an influence on Bildung if its goals and devices are accorded space in the Lehrplan. The fight for the Lehrplan is not, as would sometimes appear, an argument over the best instructional methods, or the selection and distribution of particular instructional matter; it is a battle of human influences and, as one-sided power decisions are impossible in human life today, the struggle is one of achieving a balance of forces in school and organized learning which corresponds to the relative positions of power held by the factors participating in the school. If a Lehrplan is "right" it expresses, as far as the outside world is concerned, the relative influences of the factors participating in Bildung and, as far as instructional practice is concerned, the degree of institutional and rational availability of the contents of Bildung through prescriptive and directive systematization &emdash; in other words, the extent to which intellectual influences or substances can be made available as rational teaching matter for the encounter with young people. This cannot, of course, always be inferred from the formulae and directives of the Lehrplan, because the very inclusion in the Lehrplan implies that a translation has been made and a new relationship created which aims to subsume widely differing elements on the one level. The Lehrplan has its own conceptual structure . . . Everything which seeks inclusion has first to be transposed into this conceptual structure, and herein is revealed the inherent autonomy and arbitrary nature of a Lehrplan, its conservationist and leveling tendency, which is crucial with respect to innovations and can delay decisions over long periods. Once a Lehrplan is established, anything new must, to a certain extent, be adapted to fit the existing structure . . . . To assess the significance of a Lehrplan, one must know how to read its language and to retranslate it, in order to probe beyond the conceptual formulations, and to arrive at the actual elements of influence which, in an historical human context, refer to each other and to the order of teaching represented in the Lehrplan. Even a simple change in the arrangement of subject matter, apparently effected for reasons of method, can express changes in the balance of power between the human influences and may reflect major decisions, such as the removal of ancient history from the final to the penultimate year of the academic secondary school, the Gymnasium, the exclusion of the Latin essay, the inclusion of natural science at all levels, and so forth.

These manifold, heterogeneous influences have come to bear on the Lehrplan over the course of time, which means that the smooth conceptual surface overlays different historical strata. The rank of the factors involved must, therefore, be ascertained, as their multiplicity is not simply a redundant byproduct of history which reasoned reflection can sweep away leaving one single factor or a new order, but is in itself the very precondition for the emergence of any Lehrplan. Each factor must be assigned its legitimate place in the blend of the Lehrplan. The curricular significance of the great historical influences on Bildung, the position of science, religion, the state, and the professions in instruction must be analyzed and, most importantly, the highest-ranking and dominant influence ascertained.

To begin: the dominant factor in each subject would appear to be an academic discipline. Each subject, it would seem, corresponds to an academic discipline, the structure and tenets of which determine the arrangement of school instruction. Every discipline, moreover, has an immanent set of objectives, an ideal of the perfection of its knowledge, of completeness, of the consummation of the attitude it demands. This would also provide the goal of instruction, modified only by the particular conditions of school, especially the abilities of the students and the level of their intellectual development.

However, at this point a quarrel arises over the character of subject teaching in the school: the academic disciplines themselves tend to regard the teaching of the school subject as a preparation for the teaching of the academic subject, without which the instruction would be incomplete. But the school cannot admit that its entire efforts are nothing but preparation for later learning . . . . School is obliged to ensure that all of its subjects are taught in a purposeful context and with an object in view which is complete in itself, and that achieves relative completeness and provides a real end in itself. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that school should achieve the same goals as discipline, without the attention to detail and the detours which the academic disciplines can make. Thus it is probable that school subject and discipline must first conjoin in relation to a third entity which instills meaning into both the purpose of a discipline and the goals of instruction.

The question therefore reaches beyond the individual subject, and it is here that the real difficulty begins: when a fixed order is superimposed upon the subjects in the school system as a whole, when the sciences and cultural systems, the influences and ideals of Bildung, are presented in the individual subjects’ need to be absorbed into a superordinate systematization. This is where the necessity for a Lehrplan in its true sense arises. None of the major subjects has an intrinsic awareness of its natural boundaries and of its particular service within the whole. Every subject has the drive to become the dominant factor for the Lehrplan.

Since the dissolution of the Encyclopaedia of the ancient and mediaeval world, with its qualitative and quantitative ordering of each discipline, the system of the disciplines does not in itself contain any criteria for choosing between such claims [of the different disciplines]. Indeed, modern curricula have only developed as a result of the breakdown of the old system of the liberal arts (septem artes) caused, on the one hand, by the increasing autonomy of the individual disciplines and, on the other hand, by the changing role of religion (there was no longer a religious world order, but specific religious instruction), of the absolute state, and of natural science.

The Lehrplan, since it emerged in its modern sense, is upheld and regulated by the state. The work of Paulsen, Spranger's studies of the relationship of politics and education in the modern world, Heubaum's research, Matthias's recollections from his years of practice, are all full of examples of how the state continually intervenes in curricula, how it forcibly juxtaposes opposing ideals or simply excludes . . . , how it allies itself with one philosophical system against others, . . . . how it opposes a new ideal of Bildung and, if the progress of this ideal cannot be stopped, how it distorts the meaning by adding alien elements . . . . On the other hand, it may commit itself to a new ideal against the resistance of everything which has held valid up to that point . . . . This is not, however, a perhaps inevitable distortion of the true idea of Lehrplan, not an intervention of hierarchical power to promote causes outside the Lehrplan, though this might often have played a role. For the state, the Lehrplan is not only a purely administrative entity to ensure uniformity of control and mobility between schools within its territory, to achieve uniform entitlement to its services, and to assert certain specific individual demands. This is all involved, but the influence of the state is not restricted to this formal aspect or to a formal decision between the other, "real" factors, the sciences, the church, the professions, pedagogy. The Lehrplan is more a vehicle through which the state can play "an active part in the education of the people, if it is important to enhance both the power of communality and the awareness of the latter" (Schleiermacher). Or as Lorenz von Stein describes the true relationship: in modern times as the age of a system of civic Bildung, we recognize in teaching the basic traits of intellectual individuality and the power of public life. Through Lehrplan and official regulations, within the system of educational institutions (Bildungsanstalten) it provides, the state establishes the canon which is, in effect, the canon of human life itself, and which expresses within itself the organic process of Bildung which lies in the essence of personal development. Thus the state strives to represent its inner form within the cultural system of school and Bildung.

The conceptual precipitation of this, both expressing and directing, is the Lehrplan. It is pointless to say that school pursues culture or is a tool of the state. This is all true, of course, though secondary. Nor should the character of the power, with its dangers, which gives the state a certain predominance in the competition to shape school be denied. But, from the point of view of the state itself, school is first and foremost an expression of its intellectual condition, its historical position, its inner intellectual strength, which here finds immediate expression in the entity of Bildung.

The modern state no longer ranks above the values and views, or above the parties and social groups which embody them, in the manner of the old absolute state. The state itself has become the object in the struggle between views and social groups (as it used to be, admittedly, in secret), is shaped by them and, in its present constitutional form, is a continually changing expression of the division of power within the nation . . . It is the idea of democracy that the state should be supported and developed by the operative powers of the nation in the order of their human influence. If, therefore, the state aims, like any other influence on Bildung, to ensure its present and continued existence through the educational system, the notion of perfection inherent in its form paradoxically compels it to qualify itself and its form and to confine the exercise of its power to the preservation of civic life and national culture. The state’s vitality rests on the human powers of the people who support it, as political life is supposed to represent a decision, continually remade, regarding the best form of life, and as the coming generation will itself have to make responsible decisions about the form and life of the state. To use Schleiermacher's terms, the interest of the state in education depends on the awakening of the communal spirit, on the concurrence of individuals with the manifestation of the state and, at the same time, on the development of the younger generation in such a way that all skills are trained which are necessary for the upkeep of life in general in the state.

However, this freedom is restricted by the necessity of securing a form of state which makes such liberty possible, and thus we may observe the bipolarity of the democratic state system which poses a difficult task for the selection and systematization of the contents of Bildung. There is, of course, the particular danger that Lehrplan and school can become instruments of power wielded by the majorities ruling the state. At all events, the achievement of continuity in Bildung would appear to be particularly difficult. As early as the school reform of the 1890s, as Spranger has emphasized, the aim was no longer to work out an all-embracing state ideal of Bildung, but to equate the state idea of Bildung with the conservative ideal. Nowadays, these dangers have grown and it sometimes appears that, instead of having one regulatory factor in the Lehrplan which is more influential than the others from the outset, we have several factors struggling to dominate the Lehrplan &emdash; but via the medium of the state. The social groups and political parties, the advocates of differing world views, not only want regard within the state, but dominion, and thus dominion over school and Lehrplan. School would thus appear to be fully politicized. If in the long term clear decisions do not emerge from these struggles, an element of insecurity and unrest creeps into school and Lehrplan. They can no longer promote the development of their educative (bildend) potential, but depend on on temporary compromises between the parties.

Given this situation of the modern state, recourse to any of the other influences &emdash; science, the church, industry or the professions &emdash; is effectively barred. None of these, no matter how powerful, will be able to assert its authority over even the other influences, let alone over the state. Moreover, none of them, apart from the Catholic Church, represent a more closed system, surer of their ends and means, than the state. Not even in the areas of Bildung to which they directly relate and which they influence, such as the individual school subjects, does their existence contribute to finding criteria for the selection and concentration of contents.

At this point, the argument could almost appear to be leading to a justification of an omnipotent construct of state pedagogy to which all independent human life, all liberal educational effort must be sacrificed. In fact, the corollary is quite different. The difficulties which result from this seemingly absolute superiority of the state in education can only be overcome, the dangers which spring from it for the freedom of education and for independent human life can only be guarded against within the real situation, by taking the true relations between the influences into account, in the task and organization of Bildung itself. But in these relations and in their historical development, in the structural change of the state and the other influences, it is inherent that, although the danger of an omnipotent state pedagogy certainly always threatens, the autonomy of pedagogy, the safeguarding of pedagogical behavior and the freedom of pedagogical work is most strongly guaranteed by the relationship between education and the state, and would be more endangered under any other arrangement.

Perhaps this situation, symbolized by the transformation of rigid curricula into guidelines, can best be expressed as follows: by the very conditions of its existence, the state must have an effect in education by allowing dynamic freedom in this field, by affording opportunity for the dynamic influences on Bildung to influence the young, and and by securing them in the form of curricula. All other forces must, in order to become influences on Bildung, agree to a transposition of their aims and contents into the form of pure (purpose-free) Bildung. The state itself is this pure form of Bildung in the confrontation between influences on Bildung and the generations in the lifeworld of school. Thus the state plays a double role in school. On the one hand it is one power among others which struggle to take effect and bear offspring. For this it has, like the other influences, preferred instruments in the context of Bildung &emdash; in this case history and civics &emdash; and all demands which it makes from the point of view of its concrete tasks as the state must first be transposed into appropriate forms. At the same time, however, the state as an educating entity is school and is represented by the singular order of educational processes (Bildungsvorgänge) within it.

This does not mean that such a position of the state is inevitable. The guarantors of this inner form of the state are never the institutions and curricula themselves, whose spirit can be misinterpreted and sabotaged, but living human beings who feel responsible for both the state and education. In curricula, the state gives responsible-thinking, civically- and educationally-oriented people the opportunity of showing the young its worth, and whoever wishes to serve the state and at the same time provide a truly worthwhile education must adapt themselves to this objective structure. The essence of what is expressed conceptually in the Lehrplan and institutionalized in the organizational structure requires the educator to come alive, and thus curricula are primarily directed at the teacher. They outline the human assets which the state must demand of its teachers. Indeed, each new Lehrplan should require fresh training of teachers and, as changes take place within the working life of a teaching generation, constant inservice education.

Curricula no longer contain the material which the students are to acquire and retain for testing. They contain only the human assets of the adult generation, of which the state knows it is the representative and in which it sees the human qualification of its existence. Again, this means that any absolute claim on the part of the state is restricted: it does not lay down contents of general validity as a superior authority, but always depends on the actual human assets of the nation, on the substance valid at the time. In practice, this means that the state codifies in the Lehrplan the assets of each adult generation, which means that Lehrplan today cannot be expected to last longer than a generation. These human assets which the curricula describe are not material. The material given in the Lehrplan is more a medium to express the pivotal human forces and contents. Thus the Lehrplan for the Gymnasium always contains more material than the teacher can cover, even in a more specialized area, whereas the Lehrplan for the elementary school always contains less than is required if the teachers are to present human substance effectively. On the other hand, general curricula . . . tend to become guidelines which determine only the scope and the fundamentals of Bildung and leave the rest, particularly selection, to the more specific curricula or syllabi of the regions or institutions, or to the teachers themselves.

The contradictions which maintain tension and momentum in the relationship between state and culture and which are the lifeblood of this relationship must be reflected in the Lehrplan and may not be eliminated. The Lehrplan indicates which of the opposing forces legitimate our present existence and, therefore, cannot be relinquished. It is these which should be alive in the teacher. The teacher represents the changing constellations of opposites in school, as the state does in life as a whole. The antinomies of the contemporary human situation are alive in the teacher, but at rest. In the teacher and in the educational community of school, the student is confronted with the human character of the age, despite all contradictions, and, beyond it, with human life itself. The student develops against this background, confronts the whole in the person of the teacher, and retranslates it into the movement from which it sprang.

Nothing is achieved, however, by the formal dialectical description of this whole as the unity of contradictions taking shape in the person of the teacher. Granted, the pedagogical attitude of the teacher may arise from the incontrovertible contradictions in our culture. The more difficult it is to obtain a uniform overall picture and the more the Lehrplan assumes the guise of a compromise between opposing forces, the less absolute and authoritative can the Lehrplan and teaching appear, and the more apparent it becomes that it is the child which must be the point of departure and the yardstick for the work. But this alone would not suffice, quite apart from the fact that a child-orientation cannot really be stipulated in the Lehrplan. The educative (bildend) potential of the contents could not come to bear in their mere juxtaposition, given the constant instability of their relations. The common thread which binds them together in the Lehrplan needs to be defined, because it is in this context in which they are comprehended.

More is needed, therefore, than the mere statement of the balance of forces at the time the Lehrplan is developed. An ideal is required which governs how these forces are to be regulated in accordance with the will of the state, an ideal which encompasses the individual forms of dialectical unity still possible with respect to the differences in the teachers’ personality structures, their disciplines, and their basic attitudes. The Lehrplan today is not only a synopsis of those past values deemed so important by the adult generation, represented by the state, that they must be passed on to the next generation through the medium of formal education. Any inventory of this kind would be purely historical and would immediately turn present into past. Rather, the Lehrplan tries to anticipate future development and expresses, in its picture of the future, the unity which is assumed in the teacher beyond any one-sidedness which may otherwise be in evidence.

Contemplation of the dynamic, educative substances (bildende Gehalte) of the present can only proceed from the task before us. The Lehrplan only becomes comprehensible in conjunction with the tasks, either expressly stated or tacitly assumed, which arise for the state in the field of education . . . . In formal terms this is always a twofold task: on the one hand the community is to be enhanced and awareness of community created; on the other hand, the inner strength and purity of the factors which give the modern state its dynamic quality and guarantee its continuance are to be maintained. In terms of content, however, the tasks in question here, and which form the initial basis for the Lehrplan, are not those which arise from the autonomous development of the disciplines &emdash; sciences, arts, etc. &emdash; with which only the adult, "educated" generation can be confronted. Nor do they concern the immediate fulfillment of political or cultural demands with the tools of education, but the development of education (Erziehung und Bildung) arising from the general situation of people, state and culture, in which the continued socio-human life of people and state is secured. The general tasks of people and state are themselves applied to the Bildung of the coming generations, in other words on their humanity and human attitude.

To recapitulate, the following contribute to the forming of the Lehrplan: the state as educator; the powers within the state which influence education, which struggle to shape the state, to find expression within it, to gain status and independence, and which want to integrate the human and educational assets and the awareness of values of the adult generation into the order of teaching; the immediate, concrete task of Bildung which presents itself to the state and the powers within it; and finally the ideal of Bildung which is developed, in awareness of this task, from the given resources and intentions and which refers to future human attitudes. The structure of the Lehrplan can only be understood from this perspective and all reflection in Didaktik must proceed from here. Then, however, a second layer is revealed, independent of the first layer and restricted by it, which must ensure fullness and variety in contrast to the extreme concentration demanded by the conditions and tasks of the present.

Here the concern is to weave a fabric of ideas representing reality, to impart basic experiences in which the whole context of life becomes apparent, the network of "essential relations" in which life is lived. It is the categories for mastering the world and life itself which are to be taught in schools. Here then is the position of the schooling of functions and formal Bildung, but not only as a means of transmitting the elementary conditions of every attitude to life and the world in logical thinking, apperception and association of thoughts &emdash; admittedly, this elementary area occupies a large part of the Lehrplan in practice &emdash; but also to achieve completeness of the world view and humanity. If, for example, the task of educating (Bildungsaufgabe) at a particular period and the ideal of Bildung developed from it demand concentration on a one-sided human attitude, it falls to the second layer to guarantee the basic domains of thought in which human existence reaches fulfillment, not only to complement, not only because these human directions are interdependent and none of them completely dispensable in the balance of life, but also because future changes in the common task must be prepared for. The Didaktik of the domains of human existence treats the problems which arise here, the categorization of individual subjects according to domains of human existence and the relationship of all subjects to each domain, as well as the definition of the basic domains in their assertion of independence over any form of concentration, particularly those assigned to the sciences and the arts.

In Lehrplan and in teaching itself, the area occupying the most time and attention is one which can be assigned to a third layer and which may be summarily termed "knowledge and skills," in contrast to the formation of views (Bildung der Gesinnung) and human attitude in the widest sense of the first two layers. Knowledge and skills often turn out to be a condition for work in the other layers and there are levels of instruction, parts of instruction and whole subjects which appear in the knowledge and skills they endeavor to instill to serve only as preparation for more advanced studies and as pointers to other subjects . . . . The independent existence of the preparatory subjects is mediated. This can usually be seen most clearly in Classics, where students are first required to spend years practicing Latin grammar and unconnected translation to prepare them for the encounter with the ancient world later in their school career. Latin classes in the first and last grades have only the name in common.

This area poses difficult questions of method, particularly today, when many students do not go on to fulfill what instruction has been preparing them for, either because they leave full-time education or continue on a different path. There are occasions, too, where the subjects intended as the fulfillment of the instruction which has gone before are not even taught in the same section of the school system, but in other schools. In some cases, fulfillment comes only in vocational training, or indeed even in the living of life itself. Some curricular tasks have no longer anything to do with Bildung. They concern the out-of-school objectives of influences operating outside school as well as certain practical necessities of jobs, commerce, the Church (Hebrew!), etc. They are directed at schooling, training, mastering of material. For some reason or other, one must know or be able to do certain things. Here the influences shaping life do not want to become influences on Bildung, but simply demand a body of consolidated knowledge and mastered techniques. At times there is no attempt to dress these demands up as concerns of Bildung &emdash; "vocational education" or "formal education". School today must seriously fear that it will simply be mediated in this way. Industry and commerce in particular are not foreign to these tendencies, but many of the demands currently being made by the universities and colleges would have the same result in the end.

As these demands are founded in the structure of life; they cannot be rejected in their entirety. Preparatory steps in instruction must always be expected, but it is then the task of Lehrplan design and instructional method to imbue these demands with pedagogical significance and to find within them educative (bildende) features. If the experience of the great classical educationists and of Reform Pedagogy does not deceive, the solution to the problem lies in the practical proof that knowledge and skills are worthless and give no guarantee of their correct use unless they are supported by properly designed instruction, i.e., by the human background as produced by the work in the first two layers of education. Rousseau and Schleiermacher developed the principles of true "preparation for life" which also apply here and, more recently, there have been Kerschensteiner's principles with their practical reference to the economy. We need to build on Pestalozzi's approach and design a form of elementary instruction which progresses holistically, drawing on the contents of the child's and the adolescent's lifeworld, and thereby prepare for all legitimate demands of life and guarantee their fulfillment, as far as the school situation and the students’ age will permit.

1. Translator's note: Das Lehrgefüge, translated here as "the order of teaching," encompasses the whole fabric of content and method. The concept of Lehre in Didaktik comprehends content and method, teaching and learning as one entity. Weniger restricts the term to the context of school.

Joerden, R. (1925) Das Problem der Konzentration der deutschen Bildung (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht) contains an excellent critical synopsis of relevant literature, particularly Reform Pedagogy and the crucial texts of Hildebrand, Nietzsche, Lagarde, Langbehn, Windelband, Troeltsch, Benz, Burdach and Simmel, which for this reason are not specifically mentioned here.

Dilthey, W. (1924) Die geistige Welt: Einleitung in die Philosophie des Lebens. Hälfte II: Poetik, Ethik und Pädagogik Gesammelte Schriften VI (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).

Dilthey, W. (1927) Der Aufbau der geschichtlichenWelt in den Geisteswissenschaften Gesammelte Schriften VII (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).

Dilthey, W. (1934) Pädagogik, Geschichte und Grundlinien des Systems Gesammelte Schriften IX (Leipzig: B. G.Teubner).

Freyer, H. (1928) Sprache und Kultur. Die Erziehung, 3: 65-78.

Hildebrand, R. (1807) Vom deutschen Sprachunterricht in der Schule und von deutscher Bildung und Erziehung überhaupt (Leipzig: Klinkhardt).

Lattman, K. A. J. (1860) Über die Frage der Konzentration in den allgemeinen Schulen, namentlich im Gymnasium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Litt, Th. (1925) Geschichte und Leben: Problem und Ziel kulturwissenschflicher Bildung (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner).

Litt, Th. (1928) Wissenschaft, Bildung, Weltanschauung (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner).

Litt, Th. (1931) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Pädagogik, 2nd edition (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner).

Litt, Th. (1949) Führen oder Wachsenlassen: Eine Erörterung des pädagogischen Grundproblems, 4th edition (Stuttgart: Klett).

Nohl, H. (1926) Zur deutschen Bildung I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Nohl, H. (1930) Pädagogische Aufsätze, 2nd edition (Langensalza: J. Beltz).

Nohl, H. (1949) Die Pädagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie, 3rd edition (Frankfurt/Main: Verlag Schulte-Bulmke).

Nohl, H. (1947) Charakter und Schicksal: Eine pädagogische Menschenkunde, 3rd edition (Frankfurt/Main: Verlag Schulte-Bulmke).

Nohl, H. (1949) Pädagogik aus dreissig Jahren (Frankfurt/Main: Verlag Schulte-Bulmke).

Spranger, E. (1922) Lebensformen: Geisteswissenschaftliche Psychologie und Ethik der Persönlichkeit (Halle: M. Niemeyer).

Spranger, E. (1925) Der gegenwärtige Stand der Geisteswissenschaften und die Schule, 2nd edition (Leipzig: B. G.Teubner).

Spranger, E. (1928) Das deutsche Bildungsideal der Gegenwart in geschichtsphilosophischer Beleuchtung (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer).

Spranger, E. (1928) Die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Schulverfassungslehre und Schulpolitik. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1927, Philohist (Berlin: W. de Gruyter &Co.).

Spranger, E. (1932) Volk, Staat, Erziehung (Leipzig: Quelle &Meyer).

Spranger, E. (1949) Der Bildungswert der Heimatkunde, 2nd edition (Stuttgart: Reclam-Verlag).