Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:30:51.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Educational Reform Between Politics and Pedagogics—The Development of Education in Berlin after World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Karl-Hans Füssl  and
Christian Kubina
Karl-Hans Füssl
Affiliation:
Faculty of the Free University of Berlin
Christian Kubina
Affiliation:
Faculty of the Free University of Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the 1970s the history of educational development has become the object of scholarly research once more. Within the context of recent educational history, the post-war period has aroused particular interest in educational historiographers. This period of educational development was the central topic of a recent conference of Historical Commission of the German Society for Educational Sciences. That symposium sought to find points of reference or precursors in the post-war era of the reforms in the 1970s. In contrast, the development during the 1950s and 1960s has not yet been investigated in detail, a gap which is explained by its close proximity to the present.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 25 , Issue 1-2 , Spring-Summer 1985 , pp. 133 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The paper presented here is made possible through the resources of the Volkswagen Foundation, in conjunction with their comprehensive research project entitled “Germany After 1945.” The goal of this study is to determine the basic factors in the development of post-war Berlin's school system, while emphasizing how the respective thrusts of this development related to the various phases in this period of Berlin's history. No attempt will be made in this paper, however, to present a detailed and complete synopsis of all these stages. One such presentation is found in Füssl, Karl-H., Rubina, Christian; Berliner Schule zwischen Restauration und Innovation um das Berliner Schulwesen zwischen 1951 und 1968. Studien zur Bildungsreform, (Hrsg.) Keim, Wolfgang, Bd. 9, (Frankfurt/Main und Bern 1982). References to other literature in this area are found in its footnotes. The question of teacher training is examined by Gerd Radde: Lehrerbildung an der Paedagogischen Hochschule Berlin 1946–1949, in: Neue Unterrichts-praxis 2(1980):77–81.Google Scholar

1a. Vgl. Bungenstab, Karl-Ernst, Umerziehung zur Demokratie? Re-education-Politik im Bildungswesen der US-Zone 1945–1949. (Düsseldorf, 1970). Huelsz, Ilsa, Schulpolitik in Bayern zwischen Demokratisierung und Restauration in den Jahren 1945–1950 (Hamburg, 1970). Lange-Quassowski, Jutta B., Neuordnung oder Restauration? Das Demokratiekonzept der amerikanischen Besatzungsmacht und die politische Sozialisation der Westdeutschen: Wirtschaftsordnung, Schulstruktur und politische Bildung. (Opladen, 1979). Thron, Hans Joachim, Schulreform im besiegten Deutschland. Die Bildungspolitik der amerikanische Militärregierung nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Diss. der Philosoph. Fakultät (München, 1972). Kellerman, Henry J., Cultural Relations as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy. The Educational Exchange Program Between the United States and Germany 1945–1954. Department of State Publication 8931 (March, 1978). Tent, James F., The Mission on the Rhine: Reeducation and Denazification in American-Occupied Germany, 1945 to 1949. (Chicago, 1983).Google Scholar

1b. Vgl. Pakschies, Günther, Umerziehung in der Britischen Zone 1945–1949. Untersuchungen zur britischen Re-education-Politik (Weinheim und Basel, 1979). Halbritter, Maria, Schulreformpolitik in der britischen Zone von 1945–1949 (Weinheim und Basel 1979). Winkeler, Rolf, Schulpolitik in Württemberg-Hohenzollern 1945–1952. Eine Analyse der Auseinandersetzungen um die Schule zwischen Parteien, Verbänden und französischer Besatzungsmacht (Stuttgart, 1971). Klewitz, Marion, Berliner Einheitsschule 1945–1951. Entstehung, Durchführung und Revision des Reformgesetzes von 1947/48. (Berlin, 1971), Klaus-Dieter Mende, Schulreform und Gesellschaft in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 1945–1965. Die Reform der Differenzierung in der Mittelstufe des Bildungswesens als Problem der Schulpolitik. In: Robinsohn, Saul B. (ed.), Schulreform im gesellschaftlichen Prozeß, Bd. 1 (Stuttgart, 1970). Glowka, Delef, Schulreform und Gesellschaft in der Sowjetunion 1958–1968. Die Differenzierung der allgemeinbildenden Schule als Problem der Sowjetischen Bildungspolitik. In: Robinsohn, (ed.) a.a.O. Caspar Kuhlmann, Schulreform und Gesellschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1946–1966. Die Differenzierung der Bildungswege als Problem der westdeutschen Schulpolitik. In: Robinsohn, (ed.), a.a.O. Arthur Hearnden, Bildungspolitik in der BRD und DDR. (Düsseldorf 1973, 1977).Google Scholar

2. A detailed account of the war's destruction of schools is given by Winzer, Otto, Wildangel, Ernst, Ein Jahr Schulaufbau nach dem Kriege (Berlin 1946). Another factor in the process was the order of the Soviet commander in Berlin prohibiting the continuation of education immediately after the war's end. Until July 4, 1945 and the introduction of the American Occupying Forces, the Soviets had complete control of the city. This meant a special position for Berlin, since the presence of the Allies forced the Soviets to take a more co-operative stance and to partially withdraw from their original goals.Google Scholar

3. From an interview with Efken, Maria (11/5/79).Google Scholar

4. From Lawson, Robert F., Die Politik der Umstaende. Eine Kritik der Analysen des Bildungswandels im Nachkriegsdeutschland. In Heinemann, Manfred, Umerziehung und Wiederaufbau. Die Bildungspolitik der Besatzungsmaechte in Deutschland und Oesterreich. (Hrsg.) Historische Kommission der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Erziehungswissenschaft, Bd. 5, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar

5. Klewitz, Marion: Berliner Schule unter Viermaechtekontrolle, In ZfP 23 Jg. (1977), p. 563.Google Scholar

6. From Lawson, , above, pp. 27.Google Scholar

7. Einheitsschule: An idea more than a form, having roots in the thought of Diesterweg, A. (1790–1866) and the reforms of the Weimar Period; it connotes the structural unification of all levels of schooling under state control, but may in practice refer to a more limited unification of two or more levels in a single school, or simply to a school providing education for all children beyond the compulsory period.Google Scholar

8. CDU: Christian-Democratic Union—the major conservative party in West Germany. SPD: Social-Democratic Party of West Berlin and the German Federal Republic of socialist origin, now one of the major West German parties. FDP: (Freie Demokratische Partei) Free Democratic Party—West German descendant of the Liberal Party (LDP). SED: (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands): Socialist Unity Party—established in the Soviet Zone of Occupation in 1946 as a merger of the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties: for all practical purposes, the Communist Party of East Germany.Google Scholar

9. Lebensfroh und tuechtig. Ein Wort an die Schulkritiker, by city advisor Walter May. In: Elternblatt des Hauptschulamtes von Berlin, Nr. 2 (11/15/50).Google Scholar

10. This differentiation seems unavoidable in light of the fact that there were at least two different positions within the “Reform-paedagogik” movement. The Ellen Kay position (with Wandervogel, Kerschensteiner, Gaudig, et al (bourgeois direction), and the SPD/Mannheim 1905/06 faction (with Zetkin, Clara, Loewenstein, Karsen, Bund Entschiedener Schulreformer (Labor movement direction). Between the two positions, there were many points of overlap and agreement (e.g. with Wynecken) The EHS attached itself to the ideas of labor movement which partly took over the ill-fated ideas of the Buergertum (1948). In the Weimar School Compromise (1922), the Labor movement made large concessions to the center (a “Junktim” observing compliance with the terms of the Versailles Treaty) and even to the extreme conservatives (over the role of Heinrich Schulz). From Hars, Wolfgang, Die Bildungsreformpolitik der CDU zwischen 1945 und 1954. Studien zur Bildungsreform, (ed.) Keim, W., Bd. 1, (Frankfurt/Berlin, 1980). Some of the basis demands of the Labor movement were addressed with the EHS: integration, comprehensivity, science, and the connection between education and the working world. This last point was sponsored in the Berliner EHS by the reformer Oestreich, Paul, Entschiedener Schulreform. Schriften eines politischen Paedogogen, introduced, selected and explained by Helmut Koenig and Manfred Radke (Ost-Berlin, 1978). Especially in conjunction with the sphere of the elastic EHS as well as a Living and Production School.Google Scholar

11. “Unmassgebliche Meinungen und Beitraege zum Weitertreiben unserer Berliner Schulreform.” Personal correspondence from Wilhelm Blume to City Advisor Walter May (Jan. 1948).Google Scholar

12. Ibid. Google Scholar

13. Ibid. Google Scholar

14. Another point of disagreement was the training of industrial vocational teachers, which the Technische University resisted well into the 1960s, until they were forced by law to comply. From Klewitz, (footnote 5), as well as Brita Rang-Dudzik's examination of the question of history presentation after 1945: Alliierte Schulpolitik in Groß-Berlin am Beispiel des Geschichtsunterrichts (1945–48). Unpublished (Berlin, 1980).Google Scholar

15. Annual report, Berlin Senate 1951, p. 37.Google Scholar

16. Philologenverband, Deutscher, Berlin, Landesverband, Denkschrift zur Notwendigkeit einer neunjaehrigen Hoeheren Schule, (7/15/54).Google Scholar

17. In 1953, the Berliner Schule's scientific track received a new “advanced training program,” which was basically the same as the teaching plans of 1927. From Richtlinien fuer die Lehrplaene der Hoeheren Schulen Preussens (3/1/27). Concerning intensified final graduation exams, see RdvfgVbildg II, Nr. 116, (10/14/53), as well as Dbl. III/1955 Nr. 7 (12/30/54). The guidance of students of differing aptitude was formalized by the “(educational) construction regulation” which grouped pupils as follows: Those with theoretical gifts-scientific track. Pupils with practical/theoretical talent-technical track. Pupils with practical ability-the practical track. From Dbl. II/1951, Nr. 31 (7/25/51) and Nr. 32 (7/21/51).Google Scholar

18. For example, in Hylla's, Erich Machen wir ernst mit der “Inneren Schulreform.” In Berliner Lehrerzeitung (BLZ) Nn 3, 1953, pp. 49–52, as well as Geist, Wilhelm, Die neue Schule—eine Einheitsschule. In: BLZ Nr. 7 1952, pp. 114–117.Google Scholar

19. By around 1955, the number of unemployed youth had fallen so far that the special programs designed to meet this problem (e.g. the Full Employment of Unemployed Youth plan) and support the vocational school requirement, could be discontinued. From Statistical Annual Report, Berlin Senate, ff. Google Scholar

20. From Goldbach, Erwin, Ist die Auspowerung der Volksschule ein unabwendbares Schicksal? MUND 40 (1953) p. 2, ff. Google Scholar

21. Weigelt's, reformpaedagogische objectives were strongly pursued by the Neukoellner Kurt-Loewenstein-Schule (practical track), with their Rector Herbert Werner. From an interview with Friedrich Weigelt (11/20/78 and 12/3/78), as well as an interview with Herbert Werner (2/6/79).Google Scholar

22. From Füssl, Karl-Heinz, Kubina, Christian, Der Erziehungsbeirat beim Senat von Berlin (1953–1968), Materialien und Studien zur Geschichte der Berliner Schule nach 1945, Bd. 1 (Berlin, 1979).Google Scholar

23. Predecessor to the contemporary of “Work teaching” (Arbeitslehre).Google Scholar

24. From Berichte ueber die Arbeit der AG “Schule und Wirtschaft,” Studienkreis Berlin, ungekennzeichnetes maschinenschriftliches Manuskript v. 15.1.1962, as well as Interview with Carl-Heinz Evers v. 10.5.1979.Google Scholar

25. From Niederschrift ueber die Sitzung der Abt. II beim Senator fuer Volksbildung v. 5.2.1957.Google Scholar

26. From Sen. Tiburtius, , in: Annual Report, Berlin Senate, 1956, pp. 39.Google Scholar

27. In notes to the three Western powers, the Soviets demanded that West Berlin become a de-militarized free city within six months, with the lifting of the four-power agreement. In addition, notice was given that the responsibility of providing mass transit would be transferred to East Germany.Google Scholar

28. The SPD, supported by the election results, laid claim to the post of the State School Advisor. After an internal debate, the party took the position of Minister Lipschitz, that it would be unseemly for one Minister to push aside another. In this situation, a compromise agreeable to both sides was needed, and Evers, Carl-Heinz, then a school advisor in Berlin-Tempelhof, was nominated for the post by Ministry Director Heinrich Albertz, who felt Evers had the required talent for integratation (from the notes of an interview with Goldbach, E. on 10/23/78).Google Scholar

29. From Berlin, Statistisches Landesamt (Hrsg.), Statistische Jahrbuecher 1952–1960.Google Scholar

30. From Schriftenreihe zur Berliner Zeitgeschichte. Bd. 6, Berlin. Chronik der Jahre 1955–1956 (Berlin, 1968), Berlin, Statistisches Landesamt (ed.). Statistische Jahrbuecher, Berlin 1955–1957 .Google Scholar

31. Stenografischer Bericht des Abgeordnetenhauses, 31. Sitzung vom 15.3.1956; 79. Sitzung vom 6.3.1958; 11. Sitzung vom 16.4.1959; 26. Sitzung vom 17.12.1959—SV Nr. 3717/57 vom 15.10.1957; SB Nr. 3717/57 vom 29.10.1957 SV Nr. 4116/58 v. 4.2.1958; Protokoll d. Ausschusses f. Volksbildung, 20. Sitzung v. 18.1.1960, Protokoll des Hauptausschusses, 62. Sitzung v. 3.2.1960.Google Scholar

32. Protokoll eines Interviews mit dem ehemaligen Schulsenator Carl-Heinz Evers v. 10. u. 16.5.1979.Google Scholar

33. Rundvfg. von II a vom 23.2.1960; Mitteilungen des Praesidenten des Abgh. v. Berlin Nr. 24/1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. The most remarkable recommendation for a reform in school organization in the 1950s was made by the German Commission for Education and Childraising with its “Framework for the Reorganization of the General Public School System” in the year 1959. From Empfehlungen und Gutachten des Deutschen Ausschusses fuer das Erziehungs—und Bildungswesen. 3. Folge. (Stuttgart, 1959).Google Scholar

35. From Bath, H., Das Kulturwunder. In BLZ 17/1959, p. 366.Google Scholar

36. From fuer Volksbildung, Senator (ed.), Entwicklung und Stand des Schulwesens in Mitteldeutschland. Unveroeffentlichtes Manuskript (Berlin, 1957), pp. 1 f. Google Scholar

37. From Niederschrift ueber ein Interview mit Evers, Carl-Heinz. In Fussl, Karl-Heinz, Kubina, Christian Zeugen zur Berliner Schulgeschichte (1951–1968) (Berlin, 1981), pp. 33 f.Google Scholar

38. From Protokoll der Gesamtschulraetekonferenz v. 20.9.1961.Google Scholar

39. Ibid (and footnote 52).Google Scholar

40. From Lilge, H., Deutschland 1945–1963 (Bremen, 1972), pp. 234.Google Scholar

41. From Protokoll der Gesamtschulraetekonferenz v. 20.9.1961.Google Scholar

42. Evers' statements utilized in the planning of school reform are identical to those he made from his position as Tempelhof School Advisor in a proposal he presented in the debate over the imposition of increased school changes (From von Schul, Schreiben A I v. 21.4.1958).Google Scholar

43. Evers, LSchR, Grundgedanken zur Neugestaltung von Bildungsplaenen der Berliner Schule. Arbeitspapier v. Nov. 1960, pp. 13 ff. Google Scholar

44. Evers, LSchR, Expose zur Denkschrift fuer Willy Brandt v. August 1960.Google Scholar

45. Grundegedanken (see footnote 41), pp. 4 f. Google Scholar

46. Ibid. pp. 7 f. Google Scholar

47. Ibid. pp. 9 ff. Google Scholar

48. From Evers, LSchR, Entwurf fuer einleitende Bemerkungen des Sen. f. Volksbildung, Tiburtius (CDU), fuer die Senatssitzung v. 21.11.1961.Google Scholar

49. Volksbildung, Sen. f. (ed.), Denkschrift zur inneren Schulreform Berlin 1962, pp. 51.Google Scholar

50. From Bath, Herbert, Schulpolitische Bemerkungen zur inneren Schulreform. In BL 2 6/1962.Google Scholar

51. Mitteilungen Nr. 24 des Praesidenten des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin, V. WP, Vorlagen zur Kenntnisnahme Nr. 70 ueber Denkschrift zur inneren Schulreform-Schlussbericht (Berlin, 1968).Google Scholar

52. The divided FDP/FDV stood firmly against every school reform introduced in the legislative period before 1959. After four years absence from the House of Representatives and a decisive internal struggle over political direction, however, the coalition sought to redefine its position in the direction of the SPD with a basically progressive political perspective (from Horst Nauber, , Das Berliner Parlament (Berlin, 1975), pp. 322).Google Scholar

53. From Regierungserklärung von Willy Brandt vor dem Abgeordnetenhaus von Berlin v. 18.3.1963.Google Scholar

54. Also from Bath, Herbert, Berlin als Bildungszentrum. In BLZ 11/1962, pp. 241 f.; Arnsdorf, H., Paedagogische Werkstatt Berlin. In BLZ 6/1964, pp. 13 f.; Becker, O.E.H., Rang, Aufgabe und Ziel der Berliner Schule. In Berliner Schule 12/1963, pp. 3; Stenograph. Berichte des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin, 19. Sitzung, v. 21.11.1963, Aussprache ueber den 2. Bericht ueber den Ausbau Berlins als Staette der Bildung, der Wissenschaft und der Kunst.Google Scholar

55. Evers, Sen., Aktuelle schulpolitsche Probleme, PGSchRK v. 9.3.1966; vgl. auch: Schulw, Sen. f. (ed.), Wege zur Schule von Morgen. Entwicklungen und Versuche in der Berliner Schule (Berlin, 1960); Christian Schuetze, Neue Schulen im Examen. In Sueddeutsche Zeitung v. 1.6.1965; Beer, Brigitte, Berlin als Versuchsfeld fuer die Schulreform. In FAZ v. 16.12.1964; Heerwagen, Fritz, Prueffeld des Neuen. Berlin als Pionier in der Bildungspolitik (Duesseldorf/Wien, 1966); Koepke, Horst, West—Berlin geht in der Schulreform voran. In Fr v. 1.2.1965; Hamm-Bruecher, Hildegard, Berlin—In der Hauptstadt der paedagogischen Provinzen. In Die Zeit vom 23.7.1965.Google Scholar

56. About the development of the Hauptschule (practical track) particularly in Berlin: Ulrich, J., Kledzik, (ed.). Die OPZ in Berlin (Hannover, 1963); ders (ed.), Entwurf einer Hauptschule (Hannover, 1967); Hoffmann, Michael (ed.), Hauptschule. Erfahrungen—Prozesse—Bilanz (Kronberg, 1975): Mancke, Klaus, Lehrer an Hauptschulen (Frankfurt/Main, 1979).Google Scholar

57. In his study examining the distribution of the successful graduation exam percentages in West Berlin, Horst Magdeburg reached the conclusion that a success rate of 12% on the preuniversity examination (% of all pupils) was probably about the limit that a vertical school system could reach at that time. From Magdeburg, Schrb. v. H. an den Senator fuer Schulwesen v. 25.11.1965.Google Scholar

58. From among others, Dornfeldt, Walter, Sind Wedding, Kreuzberg, Neukoelln weniger begabt als Wilmersdorf, Steglitz oder Zehlendorf? In BLZ 16/1964, pp. 386; Als “Arbeiterkind” weniger Bildung? In Welt am Sonntag vom 7.11.1965.Google Scholar

59. From Niederschrift eines Interviews mit LSch RH. Bath. In Füssl/Kubina, , Zeugen (see footnote 35) p. 56; Evers, Carl-Heinz, Modelle moderner Bildungspolitik (frrankfurt/Main, 1969), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

60. Vgl. dazu die Einfuehrung von Evers, Carl-Heinz, in Rolff, Hans-G. (ed.), Strategisches Lernen in der Gesamtschule (Reinbeck, 1974).Google Scholar

61. Schulwesen, Sen. f., Evers, C.-H., Vorbereitung einer Rede ueber die kulturpolitischen Aufgaben Berlins fuer den Regierenden Buergermeister Brandt v. Oktober 1966.Google Scholar

62. From Stenograph. Bericht des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin, 22. Sitzung vom 20.12.1963; 27. Sitzung, v. 5.3.1964 und 30. Sitzung, v. 23.4.1964; Haushaltsgesetz, 1965. Einzelberatung und Einzelabstimmung. Einzelplan 2. In Stenograph. Bericht des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin, 44. Sitzung vom 18.12.1964, pp. 709.Google Scholar

63. From Volksblatt, Spandauer v. 28.1.1965: Schleichende Schulreform; Tagesspiegel, v. 28.1.1965: Schulreform durch Neubauten; Telegraf, v. 28.1.1965: 28 neue Schulen geplant .Google Scholar

64. Bath, OSchR H., Einheitsschule und Gesamtschule. Unveroeffentlichtes Manuskript v. 3.6.1965.Google Scholar

65. Ibid. pp. 4.Google Scholar