Sidel’s criticism of Kerschensteiner’s understanding of work-school

This paper discusses Sidel’s criticism of certain Kerschensteiner’s views about work-school and work-education. Sidel disputed that Kerschensteiner was the creator of the idea about work-school, emphasizing that, significantly before Kerschensteiner, he put forth this idea in his papers, in which he proved the pedagogical value of work and the need for work-school. Sidel objects to Kerschensteiner that he did not convincingly elaborate the need for introducing work-school, that, when explaining the need for handcraft, he underestimated the significance of books for education and culture in general, that he did not specify the term "giftedness", that is, that he did not indicate that besides spiritual, there are other kinds of giftedness and that he did not understand correctly the relation between work and obviousness. Sidel also thinks that Kerschensteiner did not understand the relation between the society, state and education, i.e. that he did not demonstrate that school reform is conditioned by social reasons, that work-school is a social an political need, that work education is the need and interest of modern society and state. Also, he objects to Kerschensteiner that he did not understand nor emphasize the significance and value of handcraft for artistic education, that he did not speak about the role of work in the development of inventive spirit of the young, that he did not sufficiently emphasize that significance of handcraft for the development of will, moral and character, that he did not speak in which way work-school can be realized, i.e. he did not see the mutual relationship between social development and school and did not demand any social changes for the purpose of accomplishing that goal. Sidel concludes that Kerschensteiner’s work-school, introduced in the conditions of monarchist organization of schools in Germany, cannot be a role model which should be followed