(CZ) Jak univerzitní učitele pedagogiky uvazovali o vysokoškolském vzdělání učitelů národních škol
(EN) The Ideas of University Educationalists on the University Education of Teachers at National Schools

Příspěvek analyzuje 5 návrhů na podobu vysokoškolského vzdělání, které vytvořili univerzitní učitelé pedagogiky (G. A. Lindner, F. Drtina, O. Kádner, O. Chlup a V. Příhoda) v období od vzniku české Karlo-Ferdinandovy univerzity (1882) do konce 1. republiky (1939). Zaměřuje se zejména na pojetí, strukturu a obsah tohoto studia a na podobu instituce, která ho měla realizovat. Cílem textu je mj. zjistit, do jaké míry byly zmíněné návrhy využity při poválečné realizaci učitelského studia a při zakládání pedagogických fakult. Stranou necháváme jiné formy spolupráce univerzitních učitelů s učiteli národních skol v dané oblasti, realizované svépomocné podniky i skolsko-politickou rovinu tématu.

This article is a historical study which analyses and compares five proposals on a form of university education for teachers of national, i.e. basic schools, that were drawn up by Czech university professors of education (Gustav Adolf Lindner, František Drtina, Otakar Kádner, Otokar Chlup, Václav Příhoda) in the period 1882-1939. It focuses particularly on the concept, struc-ture and content of the proposed studies and the form of the institution supposed to implement the plans, Although it was the teaching body of na-tional (basic) schools that initiated attempts to secure university education, without the support of academics their efforts would have hadlittle hope of success. The support took both theoretical form (drawing up of concepts, reform proposals) and practical form (involvement in political negotiations, teaching in self-help institutions).
The author of the earliest known proposal was G. A. Lindner, the first professor of pedagogy at the Czech Charles-Ferdinand University. This important theorist takes a very practical approach. Although he asks for an extensive pedagogic-didactic-psychological education grounded in a broad spectrum of philosophical and economic sciences, he considers the realistic option to be to offer it at first only to the teachers at pedagogic institutes and to people in administrative service. His projected pedagogical higher educational institution is conceived as an independent institution outside universities and in addition to providing teacher training for all, including secondary, high-school teachers, it is supposed to be a space for the cultivation of the sciences of education. He saw the distinctive character of the teaching profession in terms of pedagogic competences.
F. Drtina, from 1901 full professor of philosophy and education, also took a practical line. He regards the demand for university education of teachers as in principle justified, but as a goal that would need time to be achieved. As an immediate solution he suggested a higher secondary school, to be known as a pedagogic academy (essentially a reformed teaching institute) to be followed by a two-year educational seminary (basically a school or pedagogic faculty). He argued that teachers should be given not an academic.but a universal education that would have educationally beneficial effects. Like Lander he saw the distinctive desired character of teacher training in educational-psychological education set in a philosophical frame.
O. Kádner, Drtina‘s successor in the chair of education at the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University, in general concurs with his predecessors. Essentially he differed from them only in not recommending that a higher pedagogic school (or school or pedagogical faculty) should fulfill the func-tion of a kind of university pedagogic centre for teachers of all kinds and levels of scho ol.
The „Copernican Revolution“ came with the ideas of O. Chlup. His higher peda-gogical school is a school aiming at objective education encouraging, „many-sidedness, selection, system, a scientific basis and philosophical harmonious equilibrium“, V. Příhoda argues from the specifics of the teaching, which he sees in knowledge of the processes of teaching/learning, children‘s reactions, and in self-aware pedagogic action. For this reason he returns to Lindber and Drtina‘s conception of a pedagogic faculty as an institution providing all teachers with training in pedagogic and psychological disciplines and at the same time as the institutional basis for the development of educational and psycho-logical sciences.