The history of education can be metaphorically understood as an invitation to a journey in a different country . Before departing, however, one should prepare at least the most basic essentials to take along on this journey. Before starting our journey in this book, we would like to offer some general information about our attitudes to the history of education and discuss our methodological approach. With this backdrop, the selection of the six concepts discussed in this book will be understandable.

Exploring any history takes us to places and times far away. History can therefore be understood as a form of science fiction, albeit in reverse. Such an exploration allows us to make contact with the unknown while drawing on our own images of what is good and right. History—we argue—shows us what we are now by contrasting this with what we were in the past. So examining the history of education helps us to realize what we understand as pedagogical normality nowadays. It helps to identify our pedagogical prejudices and matters we take for granted, such as the system of schooling. In this way, these familiar things become open to question. History shows us that everything could be different. Our current normality is not our destiny; it is not the only possible way things could have developed. What we see as normality is a developed normality and it can be changed. Furthermore, we can learn from history how our normality became the way it is now. However, this is important only if we accept that history is an ongoing process. Even though we do not have any manuals for a different future, an understanding of history can open new possibilities for this future. Therefore, the history of education can help us to realize that both contemporary education and the discipline of Education Studies are products of individual decisions that could have been different. These decisions might be explained by reference to historical circumstances; however, they are ultimately contingent.

All in all, history can be understood as a means of exploring ourselves as students, teachers and scholars.¹ This helps us to understand that constructs and practices that often seem to be pre-determined are not, in fact, immutable.

Thus, we must consider how history should be written to support the ideas stated above. It is obvious that it is impossible to write a history of everything, even everything to do with education ; history is never complete, as this would mean writing down everything that ever happened—including writing down what we are currently writing down. Besides, the infinite text that would be the result of such a project , history which understands itself as universal, often obscures its own purpose. As already mentioned, Education Studies is present only in a historical form. This is also true for the sub-disciplines: philosophy of education and history of education . Even the history of education taught at universities nowadays is something that developed throughout history. It is only one perspective on the history of education . The quintessence of this insight is that we must be aware that we are writing only one specific history of education , one that is valid only for the societal and research period in which we are currently integrated. Every period, therefore, has its own pedagogy and thus its own history of education . This becomes evident in the large variety of introductions to the history of education or books called simply, History of Education . In the German-speaking context there are many such volumes. They differ in terms of complexity, topics presented and emphasis on specific parts of the history of education . Altogether, they might help to create a picture of the history of education , but this picture can never be complete due to the subjective perspectives of both writers and readers.

The fundamental approach to writing a history of education consists of three dimensions. (1) The decision as to what to recognize as history and, consequently, which texts, objects or events are selected for presentation; (2) the normative interpretations of the selected materials that become manifest in language. Language itself is never objective, it has its own expression , which frames the perspective of history and events; (3) the way a text is presented and constructed, which represents the understanding of how a text works and transfers its message. Besides these three dimensions, which apply to all books that deal with history, a fourth dimension becomes visible in this text; (4) the individuality of the three authors who wrote it. We decided not to identify who wrote which part of the book; however, there are nuances and differences in the use of language and style, just as there are different ways to write a text or to understand the history of education .

Because different perspectives cannot be avoided, we would like to explain how we dealt with the various dimensions. The issue of having multiple authors strikes us as being a plus point rather than a problem. It serves to remind us of the different views different people might have on how to write histories of education . The second point, which refers to normativity is less easy to encapsulate simply. First, we have tried to present history without evaluating it. We have aimed at a general introduction to the concepts. At the same time, we are aware that this is an idealized view of the research process. We all carry our own prejudices and world views that influence the debates within the texts. Pointing this out more clearly was not possible—and not necessary—for this book. It was not possible because positions drawn from philosophy might be too abstract. It was, additionally, not necessary, because those positions themselves would distract the reader from the main purpose of the text. Therefore, we would like to invite the reader to consider the ideas in this book carefully in order to identify possible problems and positions that were not explicitly noted but which, nevertheless, influence the interpretation of the texts.

The most important of the four points mentioned above is, of course, the first: what do we recognize as history? It represents the general discussion about perspective: the specific view of history that points back to the ways selection has been carried out—that is, our selection of the six concepts that will be introduced in the following chapters. Thus, we would like to point out what guided our selection of material .

No text on the history of education works without an explanation of what is understood as pedagogy or pedagogical. However, many texts just assume that it is obvious what they mean when they write about education or pedagogy . We argue that without clarification we would be unable to see anything when we look back at history.

If one wants to see more, the search for words is not sufficient. The scholar has to look for concepts of pedagogical action that help to identify practices, even in texts that are not written in his or her native language. It is our view that pedagogy happens where learning is guided with intent, meaning that it is initiated and instruction take place. This can happen face to face in personal interaction or in contact with media or other structures, such as intentionally constructed classrooms. These notions can be found in social practices and in texts that describe social practices or ideas. In this sense, the history of education does not work without a shared reference point. Such an approach focuses an informed look back into history and thereby allows us to see more clearly the things that are in line with the understanding of pedagogy elaborated above. However, these criteria do not help us to reduce the complexity of history to the six concepts of this book. The decision to select these examples is derived from other thoughts.²

All in all, the cases presented in this book are a response to three concerns. First of all, we would like to give an overview of what might be understood as exemplary works, enabling the reader to understand what alternative schooling means and how the world can be viewed from the perspective of pedagogy . Second, we understand it as essential to show how a specific historical context frames a specific understanding of schooling and of the human being, its potential and ways of development . The cases can be understoo...