Pestalozzi’s exaltation of home education is certainly a great rebellion against scholastic and academic training. No less revolutionary is his advocacy of industrial education as the only real education for the mass of people. Hitherto, education was conceived from the standpoint of aristocracy, or purely from the abstract ideal of perfected man in a perfected society. But now “the fatherland must learn to educate her poor as the poor” (16: xii, p. 513). The child of poverty should not be educated to an unpractical and unhappy man who cannot fulfil the task or duty which his particular circumstances and position require of him. First, “he must learn to know, handle, and use those things on which his bread and his quiet will depend through life” (1: p. 666). To give the power to support himself and his family is the first remedy for the misery and slavery of the poor: “He is without rights, because he has no gain,” and “the poor man is poor mostly because he is not trained to earn his wants” (16: iii, p. 247). So the first school which he established at Neuhof was intended to be an industrial school, embracing agriculture, manufacture, and commerce. This ended in financial ruin before his plan was fully executed, but he reflects in his later life upon this school as if it were a lost child, and says: “It is true that, with all the experience of after-life, I have found but little reason to modify the views I then entertained” (1: p. 671). Comenius and Locke both introduced manual work into their curriculum, but without intending that it should be of much practical use in later life. Neither did Basedow emphasize the vocational aspect. Locke, indeed, had an unrealized plan for establishing a “working school” for the poor. Still, it was to be nothing more than the combination of a common workshop and a day nursery. We owe to Pestalozzi the first definite conception of an industrial education and its noble philosophy.