THE PRIMROSE PATH.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1687, 1 March 1913, Page 13

THE PRIMROSE PATH.

—r* A GREAT MODERN FALLACY.

EASE OR EFFORT? BRILLIANT ADDRESS ON EDUCATION . An address of exceptional power and brilliance was delivered to tho Association of University Women Teachers in London on January 10 by Dr. Geraldino E. Hodgson, of Bristol. We quote the "Morning Posfs" report of this vakiablo address:— ' Dr. Hodgson took as her subject "Tho Theory of' tho Primrose Path," in which sho entered into a criticism of tho Montessori system of education. No intelligent being would deny, sho thought that the last 50 years had seen a great and even, pathetic growth of belief in tho value of systems. It was natural that education should suffer under the general infection, and-it oertainly had suffered. The latest pedagogic system was perhaps the Montessori, but. it was not new, for—as she was told—its principles were expounded by the Head to tho students of a wellknown Training College at least twenty,two years ago. The English newspapers, however,, had just got hold of it; so that there could bo scarcely anyono who was not more or less aware that tho path of wisdom had been ■ definitely opened, and . that the way of education had at last been ■ made plain. (Laughter.) Even a foolish system might work well in tho hands of an exceptional person in exceptional circumstances; but it was personality in the man which saved tho system. No generalisation could bo made about things educational, save that a generalisation could not bo made. (Laughter.) Professor Holmes claimed that an ethical and a psychological principle underlay the Montessori method. These ho called "the principles of liberty nnd tho scheme of sense training." The senses had been so ridden to death that they were all sick of them. (Laughter.) Professor Holmes wrote: "The principles of slavery still pervade pedagogy, and therefore tho same principle pervades the school. I need give only ono proof—the stationary desks and chairs. To-day wo hold pupils in schools restricted by these instruments so degrading to body and spirit, the desk, material prizes, and punishment. Our aim in all this is to reduce them to the discipline of immobility and silence, to lead them— where? Far often towards no defirfite end." Such sweeping statements presented an unnatural picture of the school to which they were accustomed; though school desks were apt to be comfortless, prizes were objectionable in the eyes of many, and punishments, in somo sort, a confession of failure. Yet desks, prizes, and punishments did not exhaust the possibilities of school life. It was in the chapter on discipline that they found tho principle-of liberty in its purity: "If any Educational Act is to be efficacious it will only be that which tends to help towards tho complete unfolding of this life. To to thus nelpful it is necessary rigorously to avoid tho arrest of spontaneous movements and the imposition of arbitrary tasks." Tho word "arbitrary" was a question-begging epithet which she deprecated. Why should it be assumed that tho imposition of arbitrary tasks was common? Again, it was stipulated that tho characteristics of the Montessori system wero brevity, simplicity, and objectivity. The author proceeded: "If, therefore, the lesson rigorously prepared in this brevity, simplicity, nnd trust is not understood, by the child, is not accepted by him as an explanation of the object, tho teacher must be warned of two things —first, not to insist by repeating tho lesson, and, second, not to make the child feel it has made a mistake or that it is not understood, because, in so doing, she will cause him to make, an effort to understand, and will thus alter the natural state, which must bo used by her in making her psychological observation." (Laughter.) So the aim of instruction was that the teaclrer, not the taught, should learn. (Laughter.) Tho ■effort to uiulersand was not natural, in tho Montessori youth.' Was this principle of liberty-any-thing but tho aged plea for the Primrose Path, garbed, of course, in tho latest biological and psychological jargon? The "turn-work-into-play" theory recurred again anu again in tho history of education. What were tho mistakes that underlay this enervating doctrine? j Ease or Effort? The first was the too ready and thoughtless identification of games with ease and mere pleasure. The best gamo was something beyond mere pleasure or mure case. When children played games, as a rule thcy knew what they were after; which, she feared, was not always the case with their work. A more fatal assumption was that all work was distasteful. Though this was not Madame Montessori's view—her attack being upon methods rather than on material—it seeined to be that of most upholders of the Primrose Path, Just as it was a blunder to confuse happiness with pleasure, or play with ease, so it was a blunder to confound difficulty with pain. Difficulty might amount to pain, but it might be, anil in tho degreo of it which we called effort, often was highly pleasurable. (Hear, hear.) Pleasurable or not, steady, long-sustained, ever-increasing effort was the desideratum in all achievement. That was a fact we wero forgetting in education. Our lab-our-saving devices, whether of text-book, apparatus, or examination dodge, wero gradually supplanting thoroughness and effort. In face of all the distressing signs of our times, the prevalence of plea-sure-seeking, til© dread of pain and discomfort, the substitution in public life of coarse invectivo for sound knowledgo and depth of conviction and strength of principle, the shameless offer of bribes to thrift and short cuts to success, surely it was tho duty of everyone who answered the honourable name of "teacher" to proclaim the elementary, fact that something was not to be had for nothing. This fact extended far beyond intellectual acquisition. The abominable .work which was done in England day by day in many trades—tho bad plumbing, tlie shocking buildings, the mis-erably-fitting clothes, tho colour printing, which went abroad because our artisans wero too slovenly to use properly tho simple mechanism necessary to its production, the shameless dawdling of reputable shops over the. execution of orders r „wero all samples of tho slackening ideal of English business life. The last twenty-five years' relaxation, of discipline in general society was now. in our schools, bearing Dead Sea fruit. If education yielded to the popular clamour for ease, surely this nation was. doomed. Wo wanted neither tho Prophet of the Primrose Path, who smoothed out every mistake and counselled always the immediately easiest ■ way, nor the autocrat who kept the whole game in his own hands.

Education's Dual Task. Wo wanted people who really believed that no two human creatures were quite alike,- that the circumstances of no -two human creatures wero quito alike, and w;ho realised with those facts the substantial common life in which wo must all participate. That being so, education had the dual {ask of providing a ground plan strong enough to control tho intolerable aberrations of singularity and shot through with sufficient elasticity and variety to prevent tho extinction of lifegiving individuality. Wo one fixed system could meet such a complicated situation. This proposed method of unfettered choice fitted in only too fatally with tho prevailing humour of tho moment, the desire to get rid of all restraint, to disguise thoroughness and savo trouble, to thrust Bills through Parliament anyhow, so that they got through, to popularise everything, to chop your magazine articles into tabloids, to review as many books as possiblo in a column, no matter what you say; and to ensure a peaceable reception of all this, bring up your ohildren to shirk difficulty, love case, and learn oly that in which they wero pleased to bo interested. (Hear, hear.) Could such methods make great citizcns? Had they anywhors produced even passable human beings? The worst fallacy'; was that which denied 1 hat pain, disagreeable effort, could ever be an effectual instrument for good. While we had no right to strip education of its indigenous difficulties, wo might relievo it of its gathered rupulsivencss, due to our dulness or stupidity or blundering unselectivi-ness. H was not softness ami mildness, but bracing nnd disciplining that wero -wanting by a generation which drugged itself on tho approach of physi. cal pain, sacrificed what it called 'iln principles for four of giving offence, and luul little or no notion of gciug without

. desircd ' Was tL 's an asy orld to live in f To bring children HL- ?- VOI( * every pain, to indulge every lnc.ination, and then to turn them into *' l ' s rou Sh, heedless world, seemed to bo something very liko.comnion cheating. The plain, unmistakable experienco_ of life was that everything worth having must bo won at a price. The greater the worth the greater tho price, lain could educate, could mould to great perfection; not all pain, always, but somo pain, sometimes, willingly used. Tho advocates of the llontessori method did not remember. Browning's ferociously uncompromising pronouncement: "When pain ends, gain ends too." There was a psj etiological as well as an ethical misapprehension underlying this theory of tlie Primrose Path. Not every motivo was pure; not every desiro was lasting; ?,i •iS very ' nc l' n ?tion was a sign of bent. Jjiiudren were, indeed, less sagacious for themselves than tho ■ inexhaustibly amiable theorists fancied. Efficiency could not be bought cheaply, just because no j 11 ?., gliding along pleasant way 9 ever antted mto tho possession of -a master craftsman s gifts. No high achievement was compatible with ease. Wo all stood in need of guidance, definite teaching, warning. Left to choose 'for ourselves we should accomplish pitifully little. Eng".shnien were not philosophical or they would no |; assume, as they constantly did assume, that economic, ethical, philosophical, and religious truths differed troin thoso of tho' physical sciences in being soluble the plain man who had had no special instruction in them. This extraordinary obsession of the ordinary knghshnian provided, unfortunately, an easy welcome to crude notions about education. (Cheers.)