Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5768, 24 September 1879, Page 2

well. ____________ In our remarks upon the present aspects of the Education question, we think we have already advanced enough to satisfy most unprejudiced persons, that from the University down to the primary school too much is being attempted. The children and youths of these islands are required to- do more than is expected from children and youths of other countries, under equally favorable circumstances. It follows, from such a state of things, that one or the other of two results must inevitably ensue—either having our curriculum of studies over-charged with an immense variety of subjects, covering an exceedingly wide range, parents must be content with a smattering of knowledge being gained by each child on the several subjects, or they must be prepared for a signal failure. Thoroughness cannot be insisted upon, because the cannot be done in the given time. What one of England’s greatest statesmen said of the British army at the time of the American War of Independence may be applied to the youth of New Zealand. Lord Chatham said he “believed the British army could “ do anything but an impossibility, but the “ conquest of America was an impossibi- “ lity.” So it may bo said that New Zea-land-born children are not inferior in mental capacity and intellectual prowess to any of the Anglo-Saxon race. What others have done, they, under equally favorable circumstances, can also do. But we have yet to learn that New Zealand children are more highly organised than children in other countries. The founders of the present system of national education appear to have acted upon the supposition that our young people are superior to their compeers in other lands. If they can prove this, well and good ; but the onus prohandi rests upon them. "We have been at some pains to make a comparison between the curriculum now in force in New Zealand and the curricula required by other national systems which have obtained a world-wide reputation, such as those in England, Ireland, Victoria, &c., and wo find that, taking the six standards as a whole, they are higher in New Zealand than in any of the countries above mentioned, and the children are also required to study more subjects. So that not only is a more extensive and comprehensive knowledge of each subject required, but the subjects are more numerous. Take the case of Victoria. The Victorian sixth standard (highest)presents little more actual work than the New Zealand fifth, in addition to which New Zealand has English history and science, which the sister colony has not. The sixth standard in that colony requires only vulgar and decimal fractions. The sixth standard in this colony requires a thorough knowledge of all the commercial rules of arithmetic, with superficial mensuration into the bargain.

The same time is allowed iu Victoria for passing from standard to standard, as in New Zealand. It is clear, therefore, that considerably greater pressure must be put upon New Zealand children. It may be true that many of the pupils of our schools will bear the strain, and will come out of the ordeal with honor to themselves and credit to their teachers. But the work required can only bo done by the average child at the risk of the most serious consequences to his physical and mental constitution. An ancient sage once said —“ A wise man is not overcome “ by sudden fear, for ho views the present “ by the light of tho past, and ho foresees “ the future from the present and the “ past.” And a wiser than he says—- “ The prudent manforseeth the evil, and “ hideth himself.” Past experience has taught us that the human brain is only capable of a certain amount of work. All authorities agree that, if overworked, the brain suffers in exact proportion to the extra strain that is put upon it. More especially is this the case during the period of growth. During the discussion on one of Dr. Kemx*’s papers on the subject, one speaker likened the children in our schools to an engine driven at high pressure. But the analogy holds good only up to a certain point. If by over work an engine suffers, in any important part, that part can bo removed and replaced by another. But if the mind be injured by over work the whole system suffers, and the injured part can never be replaced, and but seldom repaired. Dr. Kemp has already sounded a timely warning. Many teachers condemn the present system as too gigantic and exacting. The local inspectors, too, are decidedly unfavorable to it, and wo are informed that some of the Education Boards will only adopt the present system in a modified form. In the Educational Districts of Canterbury and Otago the inspectors have announced that they will examine the children in the same standards this year under the new system, as they were examined in last year under the old. This clearly implies that those inspectors think there is quite a year’s work between the standards under the old system and the corresponding ‘standards of the new

We are then brought face to face with a very important question, namely, “To “what purpose is all this ‘cram?’” Experts are of opinion that mistakes have been made, and that too much is expected from the children, because tho advice of practical men was not taken. Theorists, politicians, and men who have no practical knowledge of the science of education have been consulted. Scholars or even teachers they might be, but only of the higher branches of education: most of them have never been brought, like the master of the primary school, into immediate and daily contact with the difficulties which young children encounter in mastering the elements of an English education. If tho Government were going to lay down a railway, they would consult their engineers. If they wished to pass an Act they would take the opinion of their legal advisers. But when the curriculum of education is to be decided upon, the teachers, who, above all others, know what ought to be attempted because they know but how much can be accomplished, are never consulted.