The Daily News. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1913. OUR SCHOLASTIC SYSTEM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 193, 4 January 1913, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1913. OUR SCHOLASTIC SYSTEM.

Coming as it did from a schoolmaster, the presidential address delivered at the opening session of the Kdtieational Institute by Mr. .T. Caughley was promisingly practical, for it is notorious that in our underpaid and overworked scholastic system the average schoolmaster is generally either an immense enthusiast or else imbued with the inertia that is inevitable where hours are long and salaries are low. There is, probably, no better educational system in the world than our own, in theory, but it breaks down sadly, as 11 r. Caughley appears to have realised, in practice. SVe have progressed immeasurably, of course, since the school days when we had to be either a "Modern" or a "Classical," and the advent of the kindergarten and the technical college has helped materially to weld our educational system into a homogeneous whole. But the road seems to lead uphill all the way, and we have still a very arid pa/tch of country to traverse before we reach the primrose way of perfection. It is a realisation of this that makes us welcome such eminently practical contributions towards an elucidation of the problem as that delivered by the president of the conference on Wednesday. It is not necessary to follow this illuminative address in detail, because it speaks for itself with 110 uncertain voice, but we do hope that it will be accepted and studied thoroughly by everybody irfco has an interest in our educational

system, and not allowed to drift into that limbo of forgotten things —the waste-paper basket of the world, which the average newspaper represents. We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow, ■ Our wiser sons no doubt will think

US' so. So quoth Pope in his "Essay on Man," and while the cynicism is probably justified, as most cynicisms are to a certain extent, we have still to remember that our "wiser sons" have only acquired the necessary intelligence to realise that their fathers were fools through the cf forts of their fool fathers. The more we can teach them how little we know, the better will they be qualified to pass on to their children's children a realisation of their own disabilities, and so the little seed we planted in the dark may rise awl claim the land. We have most sympathy with Mr. Caughley when he emphasises the fact that we are apt to lose sight of the individuality of childhood, and to regard a child as belonging- to a certain " Standard" only, regardless of all considerations of temperament or environment. It is, of course, impossible to evolve a scheme of democratic scholasticism whereby we could have "one-teacher-one-ehild," nor, .as -Mr. Caughley pointed out, can we apply the principle of the celebrated robber of Greek legend "Procrustes, the Stretcher," who stretched his guests to fit his bed if they were too short, and lopped off their limbs if they displayed any tendency to George Ade's "slight overhang." To attempt this scholastically, as we really are doing by our hard-, and-fast Standard system-, is simply to challenge the vengeance of some modern educational Theseus. The suggestion is simply that any carelessness or deficiencies in our system of national education will recoil upon ourselves as a people. Mr. Caughley's comments on this important aspect of our system are so apposite that they are worthy of reproduction. . He says: "When primary schools were established the style of instruction already petrified in the upper schools was transferred to the primary schools, and the pupils were taught, not as children, but as little men. In our country, too, where the pupil passes from the primary to the secondary School, a considerable part of the work of primary schools inflicted on all children, because it is required as a preparation for secondary work. This lias been to some extent modified lately. We continue to hear complaints loud and deep because the primary school is not so conducted as to fit in with the secondary school, whose work, in turn, is governed by university requirements. To complicate this state of things we have the call of the kindergarten and of the modern infant school, urging tlie primary school to come down to them, while the higher schools are calling us to move up to thero. It seems necessary, therefore, that we should boldly adopt the plan of starting with the natural curriculum -and frame a progressive course of education, providing year by year only that quantity and kind of work a pupil can cover in a year. We should not be unduly worried if we find ourselves compelled to abandon work that has been set for certain grades merely' because it ha§ always been demanded. Neither should it disturb }is if we found that a pupil of thirteen or fourteen years of age had not covered all that the secondary school now demands. We should simply let the secondary begin where the primary school leaves off, and if a longer course is necessary it would just have ;to be undertaken. The sole guides as to the nature and quantity of each successive year's work should be the needs and capacities of the children." This is, of course, a realisation of the necessity for character-building in the schools as being quite of as vital importance as teaching the children that "twice two are five," that "character" should always be spelt with a "k," and that if the tramlines of the world were laid out in a straight line they would reach twice round the moon, and leave sufficient over to stretch from Timbuctoo to Whangamomona. We know these facts are essential to the syllabus, but their exact, application to the mental development of the child is difficult to follow. But Mr. Caughley has dealt so completely with this phase of the subject that it is not necessary to labor it. What we ought all to be more concerned with is-how best our, system can be so modified or reformed as to give us the better results that everybody admits are wanted. The answer is really simple. We want more teachers, and better teachers, and the only way to secure them is to make the emoluments of the profession approximate more to its value. We have many very earnest men in the service who are working for a laborer's wages simply through love of the work, but we have many others who regard it simply as drudgery for a livelihood. The spirit and the temperament of the master count for quite as much as the spirit and the temperament of the child, and those who labor honestly and conscientiously among the young vines should have their way made as smooth as possible if we are to look for a prolific- crop of grapes. Thero is nothing sordid or commercial in the ch,im of thj Institute that the profession is understaffed and underpaid. It undoubtedly is. The child, after all these years, still remains, the father of the man. and even the very best teachers will be the first to admit that they are not good enough for their occupation. In the meantime the country wants those very best- ones till it can secure better ones, and under these circumstances it should be prepared to pay the hire that th« laborer is worthy of. Comfort and the ; opportunity for relaxation are essential in l a profession where such widely divergent interests and individualities have to be studied both in and out of school. It is the duty of the State to piovide these if it is to hold its place in the forefront of the Empire.