SIR JOHN LUBBOCK AND ELEMENTARY SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 78, 14 September 1878, Page 3

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK AND ELEMENTARY SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS.

The following is part of a speech delivered by Sir John Lubbock on July 4, on the motion of going into Committee of Supply on the Education Estimates : Sir J. Lubbock rose to move That it would be desirable to modify the code of education by adding elementary natural science to the subjects mentioned in article 11, c. I’,’ By natural science he did not mean anything difficult or abstruse, but simple explanations of the ordinary phenomena of nature and of the world in which we live. According to the provisions of the clause just referred to, the sum of 4s per scholar was granted if the classes from which the children were examined in standards 2-6 passed a creditable examination in any of the following subjects—viz., grammar, history, elementary geography, and plain needlework. It was evident, in these circumstances, that no other subjects could or would be taught in elementary schools. In the whole of England and Wales, according to last year’s report, out of 3.000. children in our elementary schools, only 600 passed in any other subjects than those specified in the abovementioned clause. Ou the other hand, history, geography, and grammar formed part of the examination of more than 1.000. children. The Education De-

partment practically excluded science. But the committee of this House which sat in 1868, under the able presidency of the ho:i member for Banbury, strongly recommended that '■ elementary instruction in the phenomena of nature should be given in elementary schools.” ’Again, the Royal Commission presided over by the Duke of Devonshire reported that in their opinion instruction in the rudiments of physical science should form a recognised part of the school course. He could quote numerous high authorities iu support of the same opinion. Dean Dawes, for instance, and Mr Henslow, who founded two of the most excellent of village schools, attributed much of their success to the introduction of elementary science. He did not ask for anything difficult or abstruse, but referred to such points as the causes of the day and night, of summer and winter, of the phases of the moon, the difference between the stars and planets, the causes of eclipses, the tides, the composition and properties of air and water, the nature and characteristics of soils —in chalk districts dwelling especially on chalk, in coal countries on coal; the simple forces, the lever pulley, wheel, screw, and wedge ; the ordinary rules which regulate health, to which he should also like to add some knowledge of the commoner objects by which the children were surrounded. These matters should be treated in a very simple and easy manner, and would be extremely interesting to the children. Our education was at present entirely bookish, and the contact with things, with actual objects, would prove extremely beneficial. He could prove to them by the most abundant testimony from many of our best scho Imasters, and of our most able school inspectors, and by the actual cases of schools in which the experiment had been tried, that science properly taught was most instructive and delightful to children. He was not proposing to make science obligatory ; he only wished that an option should be given to school authorities that a knowledge of the elementary facts of nature should in our elementary schools be put on the same footing as history, geography, and grammar. , Some high authorities were of opinion that history and grammar, as taught in our elementary schools, were by no means suited to occupy the exclusive position now assigned to them. Of history, what was taught in elementary schools was little more than lists of dates, aud kings, and wars, and it might be a serious misfortune that we accustomed our children to regard war as almost a normal state. As to grammar, the right hon member for Birmingham (Mr Bright), in a speech made iu connection with an education institution, said :

“ If there is any lad here who is engaged in learning grammar, I will undertake to say that he will say it is the very driest and most unpleasant study that any person ever put himself to. . . My opinion is that it is very difficult for any person who reads written books and unoerstands them, not to acquire a very competent knowledge of grammar.” Surely such an opinion from such an authority was entitled to very great weight. He did not, however, ask that grammar should be excluded. He merely wished that it should not be put in such a position as to exclude other subjects. . . . Some consideration should be given to locality. Schools in country villages and in great towns differ very 7iiucli. Again, tlie staple industries of the neighbourhood should be taken into account. Something, again, must depend upon the schoolmaster. Surely, then, to lay dow such minute rules in the code was a great misstake. Mr Rusk in had truly said that—- “ The whole force of education, until very lately, has been directed in every possible way to the destruction of the love of nature. The only knowledge which has been deemed essential among us is that of words, and next after it of the abstract sciences, while every liking shown by children for simple natural objects has been either violently checked, or else scrupulously limited to hours of p ay, so that it has really been impossible for any child earnestly to study the works of God, but against its conscience ; and the love of nature has become inherently the characteristic of truants and idlers. The right question to ask is sunply this—Was it done with enjoyment, was the child happy while he was about it f’ He believed that the knowledge which their children would acquire by the introduction of elementary science would not only be useful in itself, but that it would render their lessons more intei'esting, and therefore make them more instructive. In that belief he commended his amendment to the favourable consideration of the House. [Hear.]