THE KINDERGARTENS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 281, 27 November 1922, Page 7

THE KINDERGARTENS.

AN ANSWER TO CRITICISM. THE RELATION'OF PLAY TO EDUCATION". (By R. CROMPTON-S.MITH.) ln the "Auckland Star" of November 6, 1922, under the beading, -Kindergartens Criticised," are reported the remarks of "a well-known Auckland authority on education." To the present writer these remarks as reported suggest some lack of understanding of the basic principles of education. It seems well, therefore, to point out in print that there are other authorities who disagree with much of what has been stated by the "Auckland authority," and agree with Froebel in his principles of education. When, for example, one considers that the element of play enters as a valuable asset, if not as a basic principle, into some of tile finest educational work, not only in schools, but in movements such as the Boy Scoutg and Girl Guide., and even into reformative work such as the "Little Commonwealth." it is surprising to find an educational authority dismissing play so summarily. Surely it is short-sighted to blame without close examination the foundation because the superstructure is faulty. It is evident that tbe critic of kindergartens has been in schools which have taken the name kindergarten but know nothing of the principles underlying the founder's methods. It would be easy to point to many such and this is * not surprising seeing that there are probably few socalled kindergarten teachers in New Zealand who have even read Froeliel's great book, "The Education of Man." in which he explains his philosophy of teaching. All that the Auckland authority says of kindergartens in New Zealand is in direct contradiction to the carrying out of Froebel's principles. To return to the reported remarks it is stated that "the educationist declared that the very foundation of the kindergarten was wrong, namely the attempt to make work into play." Froebel, the founder of kindergartens, was a philosopher as -yell as a great teacher, and the part which ''play" supplied in his school was the result of a knowledge of child nature wliich in its depth has yet to be surpassed. The foundation, however, on which Froebel bases his kindergarten is to be found in such a statement as the following from "The Education of Man": "God created man in His image, therefore man should create and bring forth like God." From this fundamental idea Froebel tried to work out an "all-round education," the basic principles of which were:— 1. The development of the creative or free self-active tendency in human nature from its earliest appearance, as in the play of the tiny child. 2. The guidance of this "free selfactivity" "in accordance with the eternal law." Froebel emphasises the fact that in this guidance "there should invisibly rule a third something to which eduea.tor and pupil are equally subject, and this third something is tbe Right, the Best." In the community life of the kindergarten Froebel sought to carry out these principles. A school founded on such principles does not develop "vanity" and "irresponsibility"; nor does the free expression of tbe creative instinct result in "pose" and "play-acting." I should like to quote here the considered words of Dr. Percy Nunn in "Education, its Data and First Principles (1920)." Prof. Nunn says on page 89: "It is hardly extravagant to say that in the understanding of play lies the key to most of .he practical problems of education; for play, taken in the narrower sense as a phenomenon belonging especially tv childhood, shows ■ the creative impulses in their clearest, j most vigorous and most typical form.; Hence it is that essentially creative activities, such a. art and craftsman-! ship, and. in a smaller sense, geographical exploration and scientific discovery are felt to have a peculiar affinity with play. and are, in fact, continuous with it in the development of individuality.' Or, as Froebel says in "The Education" of Man," page 55: "The plays of childhood are the germinal leaves of all later life, for the man is developed and shown in these." Froebel did not "attempt to make work into play," but he saw the value of the play attitude, the element of free selfactivity in tbe carrying out of work. The difference i s of vital importance. Turning to the question of self control. After what has been said of Froebel's basic principles, it will be evident that Froebel was not behind modern education in his belief that self-control could only be achieved through self activity, through freedom within the law. Tlie child must have liberty even to make mistakes before be can understand the meaning of self control. On the other hand it i s conceivable that a child brought up in an atmosphere of tmst and with a sense of responsibility because he has been treated as a responsible being, might well feci utterly at sea in a sudden -transition from a system of trust to a system of external control. There is in ' Wellington in the Normal School a living picture of a modern school based on—it would seem—the principle of free selfactivity within the law. I wish that the Auckland authority could see this happier aspect of junior education in New Zealand. Tt is a truly hopeful sight. The children are hard workers, thohgh I believe the spirit of play does enter even there. v.Vith all that the Auckland authority says on the harmfulneas of ''pose.'*' "play-acting." and the "out-vicing of others," I fully agree. My object in the above lines is to point out that he seems to confuse principle and practice. I wish that he would direct bis strength in an attack on all the insidious ways in which tbe "show" element is creeping into our schools. Dancing, for example! is one of the most natural expressions of child life; it is made too often a mere puppet show. In conclusion I should like to draw the attention of your readers to the reports on what must have been a remarkable conference hold in Oxford last August. The subject was "Spiritual "• allies in Education and Social Lite." This conference was organised and attended by men and women of the highest culture and knowledge. The great need of the day seems to be that of spiritual insight into the principles of education in order that we may each work out our individual methods of teaching. It is the slavish adherence to the supposed external express j, n 0 f a principle by so many teachers that kills the vitality of their work. The teacher like the child, must be creative mtist' as Froebel would say. "make the i, lllPr ' the outer/ in his work, and he*a,„ ! , )t do this by merely trying to copy schemes. lie must grasp basic principles. Possibly the kindergarten teachers the | Auckland -'authority" criticise* have failed ia this essential of thai. ~ o _l_