IS OUR EDUCATION DEFECTIVE?

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 150, 28 June 1927, Page 6

IS OUR EDUCATION DEFECTIVE?

Canon Archdall, in the course of his address i on "Civilisation and the Philosophical Outlook," delivered at the University College, made some rather severe strictures on our present system 1 of education. He contended that the spread of ' education had mechanised its control, and that it was becoming largely dehumanised. It appeared J to him that our ideal was far more utilitarian than humanistic. Much of what he had to say in this regard is undoubtedly true. But the y Canon docs not seem to have appreciated aright > the difficulties under which education in a new ' country has to be conducted. In New Zealand we have practically no leisured class such as exists in England. The large English public schools * based their system of education on the assumption that most of the boys attending the schools would occupy positions of leadership in after life. The education provided was essentially an ( aristocratic education, designed to produce men , capable of filling responsible positions in different walks of life. The economic future of many of the boys was assured. Numbers of them were heirs to large estates; others were destined to occupy posts in the gift of relatives or friends. It was at one time thought that the Church, the Army, the Navy or the Bar were the only callings suitable for boys who had been at Eton, Harrow or Winchester. Consequently it was possible to train boys in subjects that were very far from being what the Canon calls " bread and butter " subjects. In our own country the position is quite different. Most of our boys have to make their own way in the world, and they have a far larger variety of callings open to them than had the average public school boy in Great Britain. Study for a University degree has frequently to be undertaken after the day's work is over. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the actual subjects set for the degree should demand the pupil's whole time and attention, and that he should study these subjects mainly with the idea of mastering them for the purpose of passing the examination. At Oxford and Cambridge the most valuable part of the training consists in the college life, where the undergraduates live in rooms and have dinner together in the Hall. But a resident University presupposes a class able to afford three years of expensive training and not dependent in any way on work outside. Everybody will admit that personality in the teacher is more important than the best technique, but the difficulty meets us hero that personality such as goes to make a really good teacher is extremely rare. It is rare even in England; it is much rarer in a new country such as ours. Under our system a headmaster has to take as assistants men who arc high on the grading list, although they may be lacking in personality. Tangible things can be judged and weighed; but it is almost impossible to devise a method whereby the personality of the teacher could be given adequate marks in grading. It is, however, well that Canon Archdall should have drawn attention to what are admittedly weaknesses in some of our educational methods. These weaknesses arc largely inseparable from the conditions under which we are living at present in the Dominion. Those who come from other countries do not always realise our limitations. This was true of many of the criticisms made by the commission on our University system. To many people the wonder is not that we have fallen so far short of perfection, but that we have advanced so far in spite of the peculiar difficulties under which education has had to be conducted. —AN OLD SCHOOLMASTER.