EDUCATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 283, 30 November 1933, Page 19

EDUCATION.

N.Z. 2, ■ . MAN'S DUAL NEEDS. CUXTUHE AND CAPACITY. (By ASCALON.) An interesting suggestion has recently been made in the South that the control of the State educational service should be taken out of the hands of party politics and vested in the control of an ad hoc body, composed of people representative of various interests, partly educational, partly Governmental and partly commercial. It is an interesting suggestion because it shows that many people are beginning to question the wisdom of the sort of control which lias grown up, leading as. it does to a variety of Ministers, who may or may not have competence in educational matters and who in any case are rarely in office for a long enough period of time for the enunciation of 'sound policies, still less for their practical expression. We have" the. resolve of one Minister to set jip a certain type of school, such as the junior high school, and then liia successor with an equally firm resolve to set up a type of intermediate school, of a diametrically opposite kind. Moreover, the two policies are put into action liefore the first has had time to mature. The public mind is confused with the variety of counsel and the public purse is not wisely controlled.

English, and New Zealand Methods. Again -we have all the range of problems related to the subject of vocational as against cultural education. In tome quarters there is an evident desire to break down the distraction between the secondary school and the technical high school. People also see the attempt to duplicate agricultural courses unnecessarily and wipe out the distinction between the technical and agricultural high schools. Then in the matter of organisation, there are the Centralists and the Devolutionists. In Canterbury we have an influential committee telling us that the way of advance is by the revival of real power in the hands of lie four provinces, as against the tendency- to centralise everything in Wellington. There is the contention that the State should give the capitation "rant, whatever it may be, to an educational council in the different provinces, hoping- thereby to resuscitate local interest and healthy rivalry between the different centres, as is the case in England between the various county council authorities.

In England, Whitehall does not command and prescribe j it is satisfied to permit development along various lines R nd then to gain experience by the practical method of sound competition in various places. It is suggested by Professor Hight and his Canterbury committee that the history and the geography of New Zealand point to the wisdom of a similar course of action in Zealand. On the other hand, there are the Centralists, who desire to copy the centralised control of New South Wales and Victoria, on the ground that it would'lead to better mobility of the teachers and enable the relatively small Population of New Zealand to acquire a better national grasp of the whole problem. No wonder that the public mind is somewhat bewildered. Discussion seems to lead, to no very clear result. One assertion that the question of education simply cannot be envisaged as a matter of party politics, is met by another asseveration that public money must be publicly controlled. Again, the

undoubted right of the expert to be heard with respect is met by the equally valid contention that while the expert has the right to be listened 1 to, in questions of curriculaji. it might be much- better to copy. Whitehall in- the appomtmeht 6f' a civil servant with financial arid business experience to see to the spending of so large an amount of the country's money each year. We have had a Royal Commission, whose report is only applied piecemeal, and the expensive committee which toured the country and issued the Atmore Report, which has not commended, itself to the considered judgment of the citizens.

Back to Sound Principles. It is therefore natural that an increasingly large number of thoughtful peogle _are asking "what are the principles on which this vast structure is being raised. It seems very probable that the underlying reason for our prevailing uncertainty and confusion is the fact that the argument is being conducted -without any clear understanding of the major premise. We cannot agree because we all use the- main word "education" with so many different meanings that our discussion becomes futile. Both, sides may very well be right, for they are talking of different things. The fact is that life seems' to demand two things. We must be men, with all the natural interests of men and all the human capacities developed to their utmost capacity. But we must also fit into the economic life of the world. This duality runs through human nature, and unless it is recognised explicitly it can never be resolved into any unity. To pretend that the two things are not diverse leads to that confusion between culture and technical development which has such disastrous effects. The fact is that man is body and soul and mind, and though they work together, they only do so because they are diverse.

The sort of fundamental question which we ought to ask is: What sort of a cultural background should be given to a child leaving school at the proficiency standard; to the youngster leaving school after two years of the secondary school or technical school; to the young of both sexes who can take an examination roughly equivalent to the present University Entrance (whatever subjects are studied)-; to the sixth form pupil, who does two years after the entrance examination; and' to the University graduate. This is a definite problem, which is not being faced. The answer will vary with the different age limit which is placed to organised education, but at all stages there will be two sides to the cultural development; There will be studies which develop human capacity, mental, moral, aesthetic arid spiritual, and there will also be studies which will impart definite information, historical, literary and scientific. These two sides of the cultural process' depend on each other, but are -not the same. The pursuit of all these studies must be carried out for their own sake and simply for the sake of the development of human capacity and tlie qnality of human living, no matter into what economic channel it-may be poured. The person who claims to be practical and -urges that culture should be pursued for some ulterior motive outside the quality of life itself is the most unpractical person possible, for he cuts the tap root of the whole educational tree. As an old Roman writer pointed out many centuries ago, it is easily possible to lose the reason and purpose of life in its mere process.

The Two Sides. .Certain it is that those are deceptive guides, who in the name of democracy, gailv rob education of its cultural value, forgetting that the development of human capacity and interest is far nearer the heart of democracy than fitting eome youngster into an economic niche. But this is not to say that technical knowledge in school or university is of the utmost importance. It is simply a differ-

ent kind of thing and in the long run the further the cultural, process can be taken, the further the technical capacity will be able to grow. It is a mistake for the "practical" man, in industry or commerce or life on the land, or in the -professions, to "fancy ' that practical technique does not demand power to think, purpose to act and capacity to enjoy. If we could once make up our mind as to the distinction between these two sides of education many of our problems would be possible of solution, and we would be able to save our culture from dissolution; we-would no'longer be eontent with turning out professional men with little o,r 110 general culture, business men with far too little capacity for general ideas, farmers who can be led by the nose by specious guides, or manual workers who can so easily be persuaded to tear down the basis of the civilisation they have inherited. We would also find out the right and honest answer to questions of organisation.