The Press Saturday, March 11, 1922. The Supreme Subject.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17401, 11 March 1922, Page 10

The Press Saturday, March 11, 1922. The Supreme Subject.

In a brief reference to the subject made a week or two ago in a report, the director of the Wellington Technical College put admirably the case for English as an essential subject and the case against the purely utilitarian view of education. Mr Howell's experience is no doubt the same as that of all other directors of technical instruction, and indeed of all who are set in authority in the educational world; they are beset by the parent who wants his child to learn "something useful," by which he means something that will ultimately and directly be translated into money. They have to try to make the parent understand that there is something in education besides a means to a livelihood, but we fear that in too many cases he remains unconvinced. The fact that this particular plea for the humanities comes from the head of a large technical college gives it a special value, for in the minds of many people technical education means an education that is technical in the narrow sense, one that teaches boys to be carpenters, engineers, plumbers, or clerks, as the case may be. It may do some good, therefore, to give further publicity to Mr Howell's conviction that it is absolutely essential that technical students should study English and English literature for the sake of the culture they give as well as for their material value. "In technical education in par"ticular," says Mr Howell, "it is "most difficult to, get students to understand that unless they are able " to use their own language accurately 44 and readily, -they will bo seriously " handicapped in life, while if they " are not trained to enjoy its litera- " ture they will be shut off from an "inexhaustible source of pleasure and " inspiration."

Mr Howell cites as a dooument of exceptional value the recently-issued report of the departmental Committee appointed to enquire into the position of English in the educational system in England. It would indeed be difficult to speak too highly of this inspiring rep-rfc. Compiled by a competent com- J mittee that included Sir Henry Newbolt and Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, it traces the history of English as a subject in English schools, describes how it was long overshadowed by the classics, acknowledges the progress that has been achieved, and urges with enthusiastic conviction that English should be given its true place as th« study of very first importance. The report takes us baok to a time when in the grammar sohools of England it was actually a punishable offence for' the boys,to address one another in their own tongue, and shows that the pressure of this tradition has not been completely lifted. "Of conscious "and direct teaching of English the "past affords little sign." While members of the committee are not opponents of classical education, they most emphatically declare that the foundation of all education should be the mother tongue, its Correct and perfected use, and the glories of its literature. "We make no comparison, we "state what appears to us< to be an "incontrovertible primary fact, that "for English children no form of " knowledge can, take precedence of a " knowledge of English, no form of lit- " orature can take precedence of Eng- " lish literature; and that the two are "so inextricably connected as to form " the only basis possible for a national "education."; Hie report pleads for more and better teaching of English as a spoken and a written language, so thai every English child may be taught to apeak his mother tongue properly, to. read aloud with intelligence, to write clearly and correctly, and to regard literature not as a bore, but "as " a possession and a source of delight, " a personal intimacy, and the gaining " of. personal experience, an end in it"self and, at the same time, an equip"ment for the understanding of life." Grammar evidently does not greatlv interest the investigators,* it is the spirit that quickeneth. Their whole attitude towards education, however much one may disagree with them in detail, is inspiring. They protest strongly against two deductions, one that education should be entirely vocational, the other that education narrows vocation to "a "black coat on the back and a pen in "the hand." Both delusions grew out of the idea that education was exclusively an affair of vocation, whereas "the first thought pt education must "be fullness of life, not professional "success."

A point that is emphasised in the toport is that English enters into every subject; as the report pots it, every teacher is a teacher of English, because every teacher is a teacher in English. Consequently every teacher should be trained in English, and English should be "constantly .overflowing "its pwn compartment, and penetr&t- ---" ing into all the rest." For example, the fact that a pupil learns science is no reason why he should not be taught English composition and English literature. He needs them to enable him to express himself clearly in his science, and for the general cultivation of his mind. Commercial and technical schools are found to be from the committee's point of view the weakest spot in the educational system. "The introduction of: a training in English "into every technical course, a train- " ing carefully planned so as to be not "an excrescence but an integral "part of the course, and to have a " olofie and . obvious connexion with "the profession or craft for which "the students were preparing them"selvei, would not only react immedi- " ately upon their technical, studies "to their advantage but

"would give to technology the soul " which it now lacks, and, in the end, " perhaps bring a new spirit into business at large." The report comments on certain aspects of commercial education with delightful scorn. "What iB known as ''commercial English" does not even please the business world for which it is designed. In all but six of the replies received from business houses, this was referred to with hostility and contempt. "We spend "hours," wrote one firm, "trying to "kill the jargon taught in business "colleges and cultivated in shops and " stores and to substitute simple " natural English." It is encouraging to find business men taking this line, and desiring most of all in their employees "just those qualities which a « liberal education, rightly understood, " should develop in young people." A'l these firms placed a training in English first in their requirements. "Clear "expression," says one, "bespeaks a "clear and trained mind, and both reu ac t upon one another very inti"mately. From my point of view, " the teaching of English is "very important—in the way of self- " culture or of business efficiency." We cannot examine the recommendations of the -Committee as to the methods by which English should be taught. These vary from the writing of composition to visits to the theatre and the production of plays. What is said about the value of reading aloud is admirable, yet one has only to go to church to realise what Bmall use is mode of the glorious opportunities offered hy this means of instruction. As for elocution and the stage—how often is it that a performer who has to speak poetry or fine prose really pleasesP The enthusiasm and breadth of this report are most stimulating. Its compilers lore English, that flexible and magnificent vehicle of expression, mother Of What is, with one possible exception, the most wonderful literature the world has ever known. Learn to know it, to appreciate it, to reverence it, to speak it and write it, if not with distinction, at,least with competence, and steep yourself in the colour and warmth of its infinite humanity. Such is the burden of this report, which we commend to the notice of every teacher in this country.