THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 22, 1978. Back to the basics

Press, 22 May 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 22, 1978. Back to the basics

The acting chairman of the Council for Recreation and Sport, Mr R. Stothart, disputes the Prime Minister’s recent statement on basics in education.. Mr Stothart wishes that the schools would give more attention to education for leisure. Mr Muldoon has observed the “too persistent” complaint that children leave school deficient in basic ability to read, write, and calculate. He told the recent annual meeting of the New Zealand Educational Institute: “I sense that too much emphasis is being placed in schools on longer-term objectives, such as a continuing interest in education and a wise use of leisure time, while more immediate objectives are being overlooked.” Mr Stothart’s general purpose cannot be disputed; his goal is important. He may have overlooked, or may have been unaware of, Mr Muldoon’s recommendation to the primary school teachers that they concentrate upon high achievement “in basic skills, not frills, in preparation for the next stage of education.” The essence of the back-to-basics argument is that primary skills should be taught at a primary level of education. When this essential is neglected the best efforts of teachers at higher levels are likely to be wasted, misdirected, or made at the expense of the very things that Mr Stothart and others are keen to promote. The fact that a Prime Minister has taken up the back-to-basics cause does not, by itself, vindicate the cause. The

merits of this cause rest on what happens in the schools and on the results they produce. Almost everyone would see the meaning of the contrary view if those who are sceptical of the back-to-basics movement would themselves spell out the contrary opinion: “Longerterm objects, such as the wise use of leisure, should be given emphasis in the schools even at the expense of basics; a continuing interest in education is more important than the ability to read, write, and calculate.”

The nonsense of such a view will naturally cause the critics of back-to-basics to protest that it is not what they mean; that it exaggerates their attitude; that such an emphasis would be selfdefeating. In this protest lies the vindication of the back-to-basics argument. Wise use of leisure will not be found in our society if it is based on illiteracy; self-education, for pleasure or reward, will not be possible for young people who leave school without a fair grounding in language and numeracy.

Mr Stothart allows that basic skills are necessary; he is obviously no extreme theorist about education who wants these skills to be overlooked on the supposition that something else can take their place. His appeal for teaching that will stimulate interest in the opportunities for recreation is sound enough. It should not, however, distract anyone from the primary purpose of primary education.