HANDWRITING OF TO-DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 140, 14 June 1924, Page 13

HANDWRITING OF TO-DAY

10 THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your issue of last evening, Mr. H. P. Mourant has some objections to offer against the system of print writing adopted in some of our schools. With what_ he says on that particular phase of his subject there is, perhaps, not much complaint to be made, but in support of it he has said some other things that must be called in question. Take one or two of Mr. Mourant's remarks : "The basis of a good education was the three R's, reading, writing, and arithmetic." These are not now regarded as the basis of a good education —essential tools of education it is true —but a workman may have very good I tools and still be a" bad workman. Thera I are other important essentials of "a good education" than 'the three R's. Again, "experience shows that a large proportion . . . are sadly deficient jin a knowledge of these three fundamental subjects." May one ask whose experience has justified such a sweeping statement as that? It is not in accord with what we have believed to be the condition of our schools, and such a statement should not have been made without good grounds.' "Ask business employers." Very good, but ask, also, those who may be expected to know a little more about it than can be expected of the business employer. Mr. Mourant speaks of the "essentials of a complete education and business equipment," as if these were synonymous or closely related terms; . but they are not by any means. Education properly understood has to do with much more important matters than mere business equipment. In support of his thesis, Mr. Mourant refers to the experience of his Third Standard son, saying that "there was practically no tuition given in writing." This statement, one would like to think, is, like the premature report of Mark Twain's death, "greatly, exaggerated," and it is capable of proof or disproof. It is only needed to name the school, the class, and the year, when there may be consulted the record of two or three term examinations, and the inspector's report, both on the lad and his class, and these will show whether that statement was justified or not. And even if it should prove of that one class, there are many other classes of which it is not true. Similarly, as to the "crouching and unhealthy attitude," may I suggest to Mr. Mourant that he goto some of the schools and see for himself, and then say whether or not he would repeat those words. It is easy to agree or disagree with what he says about print writing. Personally, I agree with most of it, but there are many things to be said on the other side. But ..that does nf>t excuse such sweeping general statements in support of a particular point.—l am, etc., H. A. PARKINSON. Secretary, N.Z.E.I. 12th June.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I welcome the appearance of Mr. H. P. Mourant's letter on the above subject, which badly needs ventilating. A comparatively newcomer to this ■ enterprising little country, I am sorry to see New Zealand copying the errors of the Mother Country in this respect. I believe the "print" style of handwriting is.being largely taught in England, and, judging by the writing of letters I receive frequently from English youths recently. out of school, the process is evidently having the same evil results there that your correspondent deplores here.

Without expecting to find a large percentage of expert forgers amongst our school population of to-day, it is desirable that a clear., legible stylo of handwriting should be taught in Dominion schools that shall declare the individuality of the writer and be a guide to his or her character.

My old English schoolmaster was a fine penman, decorating our books with inscriptions and headlines that were composed of clear and beautiful, lines. I still preserve some specimens of his tine writing, and should like to see . tho youngsters of both Britain and "- New Zealand taught a style of handwriting that would be both a delight to the eye and easy to read. I hope that a sufficient volume of opinion favourable to a change will be evoked, to induce out- educational authorities to reconsider their policy in this matter. — I am, etc., NEW CHUM. 12th June.

TO TUB EDITOR.

Sir,—l was pleased to see that Mr. Bowden, iv his capacity as secretary of_ the committee formed in connection with the erection of a National Art Gallery and Dominion Museum, has replied to' my letter of the 6th instant and I appreciate the altitude he adopted towards it. "When he says, however, that "the committee has not yet had occasion to consider in detail "the design of the proposed building," does he not show that he has the same mistaken but unfortunately prevalent, idea as most people have, namely, that the sole purpose of an architect is to "draw the picture" of a proposed building? whereas the [unctions of an architect can be divided into three separate channels of activity. These are: (1) To advise on ways and means of reducing a building proposition to a practical basis; (2) to design the building in his capacity of an artist and a constructionlst; and (3) to supervise the erection to see that his design is properly carried out. Now, in the face of No."l above, why is the architectural profession not adequately represented? Quite apart, however, from this line of argument, the fact remains that all the Five Arts are fully represented except Architecture. Why?—l am, etc A DISGUSTED ARCHITECTURAL STUDENT.

13th June.