IS THERESA REMEDY ? EDUCATION SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 55, 2 September 1944, Page 8

IS THERESA REMEDY ? EDUCATION SYSTEM

(To the Editor*.)

Sir, —The article "Is There a Remedy?" by IH.H., published last Saturday, is interesting, in that it represents a certain widely held view of education. As with so many other specialised subjects, the layman here knows without any training, how education should work. H.H.s theory is that of a glorified "3 R's" training for every child. The problem is stated too simply. H.H. ,says that educationists forget the limited ability of the human mind. Let me assure him that educationists do not forget the limited ability of the human mind. Quite apart from the fact that many modern educationists find no limit to what the hunfan mind may accomplish, the modern , trend is to enlarge the scope and opportunity of all, no matter what their ability. The majority—in fact, twothirds—of the' human race has what, for want of a better term, must be called "average" intelligence, and it is for this two-thirds that the educational system of New Zealand at least is devised. . . . The only satisfactory educational plan is that in which children are individually tested, for the innumerable ways in which human beings differ from each other. Only by this method can we find out what mental ability the child has, and what aptitudes he is best fitted for. It is of no use, as H.H. seems to think, to teach the child a few basic subjects, and then let him pick but what he thinks he would like to do. Children don't know. ... But we can find out by the tests standardised and universally accepted by modern educationists what the child is able to do, and the encouragement and help begins from there. The very first function of education should be to find out, by use of the Terman-Merrill or other reliable individual intelligence test, what is the child's-intelligence quotient, and what psychological or emotional barriers could possibly hold him back in his educational progress. Building from here, we could have the best .carpenters, and the best doctors, and the best statesmen: simply because each individual would be doing what he was best fitted for, and could do best. As to Professor Rutherford's criticism of the. intellectual and literary standards of present-day university students, this problem, too, would be solved with universal mental testing The mere passing, often by sheer luck of the University Entrance Examination, is no criterion of intellectual ability. University training demands a high level, not only of general, but also of specific (what H.H. calls "specialist") intelligence. The average Intelligence Quotient at a university college should be high, and professorial condemnation would cease if only students who fell into the groups superior and very superior were permitted to enter, the university. H.H.s solution to the educational prcnblem is the "3 R's" plus a laissez-faire cultural background. Mine is mental and performance testing at an early age to see what the individual is capable of. The chief dangers of H.H.s system are exposed in two of his phrases As \ intellectual junk" he discards all the cultural training of the school. And he demands that one of the very few bases of the educational system shall be the elements of national and local government, and how to vote." Heaven 5u nf* «£ c Educati°n Department).forbid that how to vote" should ever come into our schools. Let me conclude by mentioning the reception which a slight measure of the ability training I advocate has received in unenlightened quarters, namely the adoption of Form 820, the Vocational Guidance Card. This progressive step of the ■■ Education Department has been greeted by some seekin* in any fashion to make political capital with emotional terms such as "regimentation," and many are the sinister motives ascribed to it Axiomatic though it may seem, educationists do know their'job—they have been^ trained for it. Let me recommend to those interested in this great problem a fine book named "The Educational Needs of Democracy" by W P. Alexander, one of the foremost educationists of the modern world Let us, laymen and practitioners alike, look on this problem as one to be solved very soon, for the betterment of the nation and the world.—l am, etc EDUC. 2. Sir,—As a highly-qualified teacher of forty years' experience, engaged during the last ten years in private coaching, may I be allowed to endorse the strictures on our education system made by Professor Rutherford, of Auckland, Dr. Elder, of Dunedin, and by your contributor, "H.H./' in Saturday's "Evening Post." Indeed I would go so far as to say that, during the period I have known that system partly from within and partly from without, there has been a steady deterioration in results, especially in that most vital matter, a competent knowledge of the English language. In the early years of this century the boy or girl of fourteen who had passed the sixth standard was certainly limited in range, but possessed a solid body of exact knowledge which, like Euclid's axioms, could "serve as a basis of future reasoning." Some seven years ago I conducted a small investigation. I then had eight private pupils between the ages 14-18 representing most of the secondary schools in Wellington. I prepared- a list of 25 words of moderate difficulty chosen from the newspapers. I asked each pupil the meaning of these words accepting any answer that showed the least glimmer of understanding. The result was well under 50 per cent, for the whole group. Most of these same boys and girls are voters today. With this imperfect mastery of their own language, how are they equipped for dealing with the complicated questions That face 'democracy for many years ahead? And how will any training they may have received in handicrafts, in arts, or in music compensate for this deficiency? The cause of the trouble? We "have it in the old fable" of the dog, the river, and the bone. In grasping at the