PRE-SCHOOL CHILD

Evening Star, Issue 19584, 16 June 1927, Page 2

PRE-SCHOOL CHILD

observaYions and education ADDRESS BY DR LAWSOH That corpora 1 punishment is hotli wrong and futile where applied to school children, especially in kindergartens, was the view expressed by Dp Lawson, professor of education, in-the course of an address , on ‘ The Education of the Pre-school Child ’ at the Otago University last night The speaker further pointed out that corporal punishment gave children the idea that good ends could he attained by violence. This, he thought, was a contributing cause to the continued existence - of war, and helned it by reason of the fact that children were being taught morality by fear of punishment and pain. Dr Lawson’s address was the first of a series of-lectures under the auspices of the Free Kindergarten Union of New Zealand, -which is holding a lecture course during the present week. Visitors from the North attended in fair numbers last night, a large gathering being presided over by the president (Mrs T. K. Sidey), who introduced the speaker, and said that the present course was the result of the conference of delegates from the affiliated kindergarten councils that was held in Wellington last year. In opening. Dr Lawson said that for those interested in the problem of the education of the pre-school child there was a tremendous field for research; hut tho observer who camo to this work must ho accompanied by a considerable volume of knowledge. Rousseau had once written that it was not- known “what children were,” and this was almost as true to-day as it was then. A child must he observed like an arrow which was never statin and passed through a point Tho child was a human organism, /with individuality which was not a more replica or a fusion of what had gone before. It was to function at once, and not to wait the age of reason or of adult powers. For guidance on tho subject, the Professor continued, there was no organised body of knowledge on child life; hut though their work might ho open to philosophical and scientific criticism there -was no doubt that Madame Montessori’s system was good. Ho believed, however, that the philosophy underlying Frnehel’s kindergarten system was wider than that of Montessori; but the slavish following of any system in education was hound to lead to disaster.

Dr Kimmins, tho London educationist, had recently declared that between the ages of two to fivo was the most important period in life. A recognised authority, Miss M. Drummond, of Edinburgh, had made the same assertion at last year’s education conference in England.' No doubt psycho-analysis had emphasised this period unduly, said Dr Lawson; yet, when due allowance was made, the first quinquennium of life was still a—not the—most important period. A child’s brain grew rapidly. Physiologists said it grew during the first year at the rate of a cubic centimetre a day. It was difficult to understand how a half-grown brain could receive and store impressions; yet experience proved that it did. “Fear was common in a child, instinctive often, but not always.” It was caught by infection from people exhibiting fear—nurses ■ and timid mothers. Hence when a child’s tendencies moved along lines similar to those of parent or grandparent, all was attributed to heredity. Yet recent biological research was establishing tho belief that early environment was tho real cause of many characteristics of the modern child and of modern society. Tho work of Kammerer in particular on ‘ Salamandra Macnlora ” in Austria was reviving the confidence of those who distrusted the uncompromising theory of non-inheritance of acquired characteristics. This was _ outside his. province, but he was convinced that a different environment from birth to five or six would produce a different man and different society. A competitive environment necessarily stirnn-' Jated into superior activity the selfassertive, competitive instinct, confirming in each mind the principle laid down by Goethe, “ Thou must rule or serve, Amboss oder Hammer sein.” ixive cast out fear—therefore two requisites in the guide of the little ones were courage and love. Mothers had the latter, not always the former. Another dominant trait in children was love of play—a joyous activity with no purposed end beyond itself as a means of self-expression. Montessori, it seemed to him, had unwisely discarded play for occupational activity directed to didactic material. The kindergarten of Froebel, administered in the spirit of its founder, with adaptation to the needs of to-day, was nearer the child value, and was based on a wider view of life. -Sense-training was designed to give a greater mastery over material surroundings. This was good, but it could not touch tho inner mystery of life, which lurked in childhood at all events in a disorderly realm of magic, disconnection, fantasy, discon--1 tinuity, seriousness, and wonder. In short, in the child soul was all the I potency of the Shakespeares and Raphaels yet to be. The teacher’s main task, ho contended, was not merely to impart knowledge, but to lead by gentle steps to self-control, self-realisation, and good habits. Obedience should not be taught in an arbitrary way. In that way servility and stockishness lay. Obedience was to be the outcome of good habits—the habits of doing right things. This, of course, implied guidance, and even physical force, in the child’s interest.

The child must be disciplined to order in food, sleep, and truth. He must learn that rewards or punishment came upon him not at the caprice of an adult, but as a natural consequence; a counsel of perfection; of course, yet well worth working for. He referred to the competitive system playing on tho young organism, and said that co-op-eration would do more. In tho kindergarten competition was kept _ very largely in the background, a spirit of co-operation and goodwill being encouraged. That being so, the kindergarten had immense possibilities in it, • and he would like to see that spirit of kindness penetrating tho whole of the school system. Adult irritability was the arch-foe of childhood. Children would be better trained when adults were less irritable. Praise and blame wore both right, but they must be just. To say, “You dirty, bad boy” to a child of three or four who had dabbled in mud was not right. A child of that age had not our artificial distinctions between clean and dirty. The whole problem was one of leading tho unconscious or semi-conscious organism 1 through a process from mere senseexistence to conscious freedom and self-determination, within limits useful to society of course. Truth was absolutely necessary, not in the child, but in his guide. If he asked a question about birth, sex, or God, he should be told simply. He was easily ■ satisfied. Magna est veritas— mighty is truth. E>r Lawson briefly touched upon other educational _ problems such as moral freedom* ability, handwork, and -abstract work, imagination and the value of fairy stories, which sometimes led to a belief in the evolution of difficulties by magic. He expressed bis appreciation of the valuable work tor education that was being done in the kindergarten, and as the movement developed it should have an influence on the whole school system. (Applause.) At the close of his interesting address, Dr Lawson was accorded a hearty vote of thanks on the motion of Miss England (Wellington), seconded by Miss Hull (Christchurch).