WHY OUR EDUCATION SYS TEM IS NOT A SUCCESS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14441, 6 February 1909, Page 7

WHY OUR EDUCATION SYS TEM IS NOT A SUCCESS

IJy Jack Hoitsnii. Our present system of education is not ,n .success. (!o to a business man. l!o viil put the matter plainly oimtigli. "There is something wrung about the whole tiling," lie will tell you. "Boy after Ikiv comes into my office from the .schools, with every leciiinmeiidation for smartmss nnd cleverness; not one uf them can corrcctly add a row of plain figures. Surely a. hoy ought to lie able to do that after unending from eight to ten years at a. school.'

Listen to tlio casual talk of voting people at a public gathering of any soil—young peoplo who have, in the great majority of eases, passed through tho six standards of our public schools. You will hear: "Was yon';"; "I seen him"; I done it"; "Wait on me," much mure frequently than tho coiwf forms of expression. Has their school lil'c not been long enough to teach them the rudiments of th.':ir mouther tongue. Ask anyone who employs young people and you will leain that the schools arc li|um;<i foi' turning out ill-balanced, illeipiipped pupils, furnished with little more than a decided a\ereion to haul work.

No, the system is not a success. 11l spile of lefonn after reform, it is not producing what is wanted. -And why? J'ecause the gieat est reform of all is not demanded. jieeaiise the evil that is the root of the failure is still .allowed to remain untouched. Kecaueo tho classes iu our schools ate too big.

T.ig classes. These two words, expressing cheapness and false cconoiii}, cover the most, powerful reason for our iiomiiccoss ill educating our children. We will not pay two people to teach 60 children while one can possibly worry through; consequently the work is badly done; the results are as nasty as are those of all other experiments ill cheapness.

Leading educationalists will tell 'rou that. 12 pupils is the ideal number 'or it class, mid llmt it is t|iiilo impossible for more than 30 to be well taught by any one teacher, however competent. Yet, throughout the Dominion, wo find unfortunate children packed in daises of 50, 60, 70, even 80, under one teacher. We find heads of infant departments teaching v. class of 60, anil at, tlio same time overlooking three or four lower closes, each under its inexperienced, incompetent pupil-leachcr. We find headmasters teaching the V find VI Standards ivliilc Irving to cope with the supervision of the whole school.

The system of stalling is ivron», iinpussibo of continuance if good results are to bo obtained. I'hysically, mentally, morally, our children are suffering, ami must suffer till their parents set to it that this evil of big daffies is remedied.

Physically they suffer, because if a large class is to be tinder the eye-control of a single teacher that- class must be massed closely together. So long us '.arge classes am the tu tier of the d'.iy, single desks, and, therefore, health, cleanliness, end air-space, a-ie impossible.

Mentally, on purely intellectual lines, the children suffer in every direction. In au unwieldy class, the merely mechanical work wltich a leather must do takes up hours and hours of precious time which should be given to the children themselves. The marking of slates and exorcise books, tlio overlooking of di,'living books and copy books, the keeping of the rolls—linen things are comparatively light- matter* when done for a class of 30, but when tlia class is doubled, or more than doubled, they become -,v heavy tax on each day's tillli).

Then, think of the multitude of subjects t-o bo taught, and the shortness of the day! How can individual scholars receive personal attention? lluw is it , possible for one peison to find time to givo oacli of 60 children tlio practice iu oral expression that true education (lemands—in reading, Jxvitiug, adding', reasoning, correct speaking? (iraminar has been taken out of the syllabus, and teachers aro told to leach English by conoeling the speech of tlio children. The thing is absurd, nonsensical. It- is mining our young people's speech.. No teacher of 60 children has tituo for the conversation with his pupils that such a plan lieoessitiites, ].U> lias nit inspector coming at- the end o! the year, and if he is to keep his position, the work of the syllabus must, be done. If grammar does not'happen to be in the syllabus, well, there is so much else to be rushed through iu the t-imo that grammar is never missed. It- takes a good many half-hour lessons even to hear tile individual reading of the 60. As lor finding time to make them talk on set, subjects in ordvr to correct their English, the tusk is too utterly liope'.css.

Tlie bigger the class, the greater the number ot troublesome ant) inattentive children there, arc likely to be in it, anil the more time necessarily taken out of each lesson in obtaining and maintaining order. In this the children are again losers. In a small class the one or two disturbers of the peace aio far more easily and quickly detected and subdual. Tlie bigger the class, too, tlio moro uneven will be its intellectual power. In it class of 60 there arc perhaps 10 who, since they easily outstrip the others, might, to be given more advanced work to do— who are, in fact, wasting their time, held hack as they aio from their legitimate menial stimulus by the slower majority; there aie 35 who torui the average workins; quality of the class; there are 15 who, from one. cause, or another, lag behind during the year, and require extra attention and siiecial work. It i.s impossible for one teacher to do justice to all. Willi lialf the number, lie might. -As things are, he can only adjust the work to the average intelligence of the clas.s, helping the stragglers in his own spare time, or whenever lie ('an snatch a few moments in the rush of tlie day. The brilliant ones must, wait, losing their time, and possibly their enthusiasm. The hopelvsslv dull must (hop behind altogether rather than be allowed to dirag the whole ela.«s back.

_ 111 his inexperienced youth, the teacher fights hopefully against overwhelming oildu, but in the end he realises that lie has all along been attempting the impossible—that while big classes are the order ol the day he has no hopo of individually educating the children. lie can only deal with tliein in the mass, levelling them as far as possible to one uniform status, in the hope that thus Ihe greatest gooil to tlie greatest number will result, lie feels that there is not one child in the class who is receiviii" justice, who is being truly educated ; anil tie keenly regrets that he is forced' to work so far below his own standard of excellence. Hut- he is lie'.pless. Xo amount of representation on his part has had the elfect of rousing the people to a svase of tho wrong tliey are indicting on their own children by upholding this cheap and incllicient. system of staffing the schools. Too often the hopelessness of tjic position drives him to despair. He drops his high ideals, and settles down to drudge through the days as best he may, leaving the future oi the children out of tlws perspective. We can scarcely blame, him, but we must pity the children, for a teacher who has lost interest in his work has lost the power to rouse the best in his pupil*. ilorally, the effect of big classes is utterly disastrous. After all, the main feature in the education of a child' must always be tlie formation ol' character, tli-. 1 training of his nature to those habits of uprightness, justice, and self-control, of delight jii work and the mastering of ditliculties, which will he of the utmost (service to him in the battle of life. Jim such training is only ]>assible where there is personal knowledge of the pupil, where the teacher has time and opportunity to become familiar with individual character, to curb or encourage where necessary. If this training could be given, the school as a moral stimulus would be second only to the best <lf homes; the iniluence ot a good teacher second only to that of a good parent. But in a big cl»6s there is no hope of such a stale of affairs. During the year's work only the must a.wtive children impress their personality oil the teacher's mind. He does not, cjuuiot, know the natures of the majority of his pupils, their weaknesses and tcoifcncics. In the rush of work the line mora! upbuilding which he could gh'e, and would like to give, i 6 inevitably crowded out. Jte;doos

lie can to scalier in a hurried way 'he seeds of uprightness, in the hope that Siiinov. hci'ft tliw v.'i|! take mot; l«t it Y rli; appoini inir „ (n l ; . what j s .v.intort ls the el dm.' personal touch. t !i' living interest, in each individual chnracfi'. that only a. .small class will allow.

It is quite (Kjivsible for a .lorn thief, liar, or shirker to pass every one of the big <:la.«er, of one if our public schools undetected and ulcoiTccled, if OllLv ho is clever enough to evadt the attention of the overwork"! teacher. In a country where eomparo'ivcly little moral framing is given iu tic homes, it is a pity that teachers wh< would gladly and capably make good t<t« deliciency should Jiot he given the o|«irtunity.