THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, August 12, 1939, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23885, 12 August 1939, Page 12

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, August 12, 1939, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

The tendency towards a decline in school attendance, upon which, with particular reference to the primary schools, we commented at the close of last month, is, not surprisingly, as the rector of the Otago Boys’ High School has pointed out, being exhibited also in the secondary schools. The matter is clearly of grave importance, but New Zealand is not singular in the experience of it. In Western Europe and throughout the British Empire two subjects which are at first sight apparently disconnected are attracting considerable attention—the declining birthrate, and an alleged declining intelligence. The former is at once apparent to anyone who will take the trouble to consult a year book. In New Zealand in 1880 the birthrate was 41 per thousand of the population. In 1938 it had declined to a shade below 18 per thousand. The decline in quantity is depressing enough, but what is even more depressing is that there is reason to suspect a decline in the quality. It is undoubted that, as a rule, those parents who belong to what is regarded as the class or classes of superior intelligence, initiative, and creative capacity have on the average fewer children than their less richly endowed fellow citizens. It is obvious therefore, that, unless some other factors to counteract this decline are at work, the proportion of the more intelligent will sink—or, to put it in another way, the average level of national intelligence will degenerate. Some say the level has already declined. For •example, it is maintained by some of the primary school headmasters in New Zealand that the number of children in their classes who experience a difficulty in compassing the customary syllabus of work is noticeably greater than it was twenty years ago. One need not go outside Dunedin to find teachers of this opinion. It must be remembered, of course, that it is an impression only that is held by them. It is so easy to praise the days gone by when every lad was an Ajax for courage and every lass a Helen. At the present time it is thought that intelligence tests can Rive a fairly reliable indication of mental ability. As, however, these tests had not been applied twenty years ago, comparisons on this basis are not available. Yet there should be innumerable examination scripts, school work books and records of twenty years ago which might give material for a verdict on this important question. In England on the whole the evidence points to the unwelcome conclusion that large families and low intelligence are in the present state of society closely associated, and that small families are commoner in the more capable stocks. Professor Cyril Burt, of London University, reached this conclusion some time ago. Dr Cattell went even further in his statements, based on data ascertained by testing. Still more recently, Dr J. A. F. Roberts, working under the Burden Mental Research Fund, at Bath, examined 3400 children born between September, 1921, and August, 1925, who represent a complete cross-section of the population of Bath, for he tested children of every social class. He found a definite association between the ability of the child and the number of brothers and sisters it possessed. Some clever children of course come from large families and some dull ones from small families. But, as a general rule, the brighter children had on the average about 1.6 brothers and sisters, while the dullest children had about 3.9. While 20 per cent, of the brightest children were “only” children, barely 7 per cent, of the dullest were “ only ” children. The highly significant fact here disclosed is that the small number of brothers and sisters of the brightest children is quite independent of social class. Necessarily, as the tendency for the more intelligent persons is to have fewer children, national intelligence is in danger of declining. It may be added that 33 per cent, of the dullest children had six or more brothers and sisters, while only 4 per cent, of the brightest had as many as this. Other investigators —Gray and Moshinsky—had contested Professor Burt’s conclusions and claimed that ability came mainly from the poorer families. And Julian Huxley inclines to a belief that good food, clothing, a healthy environment, and a stimulating mental atmosphere in the home would bring the poorer children up to the level of their more fortunate brethren. But the investigation at Bath indicates a connection between small families and ability irrespective of class. Therefore, as the small families are commoner among the more intelligent, the conclusion seems inevitable that a decline is in progress. So far as we are aware, no social survey of this nature has been made in the Dominion. It should not be difficult to ascertain from the schools whether it is true in this country that ability in general goes with the small family irrespective of the social class. It cannot be that the mere fact that a family is of small size creates ability. Either superior ability is gained biologically by a compensatory diminution of fecundity in Nature, or else parents of superior ability, no matter what their social class, prefer to have fewer children both because they are thus enabled to maintain a higher life-standard and also because they prefer to nurture one or two superlatively rather than six

or seven indifferently. The only consolation to be derived from considering the condition of affairs is that it is almost universal. Again, no one can predict what the statistics of births, in quantity or quality, will reveal in twenty years’ time.