TEACHING CHILDREN TO TEACH THEMSELVES

Otago Witness, Issue 3596, 13 February 1923, Page 25

TEACHING CHILDREN TO TEACH THEMSELVES

T3y Thomas L. Masson, in the World’s Work. The most significant movement in education that has taken place for some time is now being carried out by Miss Helen I'arkhurst in the Children’s University School, New York. It is called the Dalton Laboratory. Plan. How it came about and its relationship to education, not only ■in Great Britain, but in other countries, are matters at the present moment that deserve attention. Everybody is more or less interested in education; everybody is talking about it, and as Mark Twain said about the weather, nobody is doing anything about it There is no subject in the world about which individuals have such decided opinions; there is no subject that has for so long been the prey of faddists and commercialised greed, and about which so much nonsense has been written. The experience of the present writer with so many of the great body of educators and teachers—that is, those people who are in the profession of educating our children, is that they are loyal and sincere to the last degree. They are by no means over Eedantic. Generally speaking, they are ighly intelligent and painstaking, but they are ail under, the limitations of humanity. “What the world needs,” exclaims Miss Parkhurst. “is fearless human beings.” It is so difficult to separate one’s self from one’s environment and from one’s personal obligations. The whole matter is greatly complicated by the mass of educational machinery. Consider that millions of pounds are invested in public school buildings and that yearly further millions are spent in their operation. Remember that the text-book industry is highly commercialised, and that any attempt on the part of a single individual to improve the cumbersome system is practically hopeless. The present writer was a member of a board of education in a small town for nine years. It happened that in his community the conditions were such that the school system came under the personal scrutiny of a larger proportion of the parents than 13 usual even in more crowded places, owing to the -character of. the population. While it is true that, even in this instance, the majority of citizens took little personal interest in the schools, the progress made bv the pupils -was more easily observed than in most communities. Everybody knew, as they know to-day, how bad the system was, and is. Everybody knew that the teaching force, loyal men and womqn, had been caught up and were enveloped in a network of formalism and bureaucracy; the members of the board were powerless. They could only carry out the provisions of the law. To make any radical change was impossible; even to suggest it was to be set down as a crank. Thus we find an educational Frankenstein grossly extravagant in proportion to the results achieved, which everybody who is concerned in it knows is wasteful and deplorably inefficient, but which nobody seems to be able to make any better. Meanwhile, there are interminable discussions about the merit of one or two systems, about whether there shall be men or women teachers, and why it is that the school tax rate is always so high and the teachers are so poorly paid that the men can scarcelv afford to get married and raise children of their own, and the women are often forced to herd together in boardinghouses. It is, however, but fair to observe that there is another side to this problem. The fact that educational systems have always been the prey of faddists ar.d fanatics has naturally made it essential that it should be protected from all those enthusiastic people who come forward with new ideas, otherwise it would tend to become much worse than it is. New ideas must be received with caution. A proper conservatism is a real bulwark, not to be despised. Nevertheless, it is a matter of surprise that the Dalton Plan of Miss Parkhurst, aside from a few ardent adherents, has apparently attracted little or no attention in America, hitherto assumed to welcome anything radical, while in conservative England it has been received with acclamation, having been adopted there by something like 800 schools. Miss Parkhurst’s plan is called the Dalton Laboratory plan, because it was first tried out at Dalton, Massachusetts. In England it was first introduced into the Streatliam County Secondarv School for Girls, of which Miss Rosa Bassett is principal. “The Streatham School,” said The Times last summer, “which arranged open days for the observation of the method, was almost overwhelmed bv the concourse of pilgrims, of whom more than 2000 visited the school in three days. Wherever Miss Parkhurst has gone, heads of schools have asked her to visit them and to give her opinion as to how, in special cases, reorganisation can be effected, and in many cases slie has seen the change take place even before she left. This is all the more striking, since the change, though simple, is fundamental.” Explaining Difficulties.— The difficulty of explaining it correctly, even to the most intelligent readers, is very great, because there is at present so much confusion about the whole subject of education, because there are so many prejudices, and because to take any part of the plan and endeavour to make it plain is sure to meet with objection from those who have fixed ideas of their own, and who are exploiting ideas of thenown. For instance, take the whole problem of defective children. Nothing could be more painful than the wav it has been handled, and this is all the more pathetic because those people who are interested in solving it are so thoroughly in earnest

about it arid so extremely anxious to solve it. What so many of them do not per-

ceive is that it is a problem that citnnot be solved by science, but only by loveand nothing as more inspiring than to see how this great truth comes home to many of those actually engaged in the care of defectives.

They are likely to start out at first with the assumption, which is, of course, technically correct, that brains cannot be created by man; they then proceed, hav ing wrecked all hope of material improvement, to do the best they can with the subject. If it then dawns upon them, as it often does, that, after all, brains are not so important as other qualities, and that the worst thing you can do to a defective .is to let him know that he is one, to set him apart- from his fellows—wily then a miracle is likelv to happen. One is tempted continually to ask the question. When will educators, ever learn never to accuse anybody of anything? I have seen boys utterly- ruined because there was fastened upon them ea-rly in life the implication that they were “no good, or that they were deficient in some one particular/ The truth is that, no human being is so defective that he cannot, by a proper course of love an 5 sympathy and rational environment and health-restoration, become useful. At the very beginning of this whole problem the word “defective,’”’ or anything suggestive of deficiency', ought never to be mentioned or even thought of. The importance of the Dalton plan in this respect can scarcely' be over-estimated, because it is a plan oF mutual helpfulness on the part of the pupils themselves. The moment a newcomer appears he is shown bv the others what to do and how to do it in the most direct and sympathetic way, for children have understanding minds more than is generally supposed. - The Child’s Point of View.— Indeed I wonder if any reader of this article has ever taken the trouble to talk to the children in any school, “to get next” to them, so to speak. If so, liis mind will be illuminated on a great many subjects about which one would never dream that children took the slightest interest. The most accurate criticisms I have ever heard have come from the lip 3 of children in all grades. For one thing, it is a great mistake t<J spised. On the contrary, they are almost invariably respected. For another thing, it is a mistake to suppose that children do not want to learn. Their desire to know things is practically unlimited. T have talked to a nreat many audiences .of people in different sections of the country, and my experience is that the pupils in our high schools are far and away quicker to "rasp anything than any other kind of audience. The fact is that children as had as they are often made out to be, know what the defects of our school system are themselves much better than the parents do, because of their intimate contact with it. And they manage to get out of it a great deal in the wav of learning, in spite of these very defects. Thev worm things -out of one another. Thev achieve very early- in life proprietary' instincts about their schools. They know innately that the schools belong to them, and that their own fathers and mothers are paying the cost. In fact, this is dinned into them pretty continually by the same fathers and mothers. They' rarely talk about this, however, because they are usually inarticulate. But the attitude is there, quite marked when one gets at them. Now w 7 e are continually told by experts that the average intelligence is low. Some say not more than 14 years of age, some say 12, some put it as low as nine. Tn the army tests the result was quite bad. The proportion of illiterates was indeed alarming. Since the war the number of illiterates has been decreasing.

There is truth in all these statements, but not the whole truth. And the great fact should be reneated that intelligence is not nearly so important as character, and, even in. practical affairs, not so necessary': The elder J. P. Morgan, one of the mod acute financiers, emphasised the necessity of character a,s collateral. “The greatest duality,’” savs Lord Northcliffe, “is persistence,” and persistence is an outgrowth of character. ’ Extraordinary -eople, who can acquire great aggregations of facts in incredibly short spaces of time, and who can as glibly recount them, are highly interesting, but unimportant. The important people are those who get things done. And the people who get things done are people with trained senses. That is what counts -. co-ordination of muscles, the big muscles and all the intricate little muscles in all parts of the bodv—muscles that move the eyes, muscles that concern themselves with the hand and the auditory apparatus, minute muscles that nobody ever heard of.

- That people are not taught, that they teach themselves, is one of the oldest truths in the world. The process of selfdiscipline, which is the basis of all education and character, begins in the cradle. We hear everywhere psychology talked about. It would scarcely be proper to write any article about education, no matter how humble, without mentioning the word “psychology” somewhere. let few people know what psychology is. Those who study it and explain it (or try to) often leave out the simplest facts of life; thus we have a vast literature built on a quicksand of speculation and inaccuracy. When everything has been said, it is the health of the child that counts most. It is practically imoossible for a healthy child to go far wrong. The highest education in the world is the ability to know how to keep well. When vou learn that, everything else is easy. Character—our greatest asset any way you care to look at it, professionally or commercially—is acquired only by self-discipline. Self discipline comes from the harmony a human being sets up between himself and his environment, and this must be built upon the proper development of the senses.

All of these things are trite. They are perfectly well-known to everybody who has had any experience. The difficulty lies in the application, and the reason why the application is so difficult is because of the universal tendency, wherever there are collections of human beings, to create systems built upon commercialism and greed. Most nations go to the wall in the course of time, the process being fairly well defined, the gradual disintegration being indicated by an ascending scale of taxes. Owing to the genius that the Anglo-Saxon people have for self-govern-ment and fiheiir enormous natural resources, they have thus far been able to keep their heads above water. We manage somehow- to surmount the defects of our Governments, and affairs are never so bad as they seem. We know things are badly managed, that in the course of events one administration will succeed another, and that the industrial pendulum will swing back and forth, and our children, in more limited ways, know (or sense) this about our school system. The very encounter they get with the school system gives them later on in their lives a sort, of training iii resignation with regard to the Government. The Origin of Advances.— In the meantime, it is still true that the improvements that take place—ever so slowly, it seems—usually come from disinterested individuals, who care little for themselves so long as they can help matters. The great Universities of Enghand were built up slowly, the accumulation of generations of tradition. Children get what education they can here with the help of God and the teachers and >n spite of the system. The point made by some critics against Mis 3 Parkhurst and her nlans is that it is too easy: that it offers’ not enough resistance. The “spare the rod and spoil the child" school is still in existence. Its advocates believe that too much is alreadybeing done for the child. They hold up their hands in holy horror, at the flapper, decry the degeneracy of the young, and point to the dame's school as a symbol. One can examine Miss Parkhurst’s school from top to bottom, and will not find anywhere a mark on the wall. On one of my visits there a nencil fell off a table, unnoticed by- the o-roup. A little tot, not over six, in passing saw the pencil fall, and, stooping, picked it up and silently replaced it. That, sort of thing is so common there that it is unnoticed. King George in full regalia might go the rounds of that school, and unless his approach had been advertised nobodv would look up. All that sort of thing is bad, sav the old brigade. If children begin to teach themselves, if they take a genuine interest in their studies, if there is no sound where they are gathered together, and if they remember what thev learn and it is useful to them in their conduct, such progress is “agin nature” and must be radically wrong. What is the use of any school where there is no noise, and no bad Dehaviour? It is assumed bv the old brigade that people learn how to behave themselves only by learning how first to misbehave. We go into banks and see the clerks doing their work in silence. We don’t see bank tellers marking up their desks with knives and throwing chewed paper balls at one another. Yet if children in schools don't do these things, if there is no occasion for punishing them, then they are id a bad way. And, to be candid. I still entertain many of these old-fashioned notions myself. There must be some rough stuff. The old-fashioned licking had its uses. Miss Parkhurst agrees with me in substance. But her Doint is a perfectly simple one. She is concerned, not so much with that terrible abnormality “child psychology'” as she is with the economy of time. Like all people of vision, with her form is everything. This is true of art, it is true of music, it is true of golf, it is true of business. The executive concentrates at the right spots, is never in a hurry, gets things done. Observe a child, and you will discover that he isn’t reallv so continuously active as you think. For one thing, -he sleeps a lot. When he plays he tilavs intensely, and when he rests he rests completely, like a good animal. Thus a large part of the fractiousness, the nervous display of force, the “cutting up” cf children, come from energy repressed and disDlaced. In the case of Miss Parkhurst, she was in the beginning confronted by an emergency. and used her wits to solve the problem. / suppose that teachers are universally de- — A Practical Problem.— M iss Parkhurst was the daughter of a hotelkeeper. She began her work as a rural school teacher at £7 a month. She found herself with 48 pupils on her hands. And she related: “Necessity compelled that I provide occupation for seven grades, while I gave an oral lesson in one ” That was her problem. Being a girl of originality and discernment, and unfettered by formal notions, she solved it in a practical xvay. She got the older pupils to teach the younger ones. She was able to get it over to them that it was their job as well as She made them solve it for themselves. She discovered that it worked, that they were not only willing but eager to learn, and when they found they were actually learning for themselves thev were all the more eager. Later, with Dr Montessori, she acquired a long pedagogical experience, but her idea still stuck to her. An opportunity came to try it out in Dalton, Mass. It was proved. Then she started it in her present school, and I wo years ago it was introduced into England. Miss Parkhurst’s school seems to be like other schools at first sight. There are teachers and there are grades. It is only when one comes to examine it that the difference is evident. Each pupil contracts to do a certain job by the month.

He may do it as he likes. There it m, put before him in clearly defined words, on a chart, termed a contract assignmeaU His time is his own. He can wanner from one room to another. It is up to him. There is a workshop fitted with material and tools. He can pass all his time there if he likes and “make things. ’ He can move along the easiest xvay. But if he chooses the easiest way, the penalty stare* him in the face. And, moreover, so do the other pupils. Public opinion is against him. The result is invariably that in a very short time he finds himself and begins to work with the others. The saving in time and energy is enormous. There is no radical change in the substance, but only in the form. “It isn’t what you say, but how you say it,” is in itself an old saying and still holds good. Form is everything. It is hardly to >.», expected that human beings are going to acquire anything worth while without hard knocks. There is still no royal road to learning. But life is short and time is fleeting, and, after all, to put it in a nutshell, the whole problem of education is to avoid waste. Two old men of radically different temperaments sitting together at the end of their lives discover that they are agreed about the main points. They agree that moderation in all things is best; that money, while highly important, isn’t everything; that character counts mors than cleverness, that work is the greatest antiseptic, that good hoalth is the greatest asset, that worry is follv, that plain living and loving and friendship and children are better than excess, strife, and vanity. One of them learned all this at £O, and the other one didn’t learn it until 60. The 10 years wasted bv one may represent the difference in their early education. What education should do for iks, therefore, is to fit us as soon as possible to liv£ our lives in conformity to the great laws of the universe, which, though men may come and men may go, run on for ever.