EDUCATION OF THE ADOLESCENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3886, 4 September 1928, Page 18

EDUCATION OF THE ADOLESCENT.

THE CASE AGAINST THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. TIMARU, August 27. “All I have to say is that Mr Lee’s Speech is remarkable, not so much for the mere generalities which it contains, but for what is left unsaid,” said Mr A. E. Lawrence (chairman of the lay members of the Primary School Syllabus Revision Committee responsible for the minority report) when asked if he had anything to say on the points raised by Mr E. P. -Lee, M.P., for Oamaru, who in the Lower House advocated the general adoption qjE the junior high school in New Zealand.” “ Two or three of Mr Lee’s contentions are sadly at variance with facts. In the first place the educational experiment at •Waitaki is not a junior high school at all. As such it was roundly condemned by National Education, the official organ of the New Zealand Educational Institute. Secondly, Mr Lee is wide of the mark when he says that education authorities almost unanimously accept •the junior high school as the solution of the problem of the education of ■the adolescent. On the question of the cost of the expensive experiment carried out by the Board of Governors, of which he is chairman, Mr Lee is discreetly silent. Perhaps after all, even with the politician, there are times when silence is the better policy. MR CAUGHLEY’S CONFESSION. “ It is true of course to say,” Mr Lawrence added, “ that the problem of the education of the adolescent is exercising the minds of educationists throughout the world, and while it may be said that there is general agreement that instruction in work definitely suited to- the adolescent should begin earlier, it is not correct to say that the solution suggested by Mr Lee, and tried at great expense at Oamaru, is generally accepted as the wisest next step in educational reform. On the contrary I think it can be shown if thorough investigations are made, that no education authority in the British Empire has declared its intestion of proceeding along the lines of the Waitaki experiment. “ It may interest Mr Lee to know'," added Mr Lawrence, “ that Mr J. Caughley, former Director of Education, who stumped the country in support of the junior high schools scheme, confessed in his evidence before the Syllabus Revision Committee, that ‘ I have discarded in my mmd what is known as the Central School, of which Kowhai School, at present may be regarded as a type. It is providing three schools in the pupil’s life instead _This is the second time Mr Caughley has changed his mind, but his experiments have cost a lot of money. If Mr Lee seeks other authorities who do not endorse his pronouncement, their views are readily obtainable. He should read, for example, the speech of Dr J. E. Russell (dean emeritus of Columbia University), who some weeks ago addressed a conference of New Zealand inspectors. JJr Russell says, ‘I am not so sure that those who wrote and talked about the junior high school always told the truth, as so often happens with enthusiasts.’ Let Mr Lee quote Dr Russell’s exposure of the American experiment. Moreover, Dr Russell told the inspectors that America is confronted with a new situation. ‘ The demand is coming,’ he declared, * and I expect it will be vociferous In the next three years, that instead of permitting and encouraging a break between the year elementary and junior high school course . . .. we shall merge the junior high school with an elementary school.’ Scotland has led the way in this change, so have other leading authorities, such as Mr Suprley Hey, M_A., Director of Education for Manchester, who embarked upon an experiment of mass transference of primary school pupils to secondary schools, and discovered that 'the intention of the scheme was good, and the schools were excellent, but actual conditions and human consideration were too strong just as they would be too strong in the case of any attempt at the establishment of secondary schools for all. The scheme proved unworkable, o and in due course had to be modified more in conformity with actual conditions.’ These are Mr Hey’s words, and he is an eminent English educationist. THE HADOW REPORT. ' . “ Like many of the advocates of the junior high school, Mr Lee has seized on the Hadow Report, and proceeds to justify the Waitaki experiment by.quoting that report. As a matter of fact, the Hadow Report does not, as far as I have read it, recommend mass transference from elementary schools to secondary schools, or any other schools for that ■ matter. There is always the exactingly selective process. It is just as well to point out, however, that the Consultative Committee appointed by the English Board of. Education, under the chairmanshin of Sir W. H. Hadow, was confronted with a different problem, since it was invited to ‘ consider and report upon the organisation, objective, and curriculum or course of study suitable for children who will remain in full-time attendance at schools other than secondary schools up to the age of 15 years.” As far as New Zealand is concerned, this problem has been solved since any child who can meet the requirements of the proficiency test is entitled' to free secondary education, and 65 per cent, avaih themselves of the facilities offered. Mr Lee ought to know this. The big question troubling’ thoughtful parents and business men generally i's not whether the whole of the product of the primary school should go into secondary schools, but what is now happening to the large number of pupils who already attend secondary schools. “A striking illustration of the contrast between the problem facing New Zealand and the problem facing the education authorities in England, may be found,” Mr Lawrence said, “ in many of the big cities in the Old Country. If we take Manchester for example, we find that there are at any fixed time approximately 22,000 children betwen the ages of 11 and 13 years. It is therefore necessary to -give consideration each year’ to approximately 22,000 children. There are, however, each year, only 1400 vacancies in

the municipal secondary schools and other central schools of the city. The problem in that great city, then, is not only the careful selection of the 1400 most suitable children for a higher course of instruction extending over four years from the 22,000 eligible children, but how to meet the claims of the remaining thousands of children who are educationally stranded because of lack of the provision for further education. This is the problem the Hadow Committee was asked to investigate. Contrast this sad state of affairs with the favourable position in New Zealand, where a free place in a secondary school is offered by the State to every child pass-’ ing what is by no means an exacting test —the proficiency examination. But do the secondary schools do their job efficiently and satisfactorily? Only those who handle the product know, and their judgment is not always complimentary. Some educationists say that 75 per cent, of pupils emerging from primary schools arc likely to benefit through further education, but this high percentage does not receive unanimous endorsement. Already New Zealand has 65 per cent, of the pupils who gain a proficiency pass going on to secondary education. “NEXT STEP” IN SCOTLAND.

“ It is evident that Mr Lee has not made a very thorough investigation, otherwise he would not have committed himself to such an amazing pronouncement. Let Mr Lee tell the House of Representatives something of the real educational reforms that are being proceeded with in Scotland without burdening the taxpayer -with very much increased expenditure. New Zealanders are a little tired of the almost slavish worship of American ideas indulged in by enthusiasts who have not extended the scope of their investigations beyond the boundaries of the big cities. Let Mr Lee take a look at the lines of advance being followed in Scotland. If he does not accept my estimation of the high standard of education in Scotland and the efficiency of Scottish schools, I should like to refer him to ‘The Next Step in National Education,’ published early this year embodying the report of the Viscount Haldane Committee, which pays a high tribute to Scottish education by referring to Scotland’s ‘ approach to a i ©ally unified system of schools/ In view of this complimentary estimation of Scottish educational progress, I suggest to Mr Lee that he should peruse the annual reports of the Committee of the Privy Council of Education in Scotland for the past three or four years (which should be in the Parliamentary Library in Wellington). If he will do this, I challenge him to tell the House of Representatives just along what lines educational progress is making such wonderful strides in Scotland. He will discover that Scottish education authorities are in general agreement with many authorities in England and elsewhere—and with the widely-held opinion among New Zealand parents, employers, and taxpayers, too—that an increase in the number of new enrolments in secondary schools is not necessarily a subject for congratulation! In England, of course, as is well known, a- pupil attending a secondary school must furnish an undetakmg given by the parent that the full course will be taken. There is no running in and out of secondary schools and staying there while the fancy pleases as is the practice in New Zealand. But to get back to Scotland’s scheme. ‘lt may be well that,’ says the report on Scottish education for 1926-27, ‘as already indicated under the head of advanced divisions, and repeatedly stated in previous reports, a large proportion of new entrants would have found in the advanced division of primary schools a training better suited both for their natural bent and* to the length of time they are likely to. remain at. school.’ Let Mr Lee ascer tain the verdict of employers who have to provide positions and pay for the product of the secondary schools of New Zealand, ae discover that the big majority will endorse the pronouncement of the Scottish education authority that ‘ educationally it is better to do a little well than a great deal indifferently and badly.’ This v l e Y IS oemphasised in the minority report ot the Syllabus Revision Committee, which says that ‘ the danger in New Zealand is that secondary education has become rather a matter of acreage than of depth.’ “ I challenge Mr Lee to name a secondary school in England which permits mass transference of primary school pupils at the end of Standard IV course. t , et him .mention a single education authority in England where elementary schools are decapitated, and all children above Standard IV are bundled holus bolus (irrespective of bent and mental qualification) into secondary schools. Is this done in London? In the counties? In Scotland or in Wales? Is it done in South Africa or in Australia? Moreover, is there another country within the Empire which offers such generous provision for secondary education as the State does in New Zealand? But is this country receiving full value for the increasing expenditure on secondary education?

“?* is interesting to note in this connection that Mr Lee subscribes to what distinguished English educationist, j Conway, M.A. (former president of the National Union of Teachers and a member of the Consultative Committee of the English Board of Education), has so well described as the ‘ fundamental fall that anyone can forsee at the child s eleventh year what the bent is likely to be later.’

RECASTING THE SYSTEM. “Attempts are being made,” Mr Lawrence contends, “to stampede the Education Department to proceed on the lines of the American system without taking into consideration the differing conditions prevailing here and the peculiar requirements of the people of a country winch derives 95 per cent, of its created wealth from the soil. I have it on the authority of Dr Russell, of Columbia University, that if .you are to add a year to a school that already exists there is no reason why there should be any break. 1 he work can just as well be done in the 9th Grade —call it the 9th grade—(equal to New Zealand’s Standard VII), as in the junior high school. These (junior high school) administrative divisions and devices are for purposes other than education. They are for administrative purposes. “ Within the limitations of the - old syllabus,” Mr Lawrence claimed, “pri-

mary schools in New Zealand have done splendid work. All that is required is to put the new syllabus into operation in the primary school, give the experienced and well-trained teachers in charge of Standards V and VI an opportunity to show that they can rise to the occasion within the ambit of -an elastic organisation, and the experiences of Scotland will be reproduced here without embarking upon a costly disorganisation of the present system. To quote the latest official Scottish reports: ‘‘The teachers (in elementary schools) have been stimulated by the recasting of the system and the broadening of their outlook has reacted on the pupils. . . . Both teachers and puils worked under the new conditions with great vigour and awakened interest.’ But, after all, curriculum and organisation are not everything. The educational destiny of the potential citizens now in our schools in New Zealand reposes in the quality of instruction given them; in other words, the teachers, if up to their job, should possess the key that will unlock the gates of a new era of educational reform in New Zealand. Moreover, if there is one place in the whole system of education in New Zealand where the teaching is done well it is in the upper reaches of the primary school. Can the same be said of the teaching (or should we say the lecturing) of the lower forms of the secondary school? I believe I am right in saying that many parents, business men, and nol a few progressive educationists have an uneasy feeling that many young lives with bright prospects are going on from primary school to be subjected in many cases to mental crucifixion for* a year or two at the hands of inexperienced and untried teachers who are learning their job at the expense of the pupils; and they point to the official reports on the results of the matriculation examinations and the intermediate tests conducted in secondary schools as telling ’a story that is not very pleasing to the parent or the taxpayer. “ FANTASTIC FOLLY."

“TKe danger in New Zealand,” Mr Lawrence insisted. “ is that the education authorities may be persuaded to adopt a new organisation that is recommended .as a solution of the educational problems of other countries, ana* I can conceive of no more fantastic folly than that a scheme of education which suits a thickly ■populated district, where millions are congested in industrial areas no bmxer than one of our counties, should be foisted on New Zealand where we have a population of one and a-half millions occupying a territory nearly as expansive as the United Kingdom itself, and wholly dependent for its prosperity on the products of the soil and .the slowly developing secondary industries. As Mr Lee will discover, if he cares to take the trouble, the Hadow rns edHcational authorities of the folly of accepting its recommendations as the sovereign solution of all educational problems. The Hadow report insists.

to quote the actual words, ‘That a community must solve its educational problems in accordance with its own traditions and circumstances,’ and even with the experience available for comparison more complete than it is, it would supply suggestions to be pondered rather than an example to be followed. COST OF EXPERIMENTS. “On the question of cost Mr Lee was silent. As chairman of the Board of Governors of Waitaki High Schools, Mr Lee should have had the figures at his finger-tips. Why was he silent? The member for Oamaru knows perfectly well that the Minister of Education has limitations placed on the annual expenditure of his department. If Mr Lee desires to give the country a lead, he should tell the House of Representatives and the country just how much the Waitaki experiment has cost the Treasury. _ Many members of the House who represent rapidly-developing constituencies, where children attend schools in dilapidated buildings, hired halls, cheerless and crowded schoolrooms, will be interested to know how much has been expended in Oamaru on palatial buildings, elaborate equipment, generous incidental allowances, free transport, and very liberal staffing to provide the new course of education for 314 pupils of the adolescent age; and they will also like to know what will be the total cost to the country if the Waitaki experiment is repeated in every centre of New Zealand. Mr Lee does not know of course, that the ex-Direc-tor of Education, who championed the Oamaru scheme, repudiated in his evidence before the Syllabus Revision Committee, the responsibility for the excessive expenditure there. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE.

As a member of the Primary School Syllabus Revision Committee, associated with the lay members who presented the minority report,” Mr Lawrence concluded, “ I assisted in conducting investigations throughout the Empire, and some of the information received was embodied in the report. We have reason to- believe from the communications we have received from all parts of New Zealand, that our work in the interests of educational reform is appreciated. All we ask is that every teacher, every parent of pupils attending primary or secondary schools, every education authority and every taxpayer should read the reports of the Primary Schoor Syllabus Revision Committee. If they will read first the majority ■ report and then our minority report, we are satisfied that everyone who can take an impersonal view of the problem of the education of the adolescent will be convinced that definite educational progress can be made in this country; the whole system brought back to reality, the organisation made sufficiently elastic to facilitate the promotion of a child as soon as he or she is ready, without indulging in costly and risky experiments and without violent disorganisation of the present system."