CHILDREN AND HOME WORK.

Southland Times, Issue 19256, 21 June 1921, Page 2

CHILDREN AND HOME WORK.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your corespondent “Anti-Grind” has taken a very exaggerated view of homework for children. He mentions along with other things travelling to school by train and I therefore infer that he has country 1 as well as town children in his mind and it is from the point of view country children that I wish to reply. In the first place it is to me doubtful if “AntiGrind” is really worried about children doing homework or if he is interested only in the way in which a teacher improves his status and the remodelling of our education system. I presume that the homework is his trouble,- but he is surely not serious when he says that “three or four hours home lessons is quite a common thing to-day, etc.’’ And the results are even more amusing. The medical inspectors in their reports have never condemned homework as the cause of decayed teeth, etc. Then he says “the work done at school is done under some sort of supervision, etc.” If the work done at home was done under some sort of supervision it would take, perhaps 15 to 30 minutes instead of three or four hours; but this to my mind is one of the greatest drawbacks to our present system of education—the non-co-operation of the pai-ents as a whole. The children themselves admit that a judicious amount of homework is beneficial and anyone who has had the privilege of doing homework in his school days must and will admit that it has its benefits. Then, again, the school day is not five hours—there are two breaks of about ten minutes; then the work is mostly arranged to avoid monotony which is probably the greatest strain children of the present day ate likely to be subjected to at school and I venture to say that no child unless physically weak from birth suffers from nervous .or mental strain brought about by over-school-work. Just fancy having to rush to catch a tram in order to be at school at 9.30! "Early to bed, etc.,’’ is just as applicable to school children as to grown ups whether town or country. He speaks of “the wretched business” education. Any suggestion at reform would, I have no doubt, be welcomed by all. Then “the abolition of homework is simply a biological necessity.” A sheer matter of race preservation. The weedy specimens ar supposed to bear out the truth of this statement. The breeder of stock will welcome the news—weedy horses, weedy cattle, weakling ducks and chickens then are the result of homework. A child can secure a good primary and secondary education now-a-days and keep fit if the parents will again not only co-operate but do their duty in directing a boy or girl in health matters. What do the average parents of to-day tell their children concerning the laws of nature in relation to their health? Nothing! If your correspondent, “Anti-Cram” is against “cramming” then I agree with him and if “Anti-Grind” is against the “grinding” of children before and after school (such as milking cows, selling papers, etc.), I feel I could agree with him but so long as they both contend that the amount of home lessons is excessive and should be eliminated,—I am, etc.,

ONE WHO HAS THE WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN AT HEART.