CHIEF FUNCTION OF STATE.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 July 1930, Page 4

CHIEF FUNCTION OF STATE.

(To the Editor.) ""Sir, —I have read the remark.* ot Air. T. B. Strong as Director of Education relative to character training and the editorial comment you make in to-day’s News. J agree that, an yon state, “If it does not result in building the character of boys and girls. in teaching them tha t sen ice ifi before self, that the fineness or failure of the individual ifi of lees importance than that he rshonld play the game, above all that in service for the community is the salt of life, much of the eoist of education will have been wasted.’ The high ideals and recognition ot the importance of this phase of education, both afi expressed bv -'l''. Strong and an contained in the 1928 syllabus, are hollow and pretentious in the extreme. Vi hili; the subject ii> stated in the. syllabus to be ‘‘‘the chief function that-the Sta.te. js called upon to perform ’ the .same syllabus sjoe.fi,.on to say—-reeimcile it il you can—■"incidental character training .is probably more effective: than .setmoral lessons, which may- tend to become uninteresting and tedious to children.” To my .mind • the position io ludicrous. “The chief function that the State ifi calico upon to perforin’ is treated merely “incidentally. ’ “The whole of school life should centre in character training,” <say<> the same syllabus. Who could deny it? Yet who can believe, as the syllabus gtaten a little further on, “the moot potent factor in character training is undoubtedly the personal attitude of the teacher. Every subject of instruction provides the teacher with opportunities for teaching right conduct and implantin » habits finch as honesty, modesty and perseverance. 5 ' Who can justify euch a position in an enlightened and boasted education system? Let us suppose that arithmetic is considered as . “the chief function the State is called upon to perform.” It is “tedious and un;nterc«sting to' children,” yet could there be justification for ,the policy of teaching it ' ‘•incidentally/’ when 'opportunity occurs in the midst of fetching 'set lessons? .The whole , position kj purely farce.,

If, as the Director of Edueat'ion, tnc 192 S syllabus, and you believe, charaj.x-r training “is the chief function that the State is called upon to perform,” do you think it prudent or in the card sensible wholly to leave "'the principal function of the State” in the .despotic hands of thousands of teachers? The teachers to-day have the burden and tremendous responsibility of not only teaching academic and cultural subjects rigidly prescribed, but also of framing as individuals and then teaching—if t- cy have the time or the inclination —“the chief function that tho Stale in called upon to perform.” You know, as is generally known, that the teachers, while they are highly imbued with adequate sense of responsibility, have not conferred upon this subject of' character training and instruction. That being so, and it also being admitted by .the sylla.ms that "the most potent factor is undoubtedly the. personal altitude of the teacher,” can tiiere be any other ’ conclusion than "that there are as many methods and as many variations : in 'teaehiirg character and

ethics' as' there Ure individual' teachers? Indeed, that is so. There is nothing more autliorative, nothing more specific and directive to the teachers than the statement in the syllabus. It is, indeed, a contravention of the policy _of the Education Department and a situation without parallel in any other branch of State activity. In short, the teachers are expected to decide, as individuals — without reconciliation amongst themselves, without guidance specifically from any governing body, without scrutiny and criticism by comparison with any required standard —that phase of education admitted as " the chief function of the State.” In no othei respect has a hody of civil servants such power and such immense responsibility in such a vital matter. To attempt to perform “the chief function of the State” merely casting the burden “lock, stock and barrel” upon the teachers, surely strains to breaking point the fitting relation of things. It prejudices the possibilities of practical achievement in keeping with the urgency ol the matter. ■' ' ' . ’

'"•'Religions iristnktion in the schools':isin a state of flux and uncertainty. '“lncidental”: character • training—when character training is properly- understood'in tlie light of modern scientific research- results and rbtent investigation —is a contradiction in terms. In fact the position is that, “incidental,” in the scramble for grading marks in formal teaching, is merely accidental. And all of this criticism is above and beyond the teaching efficiency and the personal merit of the teaching profession. The fault is not theirs. It must be admitted that teaching to-day has reached a standard in New Zealand probably as high as it is anywhere in the world. The teacher’s strength lies in his ability to teach; it is not the teacher’s job to decide what shall be taught, when and to what extent. The curriculum having been prescribed, it remains for ■ the teacher to impart the substance in the best psychological way with a maximum of interest for his pupils. -It'is sheer nonsense, without scientific authority and without precedent, for the syllabus to arbitrarily declare that "incidental character ■' training is probably moreeffective than set moral lessons; which may tend to be uninteresting and'tedious to children.” If actual • fact the teachers themselves would find that no sub--'-ject could' provide greater opportunity for romantic,-and “flesh and blood ’ interest. Life itself can never be uninteresting, especially to children whose a is inseparable from natural curiosity, yet whose natural questions are left unanswered. The academic subjects are abstract; character training—the relation of human stuff to civil and social structures —must he the mest interesting subject all. Indeed, it has been so found in countries where thehigh ideals of New Zealand's education system have been actually carried into practice.' Tn New Zealand the practise" is lacking, ami to hear Mr| Strong’s remarks is at once irritating and ludicrous, the position being what it is. If this be not sufficient to show that something is seriously wrong with the education system in “the chief function the State is called upon to perform,” I can follow uj with world-wide evidence, which admits of but one conclusion. To expect the teachers themselves to frame a policy and put it into action is dangerous,. There is nothing definite, no agreement, no stability. Even if the teachers were the fitted persons to frame such a policy, they have not conferred upon the methods of practice. In any case it is not Tor ,to> arbitrarily frame a .policy, but ratljer.-fpr. them to practice what is formulated., and defined by a

higher body, which, quite reasonably, might be. guided, but-only guided, by teachei'iP' views.—l am; etc., .L;." ■ ■ ■■ - - ' ANIMUS. ' June 28, 1930.