EDUCATION

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 November 1948, Page 2

EDUCATION

Dear Sir,— The various articles which have appeared in your paper recently concerning education must appear rather confusing to the public, whom J imagine must rather be wondering exactly what part of education and at what levels it is being attacked and why no defence is being made. I submit that if this criticism could be made at specific subjects or branches of education or at specific classes, and were substantiated by concrete evidence, then the 8000 teachers who operate the system fvould take more interest in presenting the other side of the picture. Your editorial of November 2 complained that no attempt is ever made to answer criticism, but teachers are not to be drawn into a haze of political argument. If we discard the political implications in Miss Newton’s attacks and consider what remains by way of objective complaint in your correspondence on this subject very little remains so far to merit serious reply. Your editorial stated that youngsters today “lack the characteristics which a good schooling ought to inculate” and that they produce as good enough a degree of slipshod work which is alarming. I consider this a rather vague generalisation. Nor am I satisfied that it is just. Where lies your evidence? Just what is this “degree” of slipshod work, and what evidence can you offer that it is alarmingly higher than the customary “degree” of any other period? We all know that in every period businessmen have complained that education was not what it was in their day. What definite, irreputable evidence can you offer that this is a special period of more-than-usually-slipshod work After all anyone can make a generalised statement, and these are hard to reply to, but a substantiated statement should be a bone to bite, on. Your correspondent Scrutator is more definite when he says “that the present easy system of education has produced bad spelling, bad English, bad arithmetic, bad discipline, bad manners and a definite lack of responsibility in the products of our schools.” Now the first three of these are factual matters which he might, but didn’t, substantiate, and a good case might well throw all 8000 teachers on the defensive. I anticipate a healthy argument here if Scrutator will prove his case. But the last three, discipline, manners, and responsibility, are personalities which to be taken so sweepingly and dogmatically by Scrutator show him in a poor light as a critic of ability and might even cause one to wonder if it is the present system of education which is under fire. His epithet “easy” is misleading and shows lack of contact with schools generally which I believe to be a fault common to critics.

No sir, the accused is innocent until and unless proven guilty. To deal in rash generalisation is “ tinkering with the matter” indeed and “is not enough for a cure,” so let the critics come down to facts and prove them and then we might see the response your editorial desired. Miss Newton states “I know that manv teachers and inspectors once enthusiastic supporters are now seriouslv alarmed at the results of the new deal and are quietly introducing into the schools many factors which even a year or two ago they were scorning.” I presume that a reply is exnected to such a statement as this, unsubstantiated by names, time or place as it is. T submit that this is not fair criticism of the educational svstem and seeking only to more public opinion without supporting facts does not merit an answer.—T am. etc. L. A. JACKSON. The charge of inefficiency is not levelled by those outside the teach ing profession but by the teachers of the secondary schools and by the professors of the university. The lowered

standard of attainment of the pupils going forward to the secondary schools is not open for discussion. It is admitted all-round. It could not be otherwise when secondary schools are required to take a year ana more bringing entrants up to the entry standard. This state of affairs is sought to be excused on the ground that whereas the cream formerly went to the secondary schools now the whole milk goes and consequent ly the general average must be lower. The statistics cited by the President of the Primary Teachers Association concerning the percentages of these students who formerly went forward ot the secondary schools (15%) compared with today (85%) were incorrect (see official reports) and disqualify the president aS a serious contribut«}r to the discussion.