| The question of what children learn, and how they
should learn it, is continually being debated and re-debated. Nobody dares any
longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the
grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The
theories of modem psychology have stepped into argue that we must understand the
needs of children. Children are not just small adults, they are children who
must be respected as such. Well, you may say, this is as it should be a good idea. But think further, what happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is relevant to modem young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teaching children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better Sums? Arithmetic? No: real-life mathematical situations are more understandable. You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theories, who have nothing better to do than write book about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated preparations and try out their modem standard on the long-suffering children. Since one modem method rapidly replaces another, the floor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children. |