7 JANUARY 1938, Page 21

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.]

THE CONTROVERSIAL IN EDUCATION

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Snt,—In his article, "The Controversial in Education," in the Christmas Number of The Spectator, Sir E. D. Simon criticises my argument for the impartial teaching of History, published in the A.M.A. Journal of June, 1936, and contrasts the argument with that of a Swiss University teacher. My original article was written in answer to suggestions made in educational conferences that the organisation, aims and achievements of the League of Nations should be included in the history syllabus of all schools. If that subject were taught, I protested, it should enter the syllabus " arm-in-arm with the organisation, aims and achievements of Soviet Russia, modern Germany, Italy and Japan." It is as indefensible to omit lessons on Fascism and Communism in a course of post-War history as it would be to omit lessons on the Second French Empire or William II's foreign policy in a course of nineteenth-century European his- tory.

Sir Ernest applies my arguments not so much to the syllabus as to the method of teaching History. He does not think that History teachers can be impartial. In the absolute meaning of the word no one would disagree, but it is surprising how far one can go towards impartial teaching. There should be no more difficulty in presenting the Government's and the Opposition's points of view on the adoption of a Protectionist policy in 1931, than in discussing the pros and cons of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 ; and a critical consideration of the League's policy in the Italo-Abyssinian dispute should be as natural and as harmless as a critical consideration of Dalhousie's policy in India or Salisbury's policy of Splendid Isolation. If the teacher yields to the temptation, or accedes to the request, to state his own opinion, he can always indicate clearly that it is purely personal, and that other people who have carefully considered the matter have arrived at different con- clusions. Outside the class-room in the various school societies there is no need to exercise such restraint, for freedom of dis- cussion and the speeches of other members of the staff take away the ex cathedra nature of the teacher's words.

Sir Ernest begins his article with the statement that " one of the main tasks in education is to cultivate a love of truth and the power of forming sound independent judgements." Later he declares that it is " unfair to leave the unfortunate child to make up its own mind as best it can with no guidance what- ever." It may be possible to reconcile these two statements, but in my experience as a teacher of history, the most pressing task before me has not been to guide children into beliefs, but to make them question those prejudiced beliefs which they have acquired so thoughtlessly from parents and friends. When a child begins to take an interest in political or international affairs, he usually adopts a standpoint which is the same or directly opposite to that of his father or the family newspaper. Without knowing why, and with the same facility as he labels himself an Anglican, Nonconformist or a Catholic, he boldly declares himself a Conservative, a Socialist or a Liberal. The teacher has to lead the child to question these " beliefs," and either convert them from superficial prejudices into considered beliefs in the same point of view, or to help him find other beliefs which better satisfy his reason. He rarely does more than partially succeed. Some prejudices can only be modified ; a few are even strengthened. The best pupils leave School not with any fixed beliefs, but with minds full of conflicting arguments. Uncomfortable though it may be, this uncertain condition of opinion is a distinct step forward from the com- fortable state of fixed beliefs. It is a sign that the youth is thinking, and though it may be years before his beliefs crystal- lise out, when they do slowly form they will be true and well- formed.

This prejudice of children of twelve to fifteen years is as true in international affairs as it is in national or local politics. The Russophobe, the Communistphile, the internationalist and the isolationist are early revealed in the class-room and School Debating Society. I have seen self-styled Liberals of twelve and thirteen smile most contentedly at the account of how the Whigs, whom they confused with the Liberals, triumphed in 1688 ; and I have seen anti-Communists of the same age throw derisive looks at the " Bolshevik " of the class when I have been dealing with the Crimean War. No one can pretend that these are beliefs founded on anything but ignorance. In their most casual form they are nothing but labels ; in their most enthusiastic form loyalties as unshak-' able and as unreasoning as loyalty to a particular House in the School. The enquiring youth has no difficulty in seeking opinions. At home, in the League of Nations Union, in the Debating Societies, in Church and Sunday School, in casual conversation, arguments and points of view are constantly expressed. The History teacher must choose between being merely an extra source of opinion, or a source of impartial information, where the youth can discover as fair and as full a statement of the facts as he can understand, and where he can find indicated for him both the arguments for and the arguments against a particular method of government or proposed solution of a problem. The search for truth is the aim of all learning, and unless the teacher aims at nothing else and nothing less, he will find pitfalls all round. Sir Emest's statement, " to pass on the great heritage of British liberty cannot be called bias or propaganda in any derogatory sense," might easily be echoed in Italy or Germany in favour of " the great heritage " of Fascism or Nazism, or in Russia in favour of " the great heritage " of the Communist Party.

Every child has to live his own life. He requires guidance, information and help from those who have faced the same problems, but he does not require the problems of life removing and ready-made solutions putting in their place. If he believes simply because someone in authority, his father, his teacher, or even a national dictator, told him to believe, then is his belief built upon the sand. To build it upon the rock entails much labour, periods of despair and the frequent prospect of chaos. Some years ago the Archbishop of York, in addressing a congregation of undergraduates, told them that above all things they should be true to themselves, even if it meant losing their faith in Christ. The Archbishop was not advocating the spread of anti-Christian belief, but he knew that no parrot- like confession of Christianity was worth while. Honest belief, whether in Christianity or in democracy, is not achieved by ignoring criticism, but by defeating it in all its strength.—