LELIA "QUARTERLY RE V " AND PEDAGOGY.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sra,—The current number of the Quarterly Review contains an article on "Our Schools and Schoolmasters," in which the schoolmasters, more particularly those of the Elementary Schools, are soundly bethumped with words, and taught to know their places. Perhaps we should be doing the reviewer injustice, if we took everything he says quite seriously. By an unfortunate tradition (a tradition which the Quarterly has, however, at times
disregarded, with the happiestresults), the reviewtn-is bound to speak-in character as the laudator' ternporis aeti se puero, and on the present occasion, a fine sense of dramatic propriety has led him even- to recommend a return to "the school-books of our
youth." But he resembles another stage moraliser in being "full of matter," and we schoolmasters might well profit from his remarks on "extra subjects" in elementary schools, and the swarm of modern handbooks from which the children of all classes will soon be taught about everything.
Our reviewer, however, like irritable people generally, is affected by certain words as the bull is said to be by the red flag; and the poor pedagogue is gored mercilessly for talking of "pedagogy
The pedagogue has long been insisting that every one should recognise the profound importance of his art, and has long been pluming himself on being the practical leader, if not of this, at least of the succeeding age. He has developed a full-blown science, of which it appears he is at once the founder, the teacher, and the practical exponent ; and he has got a splendid name for it It is the 'Science of Pedagogy,' or, as we believe it is spelt by the initiated, Paida- gogy: He has been preaching the virtues of this neglected science for several years, now. We have, it appears, during past ages been proceeding not only upon wrong principles in education, but upon no principles at all. It has been reserved for a new class of teachers, a class whom the State has called into being, in order to perform what cannot claim to be the highest part of the teaching art, to discover those principles, and to arrange them into a scientific shape."
And he condoles with "the full-blown professors of this novel science "—(Professors Laurie of Edinburgh, and Meiklejohn of
St. Andrew's. N.B.—Even Professors should not have arrived at maturity),—" on being the official representatives of a science
whose very name is embodied pedantry, and which might have found a fitting home amongst the inhabitants of Laputa."
From this remarkable passage, we find that our reviewer supposes English elementary teachers to lay claim to the in- vention of "the novel science." With him, education is as purely and as exclusively English as the game of cricket, but some of us have ascertained that it is extensively practised on the Continent of Europe, and even in the United States of America ; and English teachers, in turning their attention to the principles which underlie their art, are not striking out a new line for themselves, but are simply joining a procession, in which the Germans lead, and the French, the Americans, the Dutch, and some other nations are far before the English. But even the Germans are not the inventors of the science of educa- tion. To talk of a new science, still more of a " full-blown "
science, is simply misleading. From the earliest times, some great thinkers have made investigations in the subject of education, and the results have been handed down in their writings. Several of the-principles they have established have been appropriated, or possibly rediscovered, by our reviewer. For instance, he declares that the teacher should think more of training than of giving information, and he points out to us schoolmasters the evil consequences that have resulted from our neglect of this principle. This lesson he enforces by a very apposite quotation from Locke. But why, in the name of common-sense, may -schoobnasters learn the truths of pedagogy (for this is a truth of pedagogy) from no one but Locke and the Quarterly reviewer? And why condole with the Pro- fessors who are called by a University to do what the writer
is himself doing without any call whatever ? And if the pro- fessional lecturer has not contented himself with haphazard frontiers to his acquaintance with his subject, but has spent much time and care in rendering them scientific, why should an anonymous Quarterly reviewer relegate him and his science to Laputa, and then lecture in his stead Our reviewer "is tempted" to say, with Dr. Johnson,— " Education is as well known, and has long been as well known, as ever it can be." As in the greater part of his article he dis- cusses changes introduced since these words were spoken, the reviewer shows his wisdom by resisting the temptation, and not adopting them. But allowing that much is already known about education, to whom is it known ? Not, surely, to young men and women quite new to the subject. And why may not some, at all events, of this knowledge be communicated by those who have it, whether in the Quarterly Review, or still better, as it seems to me, in the lecture-room? Again, if we admit that
anything yet remains to be found out, who so likely to make discoveries as men of culture and experience, with leisure and opportunity to collect facts, make observations, study the tendency of thought both at home and abroad, and bring established principles to bear upon new problems as they arise P To the latter part of his article the Quarterly reviewer
urges that we are in danger of "drifting, without taking note of our own progress or recognising the point of the com- pass towards which we move.". Every step forward should "be weighed and calculated beforehand ;" "we are to pro- vide against the danger of sudden reaction, and the extrava- gance of individual whims and fancies." All this forethought and submission to principles is to be secured, he tells us, by the establishment of a Ministry of Public Instruction. I will not dispute the point with him; but after all, such a Ministry would supply us with force rather than light, and until he sees the right way, the ablest Minister in the world could not drag us into it. Perhaps, in the end, the Minister might be com- pelled to send off to Laputa for the Professors whom our reviewer has transported thither.—I am, Sir, &c.,
R. H. QUICK.
Previous page
