Most of this, in my opinion, is arrant nonsense. I would remind you that education is not new: not even in the narrow sense. Socrates was a teacher. Plato and Aristotle were not only teachers: they ran schools, and took fees. Moreover, they thought of themselves as teachers primarily, and as philosophers only secondarily. I have heard students from Victoria College, brought up on so-called "formal disciplines," sneer at teaching as a profession. I would add to the list of teachers the names of others no one can afford to sneer at. Leaving aside Confucius and Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth. I would remind you of Aquinas and Abolard. Erasmus. Thomas More. Vittorino da Feltre. Vives. Rabelais, Montaigne. Sir Thomas Elyot. Comonius. Milton. Rousseau. Postalozzi. Frocbel. Hegel. Herbart, and John Dewey. That education is eclectic, this list both demonstrates and justifies: for the great names in education compass history, philosophy, religion, language, and science. So do the "great names" in any other of these disciplines, for knowledge is compartmented only in the minds of small men. The only study is man in his universe, though the attack may be from different vantage points. The accumulation of knowledge, and the building of civilisation (whatever that may be), depends not least on those who set out deliberately to teach and especially to teach the voting. It could be said that all philosophy attempts to answer what should he taught, and that all history in some measte reflects what has been learnt, if these generalisations are true, it must be of extreme importance how well whatever has been taught has been taught, and to whom.

"hardly respectable"

All this leads directly into my subject, the "new" education. Newness is most suspect to the dead, who cannot feel it: or to the during, who do not wish to be disturbed Nuclear physics is a new subject: dare we ignore its importance? English had no chair at Oxford or Cambridge until the turn of the century: that is why Scotsmen and Scandinavians teach it (Jesperson and Ian Gordon have had longer traditions to work on than mere Englishmen, who take their language for granted). Psychology is new; James and Freud are within living memory. Knowledge is old, but the ways in which we learn are still being determined. We know more about it now than mankind has ever known, and the knowledge is not to be sneered at. Indeed, it is crucial, if Locke was important, it was not because he lived a long time ago, as traditionalists implicitly assert. It is rather because he furthered an understanding of understanding: which is precisely why Temian. Merrill. Vernon, and the All ports are important, in spite of the fact that they are still alive! Educational psychology is not unimportant because it is still experimental. It is important because it is experimental. Educational psychology is one of the bases of the "new" education. For good or ill, people learn more of whatever is being taught by the right methods than by the wrong methods. Right and wrong, in mythology, can be determined only experimentally.

Great Names

But let me return briefly to the "great names" in education, who in the main precede what we now call scientific method. They endure, and command our respect, chiefly for the firs! step in precisely scientific method: the formulation of brilliant hypotheses, subsequently justified, and incorporated into what we now call the "new" education. Here I cannot avoid being both sketchy and selective, since the alternative would be a history of education. Plato conceived the notion of universal education, selective education, and continual education for those fitted for it. Indeed, he made education a "key" activity of the state: on which all other activities were contingent. The great Christian teachers (and not they alone brought out the central notion of virtue as the chief end of education. Nowadays we call it "character training." and attack it obliquely. The humanists of the Renaissance broke through the formalism of clerical training, and extended the appreciation of the ever-living present, to be enjoyed by the "manysided" man. Descartes and Locke opened the way to scientific knowledge about the nature of knowledge. Rousscan, perhaps the greatest of all educational visionaries, focussed attention on the child and its nature. Since his day we can no longer place what is to be learnt above the nature of the learner, we are all aware of his influence on a more obvious, political revolution, with its claim of rights for all: but I believe the influence of Rousseau on education, beginning with the "rights" of all, and going on to a recognition of individual difference and uniqueness, has been of more lasting and durable importance. From Rousseau stem the case study and child psychology: and from him, too. education through experience rather than from books alone. Perhaps even more important, we get from Rousseau the idea of stages of development, complete in themselves: a child is a child, and not merely part of a man, from Pestatozzi we gel the beginnings of practical demonstrations of learning by living and doing together: he had orphans to contend with, little equipment, but many ideas. From Frocbel (as from Wordsworth) we get the notion of wonder and tenderness: two characteristics of childhood we dare not imperil. From Herbart we get a two? pronged attack on method: working from the interest of the child, and systematising both curriculum and teaching procedure. (We can find faults with Herbart s "system" now, but he served a great needs by providing teachers in great numbers when they were needed most: in the 19th Century transition, from education for a few to education for the many.)

From [unclear: Rouscsau], and Pestalozzi Froebal, Montesori, and John Dewey, among others, we gel the concepts of and the equipment for, learning by doing; "play" as meaningful work; activity rather than passivity in "learning"; problem solving, as the way to mastery of both oneself and one's world. It remains to be said that if these thugs are still "new" [unclear: iany] people is because traditional disciplines have a stranglehold unjustified by scientific investigation. Teaching methods, and not least in the universities, are so conservative, that it could be argued (as Chesterton argued of Christianity) that the only thing wrong with the "new" education is that it has not been tried.

A Question of Quantity

This is the "new" education with a vengeance, the significant figures are those comparing total population (roughly 30 per cent, increase) with school population (roughly 240 per cent, increase), and those indicating the extern to which post-primary education accounts for the difference, Granted that the births for the first 30 odd years of the century were around the 30,000 mark, and for the last 20 years have jumped to roughly 40,000, the fact that there are now as many children in Forms V and VI as there were in the post-primary schools is a new phenomenon: the result not merely of economic circumstances, though they are important, but also of policy making.

(Call this Peter Fraserism-cum-Beebyism if you like, and attack it if you can.)

As I have suggested above the film has its serious moments. It tries to show that when one culture is imposed upon another, then limitless sagacity and understanding are demanded if one of them is not to be destroyed and ineffectively replaced by the other. Near the end this undercurrent rises to the surface, and for a moment or two Fisby plays the part of Brash Eager Democracy, while Lotus Blossom becomes the Ancient Mysterious East, and they have a somewhat irritating conversation concerning what they should do about it. Come to think of if, this could have have been quite funny in a base sort of way, hut instead the comedy and the light touch drop away altogether and the message glares forth. This is a pity, but though it may slightly mar the film for some. [unclear: "Tcaiousc"] remains nevertheless a comedy of rare quality.

—J.R.S

machine which made an error of a quarter of a million dollars on the payroll "machines have always been my mortal enemies . . . they're full of malice'. He was requested to request a transfer to Psychological Warfare, where he was so successful in undermining the stairs morale that he was requested to request a transfer to Colonel Wainwright Purdy Ill's outfit.) Ford is surprisingly effective as a clown.

Sakini (whose narrative function is considerably reduced in the film) is played by Malron Brando, though I'm sure I can't see why. Certainly he is not scree good at it, and it is hard to see any reason for giving him a part so obviously unsuited to an actor of his type Sakini is meant to be a shrewd little scalliwag, cheeky and loveable. Was Brando ever cheeky and loveable? Surprise easting is all very well, but not this! Paul Douglas would have been as suitable. Or Humphrey Bogart.

Lotus Blossum, the geisha, is played by Machiko kyo, who is apparently a well-known Oriental screen star, She is charming in this not-very-demanding part.