In the debate last night I made specific reference to the secondary programme and I do not think it is necessary to go back on what I said. It might be better to take a more positive attitude towards it. I do believe that some of thethings of which I complained last night have been to some extent corrected, but I think that correction has not gone far enough. For instance, looking at the practical equipment that secondary education is supposed to give the child to face life, looking at some of the subjects involved from that point of view, I think we are really trying to do a bit too much and that we have got confused between the idea of general education, broad education —the ideal that perhaps we would all like to put before us—and the one imposed on us by life, that is, the practical fitting of the child for life. As I tried to point out, the net result was a certain confusion, a certain lack of clinching with the problem and a certain inefficiency.
Take the mathematical curriculum, for instance. Look at it soberly. If you leave aside the child who is going to specialise, say, in engineering, some of the physical sciences, whether applied or pure, including mathematics and those who are going to take an academic career in that subject, apart from the very limited number there, what does the average person need in mathematical knowledge even to-day? —mainly, a sound fundamental knowledge of arithmetic and the ordinary arithmetical operations. He needs to be able to reckon; he needs a simple but direct practical knowledge of weights and measures, mensuration, and a facility with ordinary figures. It is doubtful even whether he needs to go so far as to be acquainted with the use of a logarithm.
Let any of us ask the question: How many of us have wanted in ordinary life, apart from some specialised problem, to apply what has been taught to us in school in that particular line? We will find that it practically never turns up, even for an accountant. The mathematics needed for business are still very simple. What is needed is accuracy, facility and speed, which can only come from concentration and time given to these basic techniques.
I am taking logarithms as an example, as being perhaps the first stage where you just go beyond the limit. In order to exercise ourselves in these,we got extravagant and very unreal problems in compound interest but we never meet them in ordinary life. The ordinary person does not meet them in ordinary life. Nowadays, perhaps, as well as the categories I mentioned, the economist wants some equipment of that nature and some statistical equipment but he again is very much a specialist.
So that, I would advocate in regard to the mathematical courses, particularly in the secondary schools—and I would say the same in principle for the primary schools—that the emphasis should be on the basic arithmetical techniques: adding, subtracting, dividing, reckoning money, simple mensuration, and so forth, and that more time should be given to developing a facility and a sureness in these techniques than we have been giving and which used to be given under the older system.
So too with geometry. In regard to geometry, again, an elementary knowledge is all that is needed. Let us look back. The First Book of Euclid or some definite system like Euclid has the advantage of being a definite logical system. There is a training in logic there which is valuable in the secondary school anyway and I would not minimise it but that training is all the more valuable if one concentrates on the earlier portions of it and makes sure that that is assimilated and that the methods are assimilated in the simpler cases.
Moving from that to practical results, what do we need afterwards? I have tried to think of where practical knowledge is needed. A few elementary properties, one in particular, the relation of the long side of a right-angle triangle to the other two sides, is probably a very important relation and one which will turn up but I think it is about the only one. If a person can reckon the long side of the triangle by getting the squares of the other two and take out the square root, it is as much as he wants of geometrical knowledge.