[1]HENDERSON, C.H.  Education and the Larger Life. 1902.  Boston:  Houghton. 6s. 0d.

[1]HUGHES, E.H.  The Teaching of Citizenship. 1909.  Boston:  Wilde. 6s. 0d.

HUGHES, M.L.V.  Citizens To Be. 1915.  Constable. 4s. 6d. net.

[1]JENKS, J.W.  Citizenship and the Schools. 1909.  New York:  Holt. 6s. 0d.

KERSCHENSTEINER, GEORG.  Education for Citizenship.  Tr.  A.J.  Pressland. 1915.  Harrap. 2s. 0d. net.  The Schools and the Nation. 1914.  Macmillan. 6s. 0d. net.

[1]MONROE, PAUL. (Ed.) Cyclopedia of Education. 5 vols.  Macmillan. 105s. 0d. net.

MORGAN, ALEXANDER.  Education and Social Progress. 1916.  Longmans. 3s. 6d. net.

Oxford and Working Class Education.  Clarendon Press, 1s. net.

PATERSON, ALEXANDER.  Across the Bridges. 1912.  Arnold. 1s. 0d. net.

SADLER, M.E. (Ed.).  Continuation Schools in England and Elsewhere. 1908.  Manchester University Press. 8s. 6d. net.

SCOTT, C.A.  Social Education. 1908.  Ginn. 6s. 0d. net.

WALLAS, GRAHAM.  The Great Society. 1914.  Macmillan. 7s. 6d. net.

See also: 

Board of Education.  Reports.

Civics and Moral Education League Papers, 6 York Buildings, Adelphi,
W.C. 2.

[Footnote 1:  American.]

VI

THE PLACE OF LITERATURE IN EDUCATION

By NOWELL SMITH

Head Master of Sherborne School

Education is a subject upon which everyone—­or at least every parent—­considers himself entitled to have opinions and to express them.  But educational treatises or the considered views of educational experts have a very limited popularity, and in fact arouse little interest outside the circle of the experts themselves.  Even the average teacher, who is himself, if only he realised it, inside the circle, pays little heed to the broader aspects of education, chiefly, no doubt, because in the daily practice of the art of education he cannot step aside and see it as a whole; he cannot see the wood for the trees.  The indifference of laymen however is mainly due to the fact that educational theory, like other special subjects, inevitably acquires a jargon of its own, an indispensable shorthand, as it were, for experts, but far too abstract and technical for outsiders.

And his technical language too often reacts upon the actual ideas of the educational theorist, who tends to lose sight of the variety of concrete boys and girls in his abstract reasonings, necessary as these are.  We are apt to forget that what is sauce for the goose may not be sauce for the gander, and still more perhaps that what is sauce for the swan may not be sauce for either of these humbler but deserving fowl.  But it is certain that in discussing education we ought constantly to envisage the actual individuals to be educated.  Otherwise our “average pupil of fifteen plus” is only too likely to become a mere monster of the imagination, and the intellectual pabulum, which we propose to offer, suited to the digestion of no human boy or girl in “this very world, which is the world of all of us.”