婚姻学堂
正确的教育所关心的是个人的自由，唯有个人的自由，才能带来与整体、人群的真正合作。然而，这种自由并非借着追逐自己的扩展和成功而能获得。自由起于自我认识，也就是当心灵超越了因渴望自我安全而制造出来的种种障碍时。
教育的任务，在帮助每一个人发现这些心理上的障碍，而非仅将新的行为模式、新的思考形式，强加在他的身上。这种强迫的灌输永远无法唤醒智慧、创造性的了解，只是进一步把个人加以限制。显然，这种情形正发生于世界各地，这就是为何我们的问题层出不穷、延续不绝的原因。
唯有当我们了解了人生的深刻意义，这时才会有真正的教育。然而要了解人生，则心灵必须明智地将自己从滋生恐惧与附和顺从的要求报偿的欲望中解脱。如果我们把孩子视为私人的财产，如果将他们视为我们卑微自我的延续，或实现我们野心的工具，则我们建造的是一个没有爱却有追逐自我利益的环境和社会结构。
一所在名利上成功的学校，通常不是一所教育中心。一所广大的、兴盛的学府，将千百个儿童聚集在一起受教育，凭它的壮观和成绩可能制造出银行职员、超级销售员、企业家、各种委员，或一些在技术上胜任的肤浅人群;然而，有希望的只是完整的个人——而唯有小学校才有助于造就这种完整的个人。因此，只收容数目有限的男女同学，并且拥有正确教育者的学校，远比在大学校里从事最新颖的教育方法来得更重要。
然而不幸的是，我们的困难与混乱的原因之一，就是我们以为必须从事规模宏大的教育。大部分人都希望有壮观的校舍的大学校——虽然这种学校并非正确的教育中心，因为我们意欲改变或影响所谓的群众。
然而，谁是群众呢?你和我。让我们不要沉溺于这种想法：群众也必须受到正确的教育。这种对群众的考虑，是一种逃避即刻行动的方式。如果我们由眼前的事物着手，在我们与孩子、朋友、邻人的关系中觉察到我们自己，则正确的教育便会普及各处。我们在外界家庭与朋友的世界中的行动，将会产生影响和效果。
在我们的一切关系中，充分地觉察到我们自己后，便会开始发觉到至今仍茫然无知，却存在于我们自身中的混乱与束缚。对它们有所觉察后，我们才能了解它们，并加以解决。如果缺乏这项觉察以及自我认识，则任何教育方面或其他方面的改革只会导致更深的对立与不幸。
建造气派的学校，而聘请的老师只依据某项方法，对他与学生之间的关系不加警觉与观察，如此只会鼓励学生聚集知识、发展能力，依照某种模式作机械式思考的习惯。然而，这些都无法帮助学生成为一个完整的人。在警觉而深思的教育者手中，方法可能有其有限的用途，却无法造就智慧。不过，奇怪的是，像“方法”、“制度”这种字眼，却对我们十分重要。符号象征取代了真实的事物，而对此种情形我们毫不见怪，因为真实的事物使人不安，它的影子却使人舒适。
任何有基本价值的东西，都是无法借着集体教育来完成的，需要对每一个孩子的个别困难、脾气、能力加以仔细研究、了解。明白这一点的人，如果真心地想要了解孩子，想要帮助他们，便应该集合起来，创办一所学校。这所学校将在孩子的生活中产生重大的意义，因为它帮助孩子成为一个完整而有智慧的人。创办这样的学校，并不需等到拥有足够的资金，每个人都可在家庭中做一个真正的教师，而机会将会落到那些具有无限热忱的人身上。
爱自己的孩子以及四周所接触的孩子，而因此充满真诚的那些人，可以在他家附近或在他自己的家里成立这种正确的学校。然后，所需的金钱就会有了着落——这里最不需要考虑的一项。要维持一所实行正确教育的小学校，在经济上当然是有困难的，然而，它并不需要依赖庞大的银行存款。除非有爱与了解，否则金钱必然导致腐败与堕落。如果，这真是一所值得卖力的学校，则它所需的援助是可以获得解决的。只要对孩子有爱，任何事情都是办得到的。
一旦我们最关心的是学校，则孩子便不受重视了。正确的教育者关心的是个人，而非学生的数量;这样教育者会发觉，他可以开设一所某些父母所支持而意义重大的学校。然而，教师必须具有火一般的热忱，如果他毫不起劲，则它的学校也就和其他学校没有什么两样了。
如果父母真正爱他们的子女，他们会制定法律或使用其他方法以创建小型学校，任用正确的教育者。他们不会因为小学校的费用昂贵或正确教育者的难以寻觅，而踌躇不前。
不过，他们应该明白，与此有利害关系的各方面，政府和有组织的宗教都将不可避免地反对他们因为这种学校是革命性的。真正的革命，并非暴力的革命;真正的革命，在于培养完整而有智慧的人，这些人借着他们自己的生活，逐渐使社会产生根本的改变。
然而，最重要的是这种学校里的教师都必须是自动前来的，而非受到劝服或委托。因为，自发地从世俗的事物中解脱，才是教育的唯一正确基础。如果教师们希望互相帮助，并且帮助学生了解正确的价值，那么在他们每天的日常生活中，必须随时有敏锐的警觉。
一个生活在一所小学校里，很容易忘记学校之外还有一个世界，那儿的冲突、毁灭与不幸正与日俱增。那世界与我们并无隔离。相反，它是我们的一部分，因为我们造成了它现在这副样子。因此，如果我们要在社会结构中产生基本上的改变，正确的教育是第一步。
唯有正确的教育，才能为我们的问题和不幸，提供持久的解决方法，而非意识形态、领导人物或经济上的改革。要明白这项事实的真理，无需智力上或情绪上的说服或狡诈的论证。
如果在施行正确教育的学校中，其教职员的核心人物专心致力于教育，而且充满活力，他则会吸收其他有同样目标的人，而那些没有兴趣的人立刻会感到自己不适宜此项工作。如果核心人物肯定了此教育的意义，而且机敏细心，那些毫不关心的外围分子便会枯萎而至脱离;然而，如果核心人物并不关心，则整个团体将犹疑不定，萎靡不振。
核心人物不能只由校长一人组成。只系于一个人的热忱与兴趣，必定会日渐衰微而最终消失。此种兴趣是肤浅的、轻浮的，没有价值，因为它能被转向，而屈从于他人一时的兴致与幻想。如果校长控制一切，自由与合作的精神则显然是无法存在的。一个个性强烈的人可以建立一所第一流的学校，然而，恐惧和屈从便不知不觉地产生，结果是其他的教师成了随从附和的人。
这样的团体无法产生自由与了解。教师不能受校长的控制，而校长不能掌握一切责任。相反，每一个教师都应该对一切负责。如果有兴趣的只是几个人，其他人的漠视和对立将阻碍整个效果，造成互相矛盾的现象。
也许有人怀疑，没有一个中心权威，如何能经营一所学校?然而，没有人能够确知详情，因为这种学校从没有人试办过。显然，在一群真正的教育者中，权威的问题永远不会发生。当大家都为了自由和智慧而努力，相互间的合作则在各方面都是可行的。那些不曾深入而持久地致力于正确教育工作的人，也许觉得没有中心权威是一项不可行的理论，然而，当一个人全心致力于正确教育时，他并不需要被别人催逼、指挥或控制。有智慧的老师在使用它们的能力时是富于弹性的;他们努力于个人的自由，善于调节，施行对整个学校有益的事。真挚的兴趣是构成能力的起点，而兴趣与能力均因实行而获得增强。
如果一个人对于顺从的心理因素没有加以了解，那么仅仅决意于不顺从权威，则只会造成混乱。这种混乱并非由于缺乏权威，而是对正确的教育没有深入且共同的兴趣。如果有真正的兴趣，则每一个教师对于经营学校的种种需求，会时时加以明智的适应。在任何关系中，摩擦和误解是难免的。然而，如果没有共同的兴趣，缺少那份维系大家的友爱之情，那些误解和摩擦便会渲染夸大了。
施行正确教育的学校中，教师之间的合作是没有界限的。全体教师应该经常集会，讨论学校的各项问题。一旦大家同意了某项行动，在执行上便不会有困难。如果大多数人的决议未获某个教师同意，则可以在下次集会中加以讨论。
教师不应惧怕校长，校长也不应畏惧于年长的教师。唯有众人都感到绝对平等，那么衷心的赞同才有可能。重要的是，这种平等的感觉必须普遍存在于正确教育的学校中，因为，唯有优越感和劣等感不存在时，才能有真正的合作。如果有相互间的信任，则任何的困难和误解不会被搁置一旁而已，而是加以面对解决，因而恢复了相互间的信赖。
如果教师们不把教育视为自己真正的天职，并且对此感到兴趣，他们之间必会发生妒忌与对立，而枉费精力于细枝末节以及毫无益处的争吵上。相反，如果对于建造正确的教育具有火热的兴趣，则一时的激愤或表面上的不和，都会很快消除。于是渲染得过重的细节，便显出它原有的比例，人们会明白私人之间的摩擦与对立是无益的，具有毁灭性的。借着会谈与谈论，人们发现“什么”是对的，而非“谁”是对的。
为了共同的意图而工作的人们，应该随时把困难和误解讨论明白，这有助于澄清一个人思想上的混淆。如果兴趣一致，那么教师之间也会有坦诚和友爱，他们之间便不会产生对立。然而，如果缺乏了这种兴趣，虽然为了共同的利益在表面上大家合作，冲突与敌意还是永远存在的。
当然，教师之间的摩擦可能有其他的原因。甲教师可能因工作过度，乙教师可能因私人或家庭上的烦恼，另一些人可能对自己所做的事不太感兴趣。这些问题可以在教师集会中加以讨论解决，因为共同的兴趣助长了合作。如果少数人包办一切，而其他人无所事事，这样是做不出什么大事的。
平等地分配工作，可使每一个人都获有闲暇，而每个人都必须要有一段闲暇的时间。一个过度劳累的教师对他自己及他人都会成为一个问题。如果一个人过于紧张，他便易于倦怠，没有生气，而如果他做的事使他不感兴趣，则情形更严重。如果在体力上或智力上不停地工作，那么将难以消除疲劳。然而这项闲暇的问题，可以在大家都可能接受的友善方式下加以解决。
休闲的方式因人而异。有些人对他们的工作十分感兴趣，所以工作本身便成了休闲。由兴趣所产生的行动，譬如说研究，是一种松弛身心的方式。另一些人的休闲则可能是远离他人，孤独自处。
倘若教育者要有一些自己的时间，则他只能负责能力足以胜任的少数学生。如果教师因学生数目众多而难以应付，则教师与学生之间便不可能有直接而深入的关系。
另外还有一个原因，说明为何必须设立小学校。在一间教室里，学生的数目要有限度，这是非常重要的。因为只有如此，教育者才能充分注意到每一个学生。当学生过多，教师无法顾及每一个学生时，惩罚和奖赏就成了强制施行纪律的一种便利方式。
正确的教育，不能像制造机器似地大量生产。要研究每一个孩子，需要耐心、细心和智慧。要观察一个孩子的兴趣、能力、性情，了解他的困难，考虑到他所受的遗传和父母的影响，而非仅仅把孩子归于某种类别——这一切都需要机敏而富于弹性的心，不被任何的制度或偏见所拘束。这需要技巧和强烈的兴趣，最重要的是慈爱的心;而要培养教育者具备这些品质，是我们今日的一项课题。
个人自由与理智的精神，必须一直弥漫于整个学校里。这是无法靠运气而产生的，在偶然的机会里才提出“自由”或“理智”的字眼，没有多大意义。
尤其重要的是，学生与教师必须定时集会，以讨论有关整个团体幸福的各项事物。一种学生会议必须建立起来，其中有教师出席，这项会议可以解决纪律、卫生、餐饮等等一切问题，而且，对于任性、漫不经心或固执的学生可以给予开导。
学生要由他们自己推选出一些同学，负责执行决策，并且帮忙各项的管理。毕竟，在学校中的自治，是为将来生活上的自治做准备。如果孩子在学校学会慎重地、无私地、理智地讨论日常生活上的问题，等他长大后，便能冷静而有效地面临生活上更大且更复杂的考验。学校方面应该鼓励学生相互了解每个人的困难、特性、心情和脾气。如此，当他长大以后，在与别人的关系中，他们将会更体谅他人，更具有耐心。
在孩子所学习的种种课程中，也同样地要重视这种自由与理智的精神。如果学生要成为有创造力的人，而非只是一个机器人，那么，不可鼓励他盲从于公式或结论。即使学习科学的课程时，教师也应该对学生说明道理，帮助学生明了整个问题，使学生运用他们自己的判断力。
然而关于“指导”的问题呢?是否任何指导都不该施与呢?这问题的答案在于“指导”究竟是什么意思。如果教师的心中以消除了一切的恐惧和支配欲，那么他便能帮助学生有创造性的了解和自由。然而，如果教师心中有意或无意地想将学生引向某一个特定的目标，则显然他阻碍了学生的发展。指导一个人走向某一个特定的目标——不论这个目标是自己制定的或由他人强迫灌输的——即损害了他的创造力。
如果教育者关怀的是个人的自由，而非他自己的成见，则他会鼓舞孩子去了解他本身的环境、性情、宗教和家庭的背景，以及这一切可能加诸他身上的种种影响和结果，借此使孩子发现了自由。如果教师的心中有爱和自由，那么他便会注意每一个学生的需要和困难而去帮助他;学生便不会成为只按照方法和公式操作的机器人，而是永远警觉、留意、自动自发的人。
正确的教育也应该帮助学生发现他最感兴趣的事物。如果学生没有找出他真正的天职，他会觉得虚度了一生。他在做着不乐意的事情时，会有受挫的心情。如果他想成为艺术家，却做了公司的职员，他将牢骚满腹，抑郁寡欢地度过一生。因此，每个人都必须寻找出他所愿意从事的行业，并且看看它是否值得。一个男孩子可能想成为一个军人，然而在他走上这条路之前，应该帮助他明白：军人对于整个人类是否有益。
正确的教育应该帮助学生不仅去发展他的能力，还要了解他自己的最主要兴趣。处在一个被战争、毁灭和不幸所摧残的世界中，一个人必须有能力建立一个新的社会秩序，造就一种不同的生活方式。
建立一个和平、开明的社会，其责任主要系于教育者身上，而且为了达到这种社会的转变，平心而论，教育者可以效力之处是非常大的。正确的教育，并不依赖政府的规定或某种特殊制度的方法;它取决于我们的手中——父母和教师的手中。
如果父母真正关怀他们的孩子，他们便会建造一个新的社会。然而大部分的父母根本就不关心孩子，因此他们也就没有时间去顾及这件最迫切的问题。他们有时间用在赚钱、娱乐、仪式、崇拜之上，却无暇去考虑什么才是孩子所需要的正确教育。这项事实，大多数人都不愿意去面对它。对这项事实，可能意味着必须放弃他们的娱乐与消遣，而他们当然不愿意这么做。因此，他们把孩子送到学校去，那儿的教师也不比他们更关心孩子。为什么他要关心?对他来说，教育只是一项职业，一种赚钱的方法而已。
我们所建造的这个世界，如果洞视它的内幕，你会发现它是如此肤浅、虚伪、丑陋;然而我们却在布幕上装饰着，希望事情会突然好转。不幸的是，大部分人也许除了赚钱、夺取权力或追求性的刺激外，对生活没有多大的追求。他们不愿意面对生活上的其他复杂问题，因此，孩子长大后，也就和他们的父母一样不是一个成熟完整的人，不断地在自己内心以及外在的世界中产生冲突。
我们毫不踌躇地说：我们爱孩子。然而，当我们接受了目前的社会环境，当我们不想在这个使人毁灭的社会中促成根本的改变，这时，我们的心中还有爱存在吗?而只要我们期望专家来教育我们的孩子，这种混乱和不幸将持续不停，因为专家所关心的只是部分，而非整体，因此他们自己也是不完整的。
教育在今日受到了轻视，而非一项最荣耀且责任至大的工作，大部分的教育者也将它视为例行公事。他们只是传授知识，并不真正关心人的完整与智慧;而一个只传授知识，却任由世界在其四周崩溃的人，并不是个教育者。
教育者并不只是一个传授知识的人。他是一个指向智慧、指向真理的人。真理远比教师重要。真理的寻求便是宗教。而真理不属于任何国家。不属于任何教条，在任何的庙宇、教堂、寺院中都无法寻到它。如果缺乏对真理的寻求，则社会很快便腐化了。要创造一个新的社会，我们每一个人都必须是一个真正的教师。也就是说，我们身兼学生和老师，我们必须教育我们自己。
如果要建造一个新的社会秩序，则那些只为谋生而从事教育的人显然是不能当教师的。将教育视为一种谋生的工具，是为了自己的利益而剥削孩子。在一个开明的社会里，教师不必关心他自身的利益，他的生活所需均由当地社会供给。
真正的教师，并不是一个建立庞大教育机构的人，也不是政客的工具，他不被某种理想、某种信仰或某个国家所束缚。真正的教师是一个内心充实的人，因此他自己毫无所求。他没有野心，不追求任何形式的权力，他不利用教育作为获取地位、权威的手段，因此，他能免于社会的压制以及政府的操纵。这样的教师在一个开化的文明中，占着首要的地位，因为真正的文化并非建基于工程师或专家，而是教育者的身上。
EDUCATION AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LIFE CHAPTER 5 ‘THE SCHOOL’
THE right kind of education is concerned with individual freedom, which alone can bring true cooperation with the whole, with the many; but this freedom is not achieved through the pursuit of one’s own aggrandizement and success. Freedom comes with self-knowledge, when the mind goes above and beyond the hindrances it has created for itself through craving its own security.
It is the function of education to help each individual to discover all these psychological hindrances, and not merely impose upon him new patterns of conduct, new modes of thought. Such impositions will never awaken intelligence, creative understanding, but will only further condition the individual. Surely, this is what is happening throughout the world, and that is why our problems continue and multiply.
It is only when we begin to understand the deep significance of human life that there can be true education; but to understand, the mind must intelligently free itself from the desire for reward which breeds fear and conformity. If we regard our children as personal property, if to us they are the continuance of our petty selves and the fulfilment of our ambitions, then we shall build an environment, a social structure in which there is no love, but only the pursuit of self-centred advantages.
A school which is successful in the worldly sense is more often than not a failure as an educational centre. A large and flourishing institution in which hundreds of children are educated together, with all its accompanying show and success, can turn out bank clerks and super-salesmen, industrialists or commissars, superficial people who are technically efficient; but there is hope only in the integrated individual, which only small schools can help to bring about. That is why it is far more important to have schools with a limited number of boys and girls and the right kind of educators, than to practise the latest and best methods in large institutions.
Unfortunately, one of our confusing difficulties is that we think we must operate on a huge scale. Most of us want large schools with imposing buildings, even though they are obviously not the right kind of educational centres, because we want to transform or affect what we call the masses.
But who are the masses? You and I. Let us not get lost in the thought that the masses must also be rightly educated. The consideration of the mass is a form of escape from immediate action. Right education will become universal if we begin with the immediate, if we are aware of ourselves in our relationship with our children, with our friends and neighbours. Our own action in the world we live in, in the world of our family and friends, will have expanding influence and effect.
By being fully aware of ourselves in all our relationships we shall begin to discover those confusions and limitations within us of which we are now ignorant; and in being aware of them, we shall understand and so dissolve them. Without this awareness and the self-knowledge which it brings, any reform in education or in other fields will only lead to further antagonism and misery.
In building enormous institutions and employing teachers who depend on a system instead of being alert and observant in their relationship with the individual student, we merely encourage the accumulation of facts, the development of capacity, and the habit of thinking mechanically, according to a pattern; but certainly none of this helps the student to grow into an integrated human being. Systems may have a limited use in the hands of alert and thoughtful educators, but they do not make for intelligence. Yet it is strange that words like "system," "institution," have become very important to us. Symbols have taken the place of reality, and we are content that it should be so; for reality is disturbing, while shadows give comfort.
Nothing of fundamental value can be accomplished through mass instruction, but only through the careful study and understanding of the difficulties, tendencies and capacities of each child; and those who are aware of this, and who earnestly desire to understand themselves and help the young, should come together and start a school that will have vital significance in the child’s life by helping him to be integrated and intelligent. To start such a school, they need not wait until they have the necessary means. One can be a true teacher at home, and opportunities will come to the earnest.
Those who love their own children and the children about them, and who are therefore in earnest, will see to it that a right school is started somewhere around the corner, or in their own home.Then the money will come – it is the least important consideration. To maintain a small school of the right kind is of course financially difficult; it can flourish only on self-sacrifice, not on a fat bank account. Money invariably corrupts unless there is love and understanding. But if it is really a worthwhile school, the necessary help will be found. When there is love of the child, all things are possible.
As long as the institution is the most important consideration, the child is not. The right kind of educator is concerned with the individual, and not with the number of pupils he has; and such an educator will discover that he can have a vital and significant school which some parents will support. But the teacher must have the flame of interest; if he is lukewarm, he will have an institution like any other.
If parents really love their children, they will employ legislation and other means to establish small schools staffed with the right kind of educators; and they will not be deterred by the fact that small schools are expensive and the right kind of educators difficult to find. They should realize, however, that there will inevitably be opposition from vested interests, from governments and organized religions, because such schools are bound to be deeply revolutionary. True revolution is not the violent sort; it comes about through cultivating the integration and intelligence of human beings who, by their very life, will gradually create radical changes in society.
But it is of the utmost importance that all the teachers in a school of this kind should come together voluntarily, without being persuaded or chosen; for voluntary freedom from worldliness is the only right foundation for a true educational centre. If the teachers are to help one another and the students to understand right values, there must be constant and alert awareness in their daily relationship.
In the seclusion of a small school one is apt to forget that there is an outside world, with its everincreasing conflict, destruction and misery. That world is not separate from us. On the contrary, it is part of us, for we have made it what it is; and that is why, if there is to be a fundamental alteration in the structure of society, right education is the first step.
Only right education, and not ideologies, leaders and economic revolutions, can provide a lasting solution for our problems and miseries; and to see the truth of this fact is not a matter of intellectual or emotional persuasion, nor of cunning argument.
If the nucleus of the staff in a school of the right kind is dedicated and vital, it will gather to itself others of the same purpose, and those who are not interested will soon find themselves out of place. If the centre is purposive; and alert, the indifferent periphery will wither and drop away; but if the centre is indifferent, then the whole group will be uncertain and weak.
The centre cannot be made up of the headmaster alone. Enthusiasm or interest that depends on one person is sure to wane and die. Such interest is superficial, flighty and worthless, for it can be diverted and made subservient to the whims and fancies of another. If the headmaster is dominating, then the spirit of freedom and co-operation obviously cannot exist. A strong character may build a first-rate school, but fear and subservience creep in, and then it generally happens that the rest of the staff is composed of nonentities.
Such a group is not conducive to individual freedom and understanding. The staff should not be under the domination of the headmaster, and the headmaster should not assume all the responsibility; on the contrary, each teacher should feel responsible for the whole. If there are only a few who are interested, then the indifference or opposition of the rest will impede or stultify the general effort.
One may doubt that a school can be run without a central authority; but one really does not know, because it has never been tried. Surely, in a group of true educators, this problem of authority will never arise. When all are endeavouring to be free and intelligent, cooperation with one another is possible at all levels. To those who have not given themselves over deeply and lastingly to the task of right education, the lack of a central authority may appear to be an impractical theory; but if one is completely dedicated to right education, then one does not require to be urged, directed or controlled. Intelligent teachers are pliable in the exercise of their capacities; attempting to be individually free, they abide by the regulations and do what is necessary for the benefit of the whole school. Serious interest is the beginning of capacity, and both are strengthened by application.
If one does not understand the psychological implications of obedience, merely to decide not to follow authority will only lead to confusion. Such confusion is not due to the absence of authority, but to the lack of deep and mutual interest in right education. If there is real interest, there is constant and thoughtful adjustment on the part of every teacher to the demands and necessities of running a school. In any relationship, frictions and misunderstandings are inevitable; but they become exaggerated when there is not the binding affection of common interest.
There must be unstinted co-operation among all the teachers in a school of the right kind. The whole staff should meet often, to talk over the various problems of the school; and when they have agreed upon a certain course of action, there should obviously be no difficulty in carrying out what has been decided. If some decision taken by the majority does not meet with the approval of a particular teacher, it can be discussed again at the next meeting of the faculty.
No teacher should be afraid of the headmaster, nor should the headmaster feel intimidated by the older teachers. Happy agreement is possible only when there is a feeling of absolute equality among all. It is essential that this feeling of equality prevail in the right kind of school, for there can be real co-operation only when the sense of superiority and its opposite are non-existent. If there is mutual trust, any difficulty or misunderstanding will not just be brushed aside, but will be faced, and confidence restored.
If the teachers are not sure of their own vocation and interest, there is bound to be envy and antagonism among them, and they will expend whatever energies they have over trifling details and wasteful bickerings; whereas, irritations and superficial disagreements will quickly be passed over if there is a burning interest in bringing about the right kind of education. Then the details which loom so large assume their normal proportions, friction and personal antagonisms are seen to be vain and destructive, and all talks and discussions help one to find out what is right and not who is right.
Difficulties and misunderstandings should always be talked over by those who are working together with a common intention, for it helps to clarify any confusion that may exist in one’s own thinking. When there is purposive interest, there is also frankness and comradeship among the teachers, and antagonism can never arise between them; but if that interest is lacking, though superficially they may co-operate for their mutual advantage, there will always be conflict and enmity.
There may be, of course, other factors that are causing friction among the members of the staff. One teacher may be overworked, another may have personal or family worries, and perhaps still others do not feel deeply interested in what they are doing. Surely, all these problems can be thrashed out at the teachers’ meeting, for mutual interest makes for cooperation. It is obvious that nothing vital can be created if a few do everything and the rest sit back.
Equal distribution of work gives leisure to all, and each one must obviously have a certain amount of leisure. An overworked teacher becomes a problem to himself and to others. If one is under too great a strain, one is apt to become lethargic, indolent, and especially so if one is doing something which is not to one’s liking. Recuperation is not possible if there is constant activity, physical or mental; but this question of leisure can be settled in a friendly manner acceptable to all.
What constitutes leisure differs with each individual. To some who are greatly interested in their work, that work itself is leisure; the very action of interest, such as study, is a form of relaxation. To others, leisure may be a withdrawal into seclusion.
If the educator is to have a certain amount of time to himself, he must be responsible only for the number of students that he can easily cope with. A direct and vital relationship between teacher and student is almost impossible when the teacher is weighed down by large and unmanageable numbers.
This is still another reason why schools should be kept small. It is obviously important to have a very limited number of students in a class, so that the educator can give his full attention to each one. When the group is too large he cannot do this, and then punishment and reward become a convenient way of enforcing discipline.
The right kind of education is not possible en masse. To study each child requires patience, alertness and intelligence. To observe the child’s tendencies, his aptitudes, his temperament, to understand his difficulties, to take into account his heredity and parental influence and not merely regard him as belonging to a certain category – all this calls for a swift and pliable mind, untrammelled by any system or prejudice. It calls for skill, intense interest and, above all, a sense of affection; and to produce educators endowed with these qualities is one of our major problems today.
The spirit of individual freedom and intelligence should pervade the whole school at all times. This can hardly be left to chance, and the casual mention at odd moments of the words"freedom" and "intelligence" has very little significance.
It is particularly important that students and teachers meet regularly to discuss all matters relating to the well-being of the whole group. A student council should be formed, on which the teachers are represented, which can thrash out all the problems of discipline, cleanliness, food and so on, and which can also help to guide any students who may be somewhat self-indulgent, indifferent or obstinate.
The students should choose from among themselves those who are to be responsible for the carrying out of decisions and for helping with the general supervision. After all, self-government in the school is a preparation for self-govern- ment in later life. If, while he is at school, the child learns to be considerate, impersonal and intelligent in any discussion pertaining to his daily problems, when he is older he will be able to meet effectively and dispassionately the greater and more complex trials of life. The school should encourage the children to understand one another’s difficulties and peculiarities, moods and tempers; for then, as they grow up, they will be more thoughtful and patient in their relationship with others.
This same spirit of freedom and intelligence should be evident also in the child’s studies. If he is to be creative and not merely an automaton, the student should not be encouraged to accept formulas and conclusions. Even in the study of a science, one should reason with him, helping him to see the problem in its entirety and to use his own judgment.
But what about guidance? Should there be no guidance whatsoever? The answer to this question depends on what is meant by `guidance.’ If in their hearts the teachers have put away all fear and all desire for domination, then they can help the student towards creative understanding and freedom; but if there is a conscious or unconscious desire to guide him towards a particular goal, then obviously they are hindering his development. Guidance towards a particular objective, whether created by oneself or imposed by another, impairs creativeness.
If the educator is concerned with the freedom of the individual, and not with his own preconceptions, he will help the child to discover that freedom by encouraging him to understand his own environment, his own temperament, his religious and family background, with all the influences and effects they can possibly have on him. If there is love and freedom in the hearts of the teachers themselves, they will approach each student mindful of his needs and difficulties; and then they will not be mere automatons, operating according to methods and formulas, but spontaneous human beings, ever alert and watchful.
The right kind of education should also help the student to discover what he is most interested in. If he does not find his true vocation, all his life will seem wasted; he will feel frustrated doing something which he does not want to do. If he wants to be an artist and instead becomes a clerk in some office, he will spend his life grumbling and pining away. So it is important for each one to find out what he wants to do, and then to see if it is worth doing. A boy may want to be a soldier; but before he takes up soldiering, he should be helped to discover whether the military vocation is beneficial to the whole of mankind.
Right education should help the student, not only to develop his capacities, but to understand his own highest interest. In a world torn by wars, destruction and misery, one must be able to build a new social order and bring about a different way of living.
The responsibility for building a peaceful and enlightened society rests chiefly with the educator, and it is obvious, without becoming emotionally stirred up about it, that he has a very great opportunity to help in achieving that social transformation. The right kind of education does not depend on the regulations of any government or the methods of any particular system; it lies in our own hands, in the hands of the parents and the teachers.
If parents really cared for their children, they would build a new society; but fundamentally most parents do not care, and so they have no time for this most urgent problem. They have time for making money, for amusements, for rituals and worship, but no time to consider what is the right kind of education for their children. This is a fact that the majority of people do not want to face. To face it might mean that they would have to give up their amusements and distractions, and certainly they are not willing to do that. So they send their children off to schools where the teacher cares no more for them than they do. Why should he care? Teaching is merely a job to him, a way of earning money.
The world we have created is so superficial, so artificial, so ugly if one looks behind the curtain; and we decorate the curtain, hoping that everything will somehow come right. Most people are unfortunately not very earnest about life except, perhaps, when it comes to making money, gaining power, or pursuing sexual excitement. They do not want to face the other complexities of life, and that is why, when their children grow up, they are as immature and unintegrated as their parents, constantly battling with themselves and with the world.
We say so easily that we love our children; but is there love in our hearts when we accept the existing social conditions, when we do not want to bring about a fundamental transformation in this destructive society? And as long as we look to the specialists to educate our children, this confusion and misery will continue; for the specialists, being concerned with the part and not with the whole, are themselves unintegrated.
Instead of being the most honoured and responsible occupation, education is now considered slightingly, and most educators are fixed in a routine. They are not really concerned with integration and intelligence, but with the imparting of information; and a man who merely imparts information with the world crashing about him is not an educator.
An educator is not merely a giver of information; he is one who points the way to wisdom, to truth. Truth is far more important than the teacher. The search for truth is religion, and truth is of no country, of no creed, it is not to be found in any temple, church or mosque. Without the search for truth, society soon decays. To create a new society, each one of us has to be a true teacher, which means that we have to be both the pupil and the master; we have to educate ourselves.
If a new social order is to be established, those who teach merely to earn a salary can obviously have no place as teachers. To regard education as a means of livelihood is to exploit the children for one’s own advantage. In an enlightened society, teachers will have no concern for their own welfare, and the community will provide for their needs.
The true teacher is not he who has built up an impressive educational organization, nor he who is an instrument of the politicians, nor he who is bound to an ideal, a belief or a country. The true teacher is inwardly rich and therefore asks nothing for himself; he is not ambitious and seeks no power in any form; he does not use teaching as a means of acquiring position or authority, and therefore he is free from the compulsion of society and the control of governments. Such teachers have the primary place in an enlightened civilization, for true culture is founded, not on the engineers and technicians, but on the educators.
