thinking oneself big

[shibli]

Suppose you could go to school where you wanted to, in a large city, a small town or out in the country. Which would you choose and why ?

Given the choice I would choose the school out in the country for reasons which I put forth below.

Before actually stating 'Why' I shall say 'Why not'. Let met first state my case against a city school. Schools in cities are usually crowded and in crowded locations. Except for a few schools many city schools are housed in drab, old houses with a slovenly atmosphere. The noise from outside will be abominable and since the school is crowded there cannot be much cordiality between the students. The question of transport from school to home and vice versa will be time consuming and at the same time sickening. One will have to start quite early and travel by crowded buses or trains and return home late. By the time one returns home, there will not be time for play or relaxation. This almost mechanical life for six days in the week would tell on the nerves. A city school boy may have a swelled head figuratively, but his health and knowledge may not compare with a boy in a village who enjoys the rough and tumble of life.

In a small town the scope for learning outside the class may be little. The chances for recreation may be limited. The chances for wandering and to get lost may be limited. You are nobody in a city but you are easily recognized in a small town. So the scope for indulging in play and recreation may be limited unless provided by the school. There may be variety lacking in such schools. Different strata of society may not be represented there and the scope for knowing people at large will be limited. Usually the students from these schools are like second class citizens. They have neither the knowledge of the country nor the variegated experiences one could have from a city.

My preference is therefore for a school in the country. What I visualize is a school in the country neither too far away from the city nor too near. The school must have proximity to a main road, so that mobility will not be a problem though it should not encourage travel often. The school must have natural surroundings, may be a hilly land or green fields with a river nearby. There must be plenty of space to move about and play. One must be able to go about fishing or swimming or if one feels like it he must be able to wander. When I write this I have Thoreau's 'Walden' in my mind where man could live free and feel one with nature, enjoying the cooing of birds, and rustling of leaves. If there is a school like that in the country I shall certainly go there.
          
  www.englishdaily626.com        
          
          

[shibli]

Should parents who have more than one child treat all of their children in exactly the same way ? Give reasons for your views

 
Normally parents tend to treat all children alike. They are given the same food, sometimes the clothing and very often the same time of schooling. There is nothing unnatural about it and it is as it should be. Where the family shares to a common table all shall be served the same food. Similarly in the matter of clothing children are dressed alike. This in fact helps to avoid a quarrel among the children. If say John is not given the same type of clothing as Charles he frowns and may cry and quarrel. Where food and clothing are concerned there need not be a separate treatment.

In educating the children, the same treatment may be all right in the lower classes. But when it comes to a matter of higher education the difficulty comes in. Children of the same parents are not alike. Even in the case of identical twins the difference is perceivable. In the case of normal children there is bound to be vast differences physically and intellectually. In the same family we might come across highly intelligent children as well as muffs.

So certainly there should be different treatment for different children. A wise parent should never try to put all children into the same mould. The children vary in their attitude to work, study and play. One may be physically strong and prefer physical rather than intellectual work. The second may prefer sports, games and active open air life rather than classroom work. Still a third may like to read a lot. So it is for the parent to observe closely and study the attitude of individual child. Accordingly he must choose the career of the child. It is easily said than done. There are many problems in choosing what type of education the child must be given. The difficulty may be in the means. All facilities cannot be provided by the parent. That is why most parents choose the line of least resistance and send children to the public school or grammar school. Since these schools cannot cater to the individual needs for children, many of the children leave school as misfits or with an aversion for the scholastic life.

Even a discerning parent cannot theoretically speaking treat children differently according to their talent and capacity. Where the parent fails the Government must step in. For ideological or political reasons this is not being practiced in democratic countries. Whereas in totalitarian countries, the State takes a stem view of the education of children and makes them fit into the groove in which they can set themselves in. The question of a square man in a round hole may not arise. This is a very delicate question and unless the parent treats children intelligently there may be more harm than good.
          
  www.englishdaily626.com