Dec. 4, 1884] 



NA TURE 



101 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 

 or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications. 



[ The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 

 as short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great 

 that it is impossible otherwise to insure the appearance even 

 of communications containing interesting and novel facts.'] 



Natural Science for Schools 



I was glad to see that " Science Master " had pointed out some 

 of the difficulties in the way of applying the principles laid down 

 in Prof. Armstrong's valuable paper in your number for Novem- 

 ber 6 (p. 19). The difficulties to which he has adverted relate 

 mainly to those gratuitously thrown in the way of sound and use- 

 ful practical teaching in grammar-schools by boards of examiners. 

 Another difficulty I ventured to point out in the brief discussion 

 upon Prof. Armstrong's paper at the Educational Conference of 

 the International Health Exhibition, but it did not receive the 

 attention which I think it deserved — partly, perhaps, owing to 

 press of business, and partly, perhaps, also to the fact of the 

 naturally somewhat strong representation of South Kensington 

 interests at a conference held within the shadow of the Brompton 

 Boilers. Prof. Armstrong appeared specially to recommend his 

 mode of teaching "in science classes, such as those held under 

 the auspices of the Science and Art Department," and towards 

 the end of his paper he seems to recognise only one difficulty in 

 the way of introducing it generally, viz. it " undoubtedly involves 

 more trouble to the teacher than that ordinarily followed," and 

 he appears to hint that the present method is mainly due to the 

 incapacity of the teacher, as he says, " I do not believe that it 

 is because the Department consider it" (the system) "a satisfac- 

 t iry one ; but they know full well that it would be unwise to 

 legislate far in advance of the intelligence and powers of the 

 majority of the teachers." There are many teachers who are 

 only too anxious to teach, not chemistry merely, but physics and 

 other branches of science upon a sensible system, and who would 

 willingly take considerable trouble to attain that end, but the 

 difficulty is that, were they to do so, they would not get paid for 

 their work. The insane system of payment by results is respons- 

 ible for the greater part of the bad and indifferent teaching of 

 science in this country, and the real trouble is, not that some- 

 thing better is in advance of the intelligence and powers of the 

 majority of teachers, but that it is in advance of the intelligence 

 and powers of the majority of examiners. The Department ac- 

 cept as their primary axiom that no teaching is to be paid for except 

 that which can be exactly tested and appraised by certain examiners ; 

 and so no teaching, whatever its educational value, is counted 

 worth anything by them except that which is susceptible of being 

 weighed and measured. I took the liberty at the discussion of 

 asking Prof. Armstrong whether he had ever taught a class on 

 his methods, and if that class was presented to the Department 

 for examination, and if so what was paid for it, and I made 

 bold to express my own opinion that the result would be either 

 nil or despicably small. My question received no answer, but I 

 got plentifully snubbed— firstly, that a science teacher should 

 even think of such a subject as remuneration, and secondly, I 

 was informed that practical teaching always paid best. But as 

 it appeared that my critics had misapprehended the point at 

 issue, and were not speakinj of the kind of teaching advocated 

 by Prof. Armstrong at all, but thought that practical teaching 

 meant allowing the class to see certain experiments performed 

 by the teacher himself — a mode of teaching which I am quite 

 agreed with the reader of the paper in considering quite unprac- 

 tical — I did not feel satisfied that my question was answered, 

 and with your permission will again propound it. It is not a 

 sufficient answer to say that the most practical teachers earn the 

 best results — I am a science teacher of quite sufficiently long 

 experience to know that— -provided it is strictly on the lines laid 

 down by the Department. What I doubt is whether sensible 

 practical teaching would produce any pecuniary results. 



Certainly, in what is called (luats a non lucendo) practical 

 chemistry it would not : there nothing but test-tubing can be 

 weighed and measured ; and whereas in former years a knowledge 

 of the modes of preparing and experimenting with certain of the 

 more common elements and c impounds counted for something 

 in the elementary stage, it has lately, by successive alterations in 

 that direction in successive issues of the Directory, become more 

 exclusively test-tubing. 



In physics I presume the intelligent teacher would be glad to 

 teach his class in light, heat, and sound, to make some of the 

 more important measurements, to verify the laws of reflection and 

 refraction, to measure the refractive index of glass, to calculate the 

 foci of various lenses, to determine the latent heat of water and 

 steam, and the specific heat of one or two substances and a few 

 other similar things, not many of which could be introduced in a 

 course of thirty le-sons of one hour each ; in electricity and magnet- 

 ism, to establish the laws of intensity, to construct an electroscope, 

 a galvanometer, and a Wheatstone's bridge, to measure the resist- 

 ance of a few lengths of wire, to determine the E.M.F. of a 

 " cell," &c, in which case the same limits would soon be reached. 

 But would such a course pay? I venture to say not, and the 

 Department have not even given to practical physics the scanl 

 encouragement which they afford to so-called practical chemistry. 

 I say" scant encouragement, because, by a series of red-tape regu- 

 lations, which are strictly adhered to, they do their best to render 

 the study of practical chemistry needlessly expensive to the 

 committees and unremunerative to the teachers. 



I shall probably be told — firstly that the teacher of a science 

 class has no need to limit himself to thirty hours for a course ; 

 and secondly, that he should not make remuneration his first 

 consideration. On the first point I reply that he is practically 

 limited in most cases by the length of time during which it is 

 possible to get students to attend : the month of September 

 is as early as it is practicable to commence a course, and 

 the examinations are early in May, so that one lesson a week, 

 allowing for necessary holidays, cannot much exceed thirty 

 lessons. To give two lessons per week would be to occupy 

 the time of two classes for the remuneration — generally 

 poor enough — of one ; this, of course, virtually brings us to 

 the second point, as to which I would say that, as in other 

 professions men do not work for inadequate remuneration, I 

 do not see why the science teacher should be expected to be more 

 philanthropic ; that neither the clergyman, the lawyer, nor the 

 physician professes to regard money as his chief consideration, 

 yet that the remuneration of each of these professions is far 

 before that of the science teacher, at all events of him who works 

 for the Science and Art Department ; and lastly, that that par- 

 ticular line of criticism does not usually come from those who 

 are themselves working from philanthropic motives, but from 

 those who are pretty well paid for their labours, and who would 

 despise the modest reward of the " payment by results " teacher. 



I hope 1 shall not be misunderstood as disagreeing with Prof. 

 Armstrong's views ; it is, on the contrary-, because of my full 

 agreement with them and that I am anxious that those science 

 teachers who are sufficiently advanced in intelligence (and I am 

 persuaded that they are not so rare as Prof. Armstrong seems to 

 think) to adopt a truly educational mode of teaching, should 

 have no needless obstacles thrown in their way, that I venture 

 to address you and to repeat before a larger audience those argu- 

 ments which I made use of before the smaller auditory at the 

 Health Exhibition. 



I for one should be only too glad to see the scope of the science 

 teaching under the Science and Art Department widened, and 

 to know that encouragement was given to the intelligent and 

 advanced teacher to get out' of the grooves in which it appears 

 to be the present policy of that Department to retain him. 



Walter A. Watts 



Farnworth Grammar School, November 20 



Do Flying-Fish Fly? 



I cannot pretend to the great experience of Mr. R. W. S. 

 Mitchell in observations on aerial movements of the flying-fish 

 when for a brief space he leaves his native element ; but during 

 one voyage from the Isthmus of Panama to England via th; 

 Wet Indies I lost no opportunity (of many) of watching these 

 beautiful creatures, sometimes very close indeed to our steamer. 

 The opinion I formed at the time and still retain was that there 

 was constant very rapid motion of the great lateral fins whilst 

 out of the water, so rapid, indeed, that the strokes of the fins 

 could not be counted. From what Mr. Mitchell says, he evi- 

 dently counted the strokes of the wings (pectoral fins), not by 

 seeing the movements of these, but by the " impressions made 

 on the oily surface of the water," impressions apparently similar 

 to those made by a cormorant or other diver when taking wing 

 from the sea. 



The movements of the side fins whilst the fish was in the sea or 

 touching the surface, would be much slower than would be the 



