I have claimed elsewhere that the native Irish education system possessed prea- eminently two characteristics: first, freedom for the individual, and, secondly, an adequate inspiration. Without these two things you cannot have education, no matter how you may elaborate educational machinery, no matter how you may multiply educational programmes. And because those two things are pre-eminently lacking in what passes for education in Ireland, we have in Ireland strictly no education system at all, nothing that by any extension of the meaning of words can be called an education system. We have an elaborate machinery for teaching persons certain subjects. and the teaching is done more or less efficiently; more efficiently, I imagine, than such teaching is done in England or in America. We have three universities and four boards of education. We have some thousands of buildings, large and small. We have an army of inspectors, mostly overpaid. We have a host of teachers, mostly underpaid. We have a Compulsory Education Act. We have the grave and bulky code of the Commissioners of National Education, and the slim impertinent pamphlet which enshrines the wisdom of the. Commissioner of Intermediate Education. We have a vast deal more in the shape of educational machinery and stage properties. But we have, I repeat, no education system, and only in isolated places have we any education. The essentials are lacking.

我在別處曾經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò)，愛(ài)爾蘭本土的教育體系具有兩個(gè)突出的特點(diǎn)：第一，個(gè)人的自由；第二，充分的啟發(fā)。沒(méi)有這兩者就不能有教育，無(wú)論其機(jī)制如何精巧，無(wú)論其計(jì)劃多么宏偉。但如今的所謂教育中兩者極度缺乏，因此嚴(yán)格地講，當(dāng)代愛(ài)爾蘭不存在任何教育體系，沒(méi)有任何一種可以用詞語(yǔ)延伸意義來(lái)稱(chēng)之為教育體系的事物。我們有一套復(fù)雜的機(jī)制來(lái)教授人們某些學(xué)科，而且這或多或少有一點(diǎn)成效。我理想中的教育，比起在英國(guó)或美國(guó)的更有效一些。我們有三所大學(xué)和四個(gè)教育委員會(huì)。我們有數(shù)千座大大小小的建筑物。我們的如同軍隊(duì)般的督學(xué)享受著高薪，而人數(shù)更多的教師卻僅有微薄的收入。我們有一部強(qiáng)制教育法。我們有國(guó)家教育委員會(huì)沉重而厚實(shí)的法規(guī)，以及包含了中等教育委員會(huì)智慧的輕薄而無(wú)禮的小冊(cè)子。我們還有許多其他形式的教育機(jī)器和舞臺(tái)道具。但是我重申，我們沒(méi)有教育體系，而且只有在孤立的地方才有一些教育。我們?nèi)笔凶罨镜臇|西。

And first of freedom. The word freedom is no longer understood in Ireland. We have no experience of the thing, and we have already lost our conception of the idea. So completely is this true that the very organisations which exist in Ireland to champion fieedom show no disposition themselves to accord freedom; they challenge a great tyranny, but they erect their little tyrannies. 'Thou shalt not' is half the law of Ireland, and the other half is 'Thou must.'

首先我們必須討論。在愛(ài)爾蘭，自由這個(gè)詞已不再被理解。我們沒(méi)有體驗(yàn)過(guò)它，我們已經(jīng)失去了對(duì)這個(gè)概念的認(rèn)識(shí)。這是如此真實(shí)，以至于在愛(ài)爾蘭存在著為了捍衛(wèi)自由而建立的各種組織，它們本身卻沒(méi)有表現(xiàn)出給予自由的意愿；它們挑戰(zhàn)一個(gè)巨大的暴政，但它們卻建立了自己的小小的暴政。愛(ài)爾蘭法律的一半是“禁止”，另一半是“強(qiáng)制”。

Now, nowhere has the law of ‘Thou shall not' and 'Thou must' been so rigorous as in the schoolroom. Surely the first essential of healthy life there was freedom. But there has been and there is no freedom in Irish education, no freedom for the child, no freedom for the teacher, no freedom for the school. Where young souls, young minds, young bodies, demanded the largest measure of individual freedom consistent with the common good, freedom to move and grow on that natural lines, freedom to live their own lives - for what is natural life but natural growth? - freedom to bring themselves, as I have put it elsewhere, to their own perfection, there was a sheer denial of the right of the individual to grow in his own natural way, that is, in God's way, but in the Board's way. The Board, National or Intermediate as the case may be, bound him hand and foot, chained him mind and soul, constricted him morally, mentally, and physically with the involuted folds of its rules and regulations, its programmes, its minutes, its reports and special reports, its pains and penalties.?

沒(méi)有哪里的法律比教室里的“禁止“和”強(qiáng)制“更嚴(yán)格。健康生活的首要條件當(dāng)然是自由，但是在愛(ài)爾蘭的教育中，沒(méi)有自由：沒(méi)有孩子的自由，沒(méi)有教師的自由，沒(méi)有學(xué)校的自由。當(dāng)年輕的靈魂、年輕的頭腦、年輕的身體，需要與公共利益相一致的最大程度的個(gè)人自由時(shí)，自由去按照自然的方式移動(dòng)和成長(zhǎng)，自由去過(guò)自己的生活——因?yàn)槭裁词亲匀簧睿痪褪亲匀怀砷L(zhǎng)嗎？——自由去把自己帶到自己的完美境界，正如我在別處所說(shuō)的。那里卻完全否認(rèn)了個(gè)人以自己的自然方式成長(zhǎng)的權(quán)利，換言之，以主的方式中成長(zhǎng)，而不是在委員會(huì)的方式中成長(zhǎng)。委員會(huì)，無(wú)論是國(guó)家委員會(huì)還是中級(jí)委員會(huì)，都捆綁他的手腳，束縛他的思想和靈魂，用它的規(guī)則和規(guī)定、計(jì)劃、記錄、報(bào)告和特別報(bào)告、痛苦和懲罰，在道德上、智力上和身體上對(duì)他進(jìn)行限制。

I have often thought that the type of English education in Ireand was the Laocoon: that agonising father and his sons seem to me the the teacher and the pupils of an Irish school, the strong limbs of the man and the slender limbs of the boys caught together and crushed together in the grip of an awful fate.?And English education in Ireland has seemed to some like the bed of Procrustes; the bed on which all men that passed that way must lie, be it never so big for them, be it never so small for them: the traveller for whom it was too large had his limbs stretched until he fitted it, the traveller for whom it was too small had his limbs chopped off until he fitted into it - comfortably. It was a grim jest to play upon travellers. The English have done it to Irish children not by way of jest, but with a purpose.?

我常常想，英國(guó)在愛(ài)爾蘭的教育類(lèi)型就像拉奧孔：那個(gè)痛苦的父親和他的兒子們，在我看來(lái)就像愛(ài)爾蘭學(xué)校里的老師和學(xué)生們，男人的強(qiáng)壯四肢和男孩們的纖細(xì)四肢被一起抓住，壓碎在可怕命運(yùn)的控制之下。英國(guó)在愛(ài)爾蘭的教育對(duì)有些人來(lái)說(shuō)就像普羅克魯斯特斯之床；所有經(jīng)過(guò)那條路的人都必須躺在那張床上，無(wú)論對(duì)他們而言床是否過(guò)大或過(guò)?。簩?duì)于認(rèn)為床太大的旅行者，他們被拉伸直到適合它；對(duì)于認(rèn)為床太小的旅行者，他們被砍掉四肢——舒服地。這對(duì)旅行者是一個(gè)殘酷的玩笑。然而，英國(guó)人對(duì)愛(ài)爾蘭兒童的罪行不是出于娛樂(lè)，而是別有目的。

Our English-Irish systems took and take, absolutely no cognisance of the differences between individuals, of the differences between localities, of the differences between urban and rural communities, of the differences springing from a different ancestry. Gaelic or Anglo- Saxon, every school must conform to a type - and what a type! Every individual must conform to a type - and what a type! The teacher has not been at liberty, and in practice is not yet at liberty, to seek and discover the individual bents of his pupils, the hidden talent that is in every normal soul, to discover which and to cherish which that it may in the fullness of time be put to some precious use, is the primary duty of a teacher. I knew one boy who passed through several schools a dunce and a laughing- stock; the National board and the Intermediate Board had sat in judgement upon him and had damned him as a failure before men and angels. Yet a friend and fellow- worker of mine discovered that he was gifted with a wondrous sympathy for nature, that he loved and understood the ways of plants, that he had a strange minuteness and subtlety of observation - that, in short, he was the sort of boy likely to become an accomplished botanist. I knew another boy of?whom his father said to me: ‘He is no good at books, he is no good at work. He is good at nothing but playing a tin whistle. What am I to do with him?' I shocked the worthy man by replying (though really it was the obvious thing to reply): ‘Buy a tin whistle for him.' Once a colleague of mine summed up the whole philosophy of education in a maxim which startled a sober group of visitors: ‘If boy shows an aptitude for doing anything better than most people, he should be encouraed to do that, and to do it as well as possible. I don t care what it is - Hopscotch if you like.'

我們英國(guó)-愛(ài)爾蘭制度完全忽視個(gè)體、地區(qū)、城鄉(xiāng)、祖先產(chǎn)生的差異。蓋爾語(yǔ)或盎格魯-撒克遜語(yǔ)，每所學(xué)校都必須符合一種類(lèi)型——而且是什么樣的類(lèi)型！每個(gè)個(gè)體都必須符合一種類(lèi)型——而且是什么樣的類(lèi)型！教師沒(méi)有自由，在實(shí)踐中也還沒(méi)有自由：去尋找和發(fā)現(xiàn)他學(xué)生們個(gè)性化傾向、每個(gè)正常靈魂中隱藏著的才能，去發(fā)現(xiàn)和珍惜，以在成熟的時(shí)機(jī)能夠發(fā)揮出寶貴作用。這些才能是老師最基本職責(zé)。我認(rèn)識(shí)一個(gè)男孩，在幾所學(xué)校里都被當(dāng)成傻瓜和笑柄；國(guó)家委員會(huì)和中級(jí)委員會(huì)對(duì)他進(jìn)行了評(píng)判，并在人類(lèi)和天使面前譴責(zé)他是個(gè)失敗者。然而，我的一個(gè)朋友和同事發(fā)現(xiàn)他對(duì)植物有天賦，他有一種奇特的細(xì)致和敏銳的觀察力——總之，他有可能成為一名優(yōu)秀植物學(xué)家。我認(rèn)識(shí)另一個(gè)男孩，他的父親對(duì)我說(shuō)：“他既不擅長(zhǎng)念書(shū)，也不擅長(zhǎng)工作。他除了吹錫笛子什么都不會(huì)。我該怎么辦？”我的回答（雖然這真的是很明顯的事情）讓這位正直的人感到震驚：“給他買(mǎi)一個(gè)錫笛子?！庇幸淮?，我的一個(gè)同事用一句格言總結(jié)了教育的整個(gè)哲學(xué)，讓一群嚴(yán)肅的訪客感到驚訝：“如果一個(gè)男孩表現(xiàn)出比大多數(shù)人做任何事情都更有才能，他應(yīng)該被鼓勵(lì)去做那件事，并盡可能地做好。我不在乎那是什么——如果你喜歡的話(huà)，可以是跳房子?！?/p>

The idea of a compulsory programme imposed by an external authority upon every child in every school in a country is the direct contrary of the root idea involved in education. Yet this is what we have in Ireland. In theory the primary schools have a certain amount of freedom; in practice they have none. Neither in theory nor in practice is such a thing as freedom dreamt of in the gloomy limbo whose presiding demon is the Board of Intermediate Education for Ireland. Education, indeed, reaches its nadir in the Irish Intermediate system. At the present moment there are 15,000 boys and girls pounding at a programme drawn up for them by certain persons sitting round a table in Hume Street. Precisely the same textbooks are being read tonight in every secondary school and college in Ireland. Two of Hawthorne’s Tanglewood Tales, with a few poems in English, will constitute the whole literary pablum of three-quarters of the pupils of the Irish secondary schools during this twelve months. The teacher who seeks to give his pupils a wider horizon in literature does so at his peril. He will, no doubt, benefit his pupils, but he will infallibly reduce his results fees. As an intermediate teacher said to me, ‘Culture is all very well in its way, but if you don’t stick to your programme your boys won’t pass.’ ‘Stick to your programme’ is the strange device on the banner of the Irish Intermediate system; and the programme bulks so large that there is no room for education.

由外部權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)的所有學(xué)校和學(xué)生執(zhí)行強(qiáng)制性計(jì)劃與教育的根本理念完全相悖。然而這就是愛(ài)爾蘭的現(xiàn)狀。理論上小學(xué)尚有一定的自由，但在實(shí)踐中沒(méi)有。無(wú)論理論還是實(shí)踐上，以愛(ài)爾蘭中級(jí)教育委員會(huì)為首的陰暗地獄中都不存在對(duì)自由的夢(mèng)想。事實(shí)上，教育在愛(ài)爾蘭的中級(jí)系統(tǒng)中達(dá)到了它的最低點(diǎn)。此時(shí)此刻， 1.5萬(wàn)男孩和女孩在為休姆街一張桌子旁的某些人為他們制定的計(jì)劃而努力。在愛(ài)爾蘭的每一所中學(xué)和大學(xué)，今晚都在讀著完全相同的教科書(shū)?；羯５膬善秴擦止适隆?，加上一些英文詩(shī)歌，將構(gòu)成愛(ài)爾蘭四分之三小學(xué)生的全部文學(xué)食糧。試圖給學(xué)生提供更廣闊的文學(xué)視野的老師是冒著風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的。他無(wú)疑會(huì)使他的學(xué)生受益，但也必然會(huì)減少他的收益。正如一位中級(jí)老師對(duì)我說(shuō)的那樣，“文化當(dāng)然很好，但如果不堅(jiān)持計(jì)劃，學(xué)生就沒(méi)法通過(guò)考試?！薄皥?jiān)持計(jì)劃”是?愛(ài)爾蘭中級(jí)系統(tǒng)旗幟上的奇怪標(biāo)志。而計(jì)劃過(guò)于臃腫，以至于容不下教育本身。

The first thing I please for, therefore, is freedom: freedom for each school to shape its own programme in conformity with the circumstances of the school as to place, size, personnel, and so on; freedom again for the individual teacher to impart something of his own personality to his work, to bring his own peculiar gifts to the service of his pupils, to be, in short, a teacher, a master, one having an intimate and permanent relationship with his pupils, and not a mere part of the educational machine, a mere cog in the wheel; freedom finally for the individual pupil and scope for his development within the school and within the system. And I would promote this idea of freedom by the very organisation of the school itself, giving a certain autonomy not only to the school, but to the particular parts of the school: to the staff, of course, but also to the pupils, and, in a large school, to the various sub-divisions of the pupils. I do not plead for anarchy. I please for freedom within the law, for liberty, not licence, for that true freedom which can exist only where there is discipline, which exists in fact because each, valuing his own freedom, respects also the freedom of others.

因此，我的首個(gè)期望是自由：每個(gè)學(xué)校能根據(jù)它的地點(diǎn)、規(guī)模、人員等制定自己的計(jì)劃。其次自由是對(duì)教師，允許他們?cè)诠ぷ髦袀鬟f自己的個(gè)性，將自己的獨(dú)特才能用于服務(wù)學(xué)生。簡(jiǎn)言之，既是教師，也是導(dǎo)師，一個(gè)與學(xué)生有著親密和永久關(guān)系的人，而不是教育機(jī)器的一部分，僅僅是輪子上的一個(gè)齒輪。最后的自由是對(duì)每個(gè)學(xué)生，在學(xué)校和體制內(nèi)為他們的發(fā)展提供空間。我會(huì)通過(guò)學(xué)校本身的組織來(lái)促進(jìn)這種自由的理念，給予不僅是學(xué)校，而且是學(xué)校各個(gè)部分的一定的自治權(quán)：當(dāng)然包括教職工，但也包括學(xué)生，以及在大型學(xué)校中，由學(xué)生組成的各個(gè)子部門(mén)。我不是為無(wú)政府主義辯護(hù)。我是為法律內(nèi)的自由、出于自由而非放縱、只有在有紀(jì)律的情況下才能存在的真正自由而辯護(hù)。因?yàn)槊總€(gè)人都珍視自己的自由，也尊重他人的自由，所以才有了真正的自由。