ABSTRACT
There used to be considerable controversy as to whether the word ‘education’ was derived from the Latin word ‘educere’ or ‘educare’. ‘Educere’ means ‘to lead out’, and those who saw this as the source of our word ‘education’ were anxious to appeal to the derivation as evidence that teachers, if they were truly educating, should seek to bring or lead out what was in some sense innate in the child, rather than to impose various preselected attitudes and characteristics on him. The teacher was to regard himself as a gardener tending a plant, rather than as a craftsman making a product. He should encourage the natural flowering or development of the individual, rather than attempt to mould him. This particular argument, conducted with reference to the supposed derivation of the word ‘education’, was more than usually silly. In the first place, the fact, if it were established as a fact, that the word ‘education’ is derived from a particular Latin word is not particularly compelling evidence to persuade one to teach in one way rather than another. In the second place, the Romans themselves used both ‘educere’ and ‘educare’ with reference to educating children, and it is therefore difficult to see how one can successfully establish one rather than the other as the source of our ‘education’. In the third place, ‘educere’, besides meaning to lead out, was also used to mean to train, and ‘educare’, besides meaning to train, was used to mean to nourish, with reference to plants. In other words, either term could in fact be said to involve either of the contrasting views of education. One is glad therefore that this particular etymological game seems to be relatively out of favour at the moment.1
