EDUCATIONAL RETRENCHMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 151, 27 June 1888, Page 4

EDUCATIONAL RETRENCHMENT.

SCHOOL AGE AND FEES.

OPINIONS OP THE AUCKLAND

MEMBERS.

(by telegrafh.—own reporter.)

; • Wellington, this day. The news that a special meeting is to be held in Auckland to consider the question of raising the minimum school age and charging fees beyond the Fourth Standard has been received here with a great deal of interest. A number of telegrams were received by members during the day, representing matters by the light of the views ot the difierent senders. It occurred to me that the views of Auckland members in relation to the two proposals would be read with very, great interest at the present time, and I, interviewed the various members in turn. Their views; with those of the Minister of Education, are appended. It is worthy of remark that the preponderance of feeling in the House is in favour of increasing the.school age by at leasfc a year, and if the Government had only separated this proposal from'that for the abolition of Education Boards, there is no doubt the school age would have been raised. The proposal to charge fees above the Fourth Standard meets with very little favour, and there is not the slightest chance of it being carried' by the present House. The results of my interviews are as follows :— ' •;

The Minister of Education, replying to the question "Will the Government propose to increase the age to six years?" said : I have frequently said in the House, and ■am still of opinion, that it is in the interest of the children that they should not attend school before the age of seven years on physical and mental grounds. Another reason i 3 that they do not pass the First Standard till nine years. My conclusions are based on a good deal, of research and personal observation in the schools and of the habits and growth of the children. But it is far from being original We should educate to the Sixth Standard and charge no fees. Our national system of primary education should be free to all throughout, and there should be.no. fees, because the payment of fees raises invidious distinctions to the disadvantage of those unable to pay. Sir George Grey said : I would not support any increase of the minimum school age from 5 years till I am better informed. So far as charging school fees is concerned, I shall have to look closely what knowledge the children gain by the Fourth Standard before I can say anything, lam generally

lm with the preiii 2? "*»»-■ education is hmdwlTjml?*'*" rase consent to churee IS , *hm we had to alter th. gml , ?*' •»* « to six years only' It H,?' l 7">*S very large savir./^ £ «*Owf, SSdS!SKiS£" ?»«?. should „.,tobiirl^*' "M..IP arriKt^SfrS: I would not be a parby ?ff« !k VW?^ school fees unless tKfe 0! ships, so thab the clevJchuSi g^ themnnmum school age, md in S? ? would oppose interference wibhthj Sw of primary education in any form iffiS beyond the Fifth. lam in Sfe in K at s IX years, and making a special a' lowance .m favour of country JhoK smal numbers, so as not to impair te efficiency. Seven years is toolateforS in this country. Boys of six iyearaS more precocious than boys of seven otoS in England. One of the greatest processS of economy wiirbe the uniform p a Py m S teachers throughout the colony. <<■■ " • .. MvE. Withy speakW, ; l[ !lm : : in favour. of the present free;'' seoukr and ,compulsory system of education. Ah ' the same time, lam in favour of si^at both ends if we can, but lamnoiouite clear on the point. It requires a good deal of consideration. I.think, however, that the primary system is overlapping tha secondary, and this should1 'not 'U tt tW' public expense. I think seven years should be the minimum school age, and I' think I would vote to charge fees for the higher standard. I am, however, rather at aloss for want of special knowledge of the standards However, I think the proposals worthy of consideration, but like MrPeacock (wha was present) I think.there should be amife scholarships for the .benefitI'of poorer' children. ■ : •:.;:::,':;■:;. Mr R. Thompson :: I would ocposa tha charging of schoolfees to; the^ ntinbst,'.a31■ consider such a-proposal to be class legwla. tion of the very worst kind.. So far as tha ' school age is concerned I would not touch it, till we had ground everything elsetoiheVl lowest, and then I would only vote to in. crc£,seitto six years, '''fiI*-':"* ''•■/"• 'v-«??;

Mr J. B. Whyte: This is a very difficalb question, but, hastily speaking, I would nob charge fees. -I am in favour of the school age being made six years. : .', Hon. E." Mitchelson : I think'the smSF1* age should be raised, but I would not agree to the imposition of school- fees aboys the Tourth Standird.ji" ,Mr E". HamlinYl "see no objection' to raising the school age in towns, but in the country it would nofc do. Ido not believe in touchingthepriniarysysfcemtill secondary" • education shows a saying of; forty ,qr fifty thousand, and then I would not cohs'6nt> to fees beyond the .Fourth Standard.' Mr A. J. Cadman: Ii such reduction ia necessary, I; think we ought to go as far as we. caii'without) charging, afidithab ft; child, ; ought to get ias ! much,asitcahibr,flotHing. •'. I prefer six years as the inihimum Bbhbol age, and only :go for five years to F keep ' schools open in the country. Several ihusb;>; close if we raise the age without making an .exception in their favour. „.; ;<' ..,,.. Mr F. J. Moss: Idori't believe,in settling this question on a financial'basis'afc all.' It should be settled on an;educational basis. ' I don't believe in, school;;fees, : and.the.' minimum age depends on. the child itself. . Some should go to- school at fivei or sis : years', and others not till sev6n.! >: W.Kelly :'r believe6yearsshouldbeth^ minimum school age, and I" never, sent;any;., of my children to schooltill they were ovet seven. I would not vote for school;fees. The State has a right to; bear the expense or primary education. h '! •> ~■;-■ Mr A. Graham: If it is absolutely neceß- ;: ; sary to retrench in: education,, charging ■ school fee's is perhaps the besb.way, butl would rather see the' system remain as at' present, and it1 is only^ on the ground of I financial Necessity I.would Bupport.itat all. ■■ I would rather apply retrenchment to,tha/; secondary, system than touch the primary at all. The school age might be raised to six years, but I would make ah exceptional concession'in favour of country.Behools.;;; .rit Mr R Hobbs: I think the school age, should be raised to sixyears, bub country schools, with an average attendance under . fifty, should be exempted. In the country,' I only those' children who show special aptitude for study, should go,beyound Jibe Fourth Standard free. Jn iowns'itisperhaps a fair thing to charge fees, bu the matter requires consideration^ The Avhoje system will break down with .its own S. I think, too, weshould'haveone university for the whole colony.; ;., ■^■> Mr W. P. Moat: I objec to»»»gW' school age or charging fees for the Jutto or IxSndards. oJS of.the njgg. £ sssasss t^B: to raising the school age as Idp not thip^ «■, would effect any saving.. '; .f, ~ ~,,,,■;, ■