PROTEST AGAINST HOMEWORK

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 14

PROTEST AGAINST HOMEWORK

♦ POSITION OR NIGHT PUPILS COMPLAINT TO TECHNICAL COLLEGE BOARD A protest agaiiftt the amount of homework that was given to pupils attending night classes was made by Mr T. A. Nuttall at a meeting of the Technical College Board of Gpvernors last evening. Mr , Nuttall, who is also president of the Canterbury School Committees’ Association, said that parents were very restive about the amount of work that was being given, and the Minister for Education, the Hon. P. Fraser, was in support of its abolition. Discussion on the topic was deferred to the next meeting because of the absence of the principal, Dr. D. E. Hansen. Mr Nuttall said that boys working on Friday nights and attending night school were left with no opportunity for the necessary outdoor recreation or non-scholastic activities as their Sundays were taken up with home lessons.. Both in the city and in. the country it had been strongly represented to him that they would benefit greatly by a reduction in the amount of home lessons. He then gave an example of a question in one subject that had been set for a week-end. The question alone would take a considerable amount of time without considering the other subjects which to be done, he thought. “In another association in which I am interested it has been* strongly represented that routine homework should be curtailed or abolished. They recommended to the Minister that home lessons should be only of a revisionary nature, and his reply was that he thought that homework of a formal nature could be abolished. Pupils, however, the Minister thought, should be encouraged to occupy some of their spare time in profitable recreation and hobbies and teachers should take a close and personal interest in such activities. ■ _ > “I could give a lo't of information along these lines,” said Mr Nuttall. “I know that parents are very restive about the matter, and if inquiry was made by the board it would gain the approval of the parents and better work from the pupils.” Several members objected to the raising of the matter, which they considered unfair in the absence of the principal. The chairman, Mr T. W. West, said that Mr Nuttall had the right to raise the matter if he wished, but as the principal was not present no satisfactory statement of the position in the college could be given. The matter was then deferred to the next meeting to allow the principal to be consulted.