The Press TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1958. Agricultural Education In New Zealand

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28728, 28 October 1958, Page 10

The Press TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1958. Agricultural Education In New Zealand

Entrusted with a daunting task, the Consultative Committee on AgricuHura] Education has discharged it well. Its report should prove invaluable not only to educationists, but also to sociologists, vocational guidance experts, economists, and lay students of New Zealand’s national development. Appointed in June, 1956. by the National Government, the committee was given very wide terms of reference: “To con- “ sider the opportunities open “to young people to enter “ agricultural pursuits of all “ types, and to progress in “them; to report on the “ adequacy of the educational “ facilities offered for such “ occupations; and to make “recommendations”. The members of the committee, which began its task on October 4, 1956, were wisely chosen to represent a similarly wide range of interests. The chairman, Mr L. J. Wild. Pro - Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, had gained respect for his knowledge of agricultural education and its problems. The then Minister of Education (Mr Algie) stated that, because “no “ aspect of our education system “ is more important than agri- “ cultural education ”, the committee’s inquiry would not be hasty or superficial.

The committee has been criticised for delay: but the report, well-considered and comprehensive, justifies the time it took. The report was submitted to the present Minister (Mr Skoglund) on February 26 this year. On April 16. Mr Skoglund promised that it would soon be published; that it would be sent to all interested organisations for comment; and that he would then call a conference. Until last week, the public knew nothing of the contents of the report: and even now there has been no formal release by the Minister. Mr Skoglund’s delay is unaccountable.

By its careful appraisal, the committee has laid a sound basis for overhauling agricultural education. Its proposals, in the main, appear practicable and realistic. They involve no fantastic expenditure of public money, but indicate where improvements can be made with the best chances of success. If implemented, they hold promise of giving agriculture its rightful place in the educational framework of a country that has always been, and must continue to be, heavily dependent upon its primary industries. The committee will be ill-rewarded for its conscientious work if the new Government fails to recognise the importance of its findings. There had been no full inquiry into New Zealand agricultural education since 1930, when the Atmore Committee reported. The Wild Committee’s report clearly shows the extent to which New Zealand has failed to strengthen in its education system the

“ agricultural bias ” advocated in 1930. The Wild Committee’s report gives less attention than might have been expected to the future of the two agricultural colleges; but its views on them are implicit in other recommendations. One of the committee’s principal aims is to develop a new, better-informed social attitude towards the study of agriculture, and to raise its popular status from that of poor relation to subjects commonly (and ignorantly) considered more exacting. By Improving elementary training in natural science, the committee also seeks to bring about a better understanding, in the community at large, of country life and its special importance in New Zealand society. For shortcomings in the primary schools, the committee blames a lack of adequate training for teachers. It deplores any tendency in secondary schools to reserve agriculture as a subject for “ the duller “pupils”; but it emphasises the desirability of founding subsequent agricultural training on a sound general education. It has found “ abundant evidence in “ post-primary schools as well as “ district high schools of the “ dearth of qualified teachers of “agriculture”; and it proposes the appointment of a supervisor of agricultural education to help in improving the quality and number of specialist teachers. “ If there is one single pro- “ vision the [Education] Depart- “ ment can make that, more “ than any other single thing. “ will improve the status and “ the teaching of agriculture in “ schools, it is the provision of “ a better supply of well- “ trained teachers ”, says the report. After its study of training facilities for youths requiring a practical knowledge of farming, but not necessarily an academic background, the committee has recommended the establishment of institutes, where theoretical and technical instruction could be given against a background of practical farm work. Clearly such institutes would afford muchneeded relief to Canterbury and Massey Agricultural Colleges, which could shed their functions as training-grounds for practical farmers, whose need or capacity for more academic instruction may be limited. The various streams of effort in agricultural education could then be more strictly defined, without loss of educational opportunities. The agricultural colleges would have a better chance of developing their university character. The committee’s additional proposal for training “ student farmers ” on various types of farm under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture is imaginative. The committee’s -whole report merits close study. If some recommendations arouse controversy, that, too, will be beneficial if it leads to educational advances.