Education

Press, 28 May 1984, Page 20

Education

Sir, — Criticising the Labour Party’s education policy, the Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, says: “It ignores that education spending has nearly trebled in the term of the present Government.” Both he and the Social Credit education spokesman question where the money will come from for the five year policy. Contrary to- Mr Wellington’s assertion, expenditure on education has now dropped from 14.1 per cent of total Government expenditure in March, 1976, to 11.7 per cent in March, 1984. He deliberately failed to allow for 100 per cent plus inflation since National took office. Funding of the Labour proposals for education could come, in the long-term, from economic growth, or, in the first year, by bringing home our flag-waving battalion from Singapore. That would free $4O million for positive iise — not negative jingoism. — Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. May 24, 1984.

Sir, — The National Party has been the party most predominantly in power. It is to blame for the standard of teachers. The Minister demands of the latter what they cannot carry out for University Entrance, so resentment arises. It is an election plug. More teachers and smaller classes, Labour’s policy, is a sop to the teachers, but will not stop the failures. The same people who really decide are in the driving seats. The organ is the

same defective wheezy instrument, the organ-grinder just a different crank-turner. When an educationist can write a book called “Forward to Basics” we are in “doublespeak.” Basics are the key, particularly in primary schools. Without them, the ■Minister asks the impossible of his secondary division. — Yours, etc., V. H. ANDERSON. May 24, 1984.

Sir, — After making some Statemanslike comments on New Zealand’s economic problems in recent months, it is a pity that the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Mr Palmer, has lowered his image by making an exaggerated and unsubstantiated attack on the Minister of Education (“The Press,” May 22). The dominant philosophy in New Zealand education is based on the Marxist point of view. It begins with the premise that competition is a bad thing. From this it deduces that exams, being competitive, should be abolished. The vision of education without exams leads to the conclusion that it is neither necessary nor desirable for pupils to memorise anything. This Marxist platform is then enhanced with a variety of other arguments designed to persuade non-Marxist teachers to support the party line. Apparently Mr Palmer feels that anyone who impedes New Zealand’s progress towards a fully Marxist education system should be subjected to personal abuse. — Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. May 23, 1984. Sir,—The Minister of Education gave an impressive performance when interviewed by lan Fraser. I agree with Joyce Sumpter (May 24) that he is in touch with public opinion in his concern for realism in education. This realism should include honesty in education. I was disappointed therefore in his reply to lan Fraser’s question on “imposing” the creation story of human origin in the curriculum. The fact is that for too long the practice of teaching the theory of evolution as a fact has been “imposed,” against the wishes of many parents who have felt compelled to warn their children against it. An honest approach would require the theory of evolution to be taught as such, and not set forth as a fact, and for the alternative creation story to be fairly stated. The Queensland Government recently issued a directive that this should be done.—Yours, etc H. G. ORAM May 25, 1984.