Cost of Education

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 266, 6 August 1931, Page 11

Cost of Education

Sir, —J should like to comment upon your leading article of August 1. It begins with the truism that national expenditure must be kept within national income, and then lunges forthwith into an attack upon educational expenditure. There is no inferential bridge between these two positions, but merely an arbitrary singling out of the education vote because it is, a big one. Your readers are entitled to aisk why you did not choose any other large item for attack, say, national expenditure upon the prevention, detection and punishment of crime. Next you summarily dismiss the matter . of justifying your choice. You say: “This is not the time to discuss in academic terms the justification for an expenditure approximating four millions.’ But the people of this country will demand justification for any ruthless economy in that department of its corporate organisation which guards the young life of the nation. The onus of justification is undoubtedly upon those who wish to see less spent on this important public social service, particularly upon those who would thrust us back to the time when boys of twelve years found their blind way into blindalley occupations and then struggled to manhood warped and partially atrophied by premature contact with the economic asperities of life. Civilised man has moved onward from that position just as he moved on from a previous position, i.e.. that in which he practised and justified child slavery fl factories at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The conception of immaturity has gradually been extended as man has gained greater command over his physical environment. One hundred years ago children of four and five years were judged to be mature enough to work in the cotton mills, in the fields, and in the clay pits. Forty years ago children of 10 years were thought to be mature enough to go to work. Nowadays maturity for work'means anything from 15 to 25 years of age,, according to the nature of the work aimed at. And society after counting the cost has decided that the longer period of dependence has paid for itself, even when the results are measured by the imperfect standard of economic production. Modern civilisation has by comparison with mediaeval times enormously increased its wealth and has gradually devoted an increasing part of this increase to the education of youth. The effect has been to improve still further man’s efficiency as a producer of material goods. Civilisation faced with a temporary depression is not likely to retreat from this position. If called upon this nation at any rate would rather make almost any other sacrifice than that which would destroy or impair national care for the immature. , ~ . “The whole tendency of free, higher education has,” you say, “in fact been utterly destructive of educational values.” If by “academic” is meant that which is detached from practical life, this seems to be an academic statement of the first order of detachment. What are the educational values referred to? If the inference is that neither pupils nor parents value free, secondary education the statement is unfair and untrue. For countless families in this and other lands go without much that they might enjoy in order to maintain the adolescent members of the family at secondary school or university. Higher education is valued. Let those who say otherwise see what happens If they try to take, it away. Ard is higher education in reality free? It is not free, but paid for by the parents who keep the scholar while he learns, and by those, including the parents of scholars, who provide the taxes. The only difference between the obsolete system and the modern one is that the fees once paid by parents are now paid by the State, not as a debilitating dole, but as a State investment.

Again, your article seeks to show a necessary and causal relation between free education for all and mass, production methods in the schools. The inference is fallacious. The fact that many of our classes are too large for individual training of pupils is merely n symptom of the stage at which education at present stands, that is, a phase of its growth toward a better stage. Having accepted a high conception of its duty toward, youth, society will in time adapt its agencies to its ideals. We ought not to fasten upon imnerfect agencies as conclusive evidence that the ideals are unattainable.

Lord Baden-Powell asks whether a nation can survive that holds to the theory that children can be equipped by n process similar to the turning out of a cheap motor-car. No nation does hold such a theory; no Ministry or department of education, no educational association, no parents' association could for a moment hold it. Those who think at all about education —and all parents do think about it —desire individual teaching for the children. Compliance with the existing system of large classes is not complaisance; it is rather putting up with less than the best until the best may be had. On the way toward the best we shall have to work out many a problem of aims, methods and Many mistakes will be made. But no 1 greater mistake c-rnld be made than that of cutting into the vitals of the tree under pretence of pruning the branches. —I am. etc.. 1 . F. C. BREW. Wellington, August 4.