THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 128, 30 November 1881, Page 3

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST.

Sir— Your issue of the 28th inst. contains a letter signed " State " The writer deals familiarly with school statistics, and is probably correct in his conclusions based thoreon. But ho is very unfortunate in hia statements, as far as I can verify them. Having disposed of the candidates for Parliamentary honours, he adds : — " Another (sic) reverend geutleman advised the electors to return members who would advocate payments by results." No doubt I am the person a'ludod to. and I beg to say that " htate " is quite mistaken. I advised electors to vote for just men who would vote for just laws. I recommended the English system of education, and suggested that payments be by results. He then add 3 that I reo ived a crushing reply through a subsequent telegram, which announced the abolition ot payments by results. Agai-i "State" is wrong. Mr Mnndella proposed a revised code, and among other changes, payments by results were to be abolished. But the scheme must be approved by Parliament, and will not be considered before 1882. Moreover, payment by results is in no sense the essence of the scheme, indeed, it is only a matter of detail — a rulo whereby the education grant is distributed. Mr. Lowe was much in love with the mode, bat it is possible that some other more satisfactory rule oan be devised ; yet it is certain that results cannot be altogether ignored, unless the incompetent teacher is to be equally paid with the successful one 3he great piinciplo of the English Act is its recognition of voluntary schools, educating aa they do two-thirds of ths Echool chiMron, and supplementing them where defective by establishing board schools. The result is that there is in England a healthy rivalry all round, and the education of each child is kept at a minimum. There is, moreover, no galling sense of injustice, as each denomination may, if it please, start its own schools, and share equitably in the education gr^nt. The Now Zealand scheme is vicious irom every point of view. 1 h.ugh free it is not compulsory, for the school committees have not dared to enforce the compulsory clause. Ihe result is well known, viz., the very poor, for whom public schools ara primarily intended, are crowded out by the attendance of the relatively well-to-do. Indeed, parents have no ohoioe, fer well nigh all private ¦ohools have been forced to close their doors. According to one candidate, *ver a fourth of the children enroled throughout the colony are not receiving any education. Thia statement in somewhat obscure. But the Wellington Education Board has let out one little secret. It was stated that there are 2000 ohildren ia Wellington receiving no education. That is to say, a tenth of the whole population in this city is neglected. If this rate extended to the whole colony, it would follow that 40,000 ohildren are not reached by our costly rystem. Can any ¦ tatesman view this state of things without some feel ng akin to shame!? Even suppose that there aro only 10,000 ohildren growing up neglected, would not that fact prove the New Zealand scheme to be an utter failure? Bnt there are other and fatal detects. It is hostile to religion and to Bible-teaching. It is w just, for Romanists and thousands of Protestants reject its offers. It involves a tax on tho very poor for the benefit of their betters. It prevents head masters from teaching, and compels them to waste thcr time in returns', &c. It ia the ill-omened offaprirj g of materialistic secularists, and blatant demagogues. It ia, once more, an utter failure, and should be abolished. I am, &c, Richard Coffev.