HON. W. P. REEVES ON THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

Evening Star, Issue 8478, 1 April 1891, Page 1

HON. W. P. REEVES ON THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

The Minister of Education, who has been president of the North Canterbury Branch of the New Zealand Educational Institute daring the past twelve months, took the opportunity of the annual meeting on the 28th March, when he delivered the usual valedictory address, to speak generally on the system of public education which it is now his office to administer. We are pleased to note an entire absence in this address of that pronounced Belf-sufficiency which the honorable gentleman has on occasion displayed since he achieved bis present post* tion. It may be presumed that he is not insensible to criticism, and that he has seen the wisdom of " drawing in his horns," and not unnecessarily provoking antagonism, We are quite willing to admit that his situation is an embarrassing one; more so, perhaps, than that of any of his colleagues, as he is expected by those who returned him to go to extreme lengths in the furtherance of class interests. He will be prudent, however, if he looks a little beyond existing political circumstances, and does not irretrievably cut himself off from the support and sympathy of the settlers of the Colony, who otherwise migbt be inclined to take some pride in his exceptional parliamentary success.

Mr Beeves is, so far, the " right man in the right place" as the responsible head of the Education Department, in that he enthusiastically and unreservedly approves the system established by law. There is no fear that, under the pretence of salutary reform, the system, under bis administration, will be undermined and sapped. He evidently sees through the wiles of the enemy, and is prepared to meet them at every point. The attacks and criticisms to which the operation of the Eduoation Act is subject Mr REEVES ingeniously classes under three heads. "First, " there were those levelled by persons who " attacked the system on grounds connected " with another world; secondly, by those " who attacked it on a ground very much of "this world; and thirdly, there were "the critics of detail, As regarded "the first class—those who opposed "on religions grounds —they could do "nothing exoept give them credit for " worthy motives, salute them as honorable " antagonists, and pass by. They could not " haul down the flag; they could not capi"tulate; and, if threatened with attack, "they must hold the fort. The second " olass had for several years made the friends "of the system struggle hard, and at times " the fight had seemed likely to go against " them/' The third class of critics were, he said, the moat troublesome, because sometimes they were right, but not very often. The advocates of draßtic retrenchment he considers, however, to be the most dangerous ; but he unhesitatingly affirms that " the primary school system offers no field for further retrenchment." This is a very important declaration, coming from a member of the Ministry who are cutting down expenditure in so ruthless a manner, and who seem inclined to let no department of the public service escape the pruning knife. Mr Reeves, however, leaves no room for misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government. He was entirely opposed, he said, to the notion of economising by cutting down the capitation grant or by raising the school age; and he was "just as entirely opposed to any pro"posal for cutting off any of the six " standards, or charging fees for the higher " standards." Farther, he expressed a decided objection to unduly economising ont of the grant for school buildings. " Let the "administration be as thrifty as possible; but " the boards must have all the money which " was absolutely necessary." In regard to the abolition of the boards, with a view to economy, he was satisfied, he stated, that this proposal was one to whioh few who had studied the subjeot would give any consideration. " The boards were a valuable and "important relic of New Zealand local " self-government"! Mr Reeves expresses himself as if " local self-government" was a thing of the past, instead of the Colony being absolutely surfeited with local administrative bodieß. What he means possibly is that the eduoation boards are a relic of provincialism, as they discharge one of the more important functions of the provincial executives. He thinks that on the whole they have worked well, and should be " supported by all means." He could not see, be said, how it could be possible to administer the system from one centre, and to manage all the teachers and deal with all the school committees from the head office in Wellington. Referring, we may presume, to recent events, in which he certainly did not appear to exercise much sagacity or good judgment, Mr Reeves averred that " the duty of the " Minister was to consult with the boards, "and always to treat them with due and "proper official consideration." This is in quite a different key from the note struck by the Minister of Lands, when he most improperly attempted to bounce his fellow members of the Otago Board, and blatantly declared that he would recommend his colleagues to treat them "with contempt." The Premier had better, we should think, muzzle Mr J. M'Kenzie before allowing him to go loose about the country. He has already done the Ministry much damage, not to speak of destroying such reputation for common sense as previous to his elevation he possessed.

Mr Reeves dealt at some length with the vexed question of school inspectionbut, although admitting that the present arrangements are hardly satisfactory, he does not seem iaclbed to adopt any of the reforms proposed without further censideration and inquiry. He thinks, however, that there should be "something like uniformity in the work of inspection," since under an uneven Bystem, not only did the teachers suffer, but " parents did not get that know- " ledge of results which they had a right "to get." A number of remedies had been, he said, suggested, the most favorably received of which by the profession was the "sweeping reform" of removing the inspectors from the control of the boards altogether and organising them into a separate staff under the Inspector-General. Totals, he Btated, he was certainly not going to commit himself prematurely; and he would be inclined to see a less extreme plan tried first. The subject was, however, one for discussion, and he approved the idea promoted by one board—that a oonferenoe should be held at which teachers, inspectors, and perhaps the boards should be represented. This appears to be reasonable and practical, and the recommendations of such a conference would, we believe, have due weight with the Legislature. It is very satisfactory to be assured, on the very exoellent authority of the Minister of Education that there is no likelihood whatever of the Cabinet either proposing or sanctioning any interference whatever with State education aa established. That amendments aa to points of detail might with advantage be effected is beyondbueation. but sedulous care would have to be taken m any Ifgbl&tion on the subject that in avoiding "tbeiUawehave" we do not "fly to others that we know not of." Then is SIS nV b tmKbb V tte Education Aot at all, since an amendment Bill would literally " let loose the dogs of war " against at least one leading principle of the statute.