INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL REFORM.

Evening Star, Issue 12624, 2 October 1905, Page 8

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir. —It is only to be expected that any criticism must in its turn be criticised. It is in this way that reforms are more frilly brought before the public. “ H.” takes me to uusk fox mv remarks at the meeting of the Dunedin Prisons and Industrial Schools Reform Society. 1 regret that, “H." was ii.it present, but I am really pleased to be able to say that the discussion on the two papers contributed will take place to-night in St. Matthew’s Schoolroom, at eight o’clock, and my society would be pleased to -welcome “ H. ” and all who take an interest in the welfare of the children. As to my contention that the “monotony of -child life in ‘ big ’ institutions is cruel . and there is not a semblance of home life about it,” do I not understand “H.” to admit that ho has no pleasant recollection of the life he spent in “a big public boarding-school at Home ” ? I am charged with being “ quite ignorant of the methods adopted.” That may 1», or not— I set myself up os no absolute authority—but at ’ best 11.’s” knowledge is only superficial. My paper was of necessity not fully reported. In it I paid tribute to all of Mr Burlirtson’s good qualities. I grant ho does his utmost- as for as the system allows, and Mr RurUnson is thoroughly imbued with the system. Its discipline and routine find no tetter exponent la passing I might say “that Mr Borlineon is an. ideal manager for the Burnham ‘ Reformatory,’ ” which is not at present the best managed institution in New Zealand —far from it. Burnham, is, I am afraid, rather a ■Tiny satire on oar boasted civilisation. If its aim is to run it on “ broad, sympathetic, homely linos” (os “H.” claims for all Go-,-ernmerit institutions), then Burnham is a aowling farce. Caversham is streets ahead »f Burnham. I also join heartily with “II.” in protesting against the removal of the school to Levin, a removal which means the shutting out of “those amusements and entertainments ” which " H.” claims as removing the “mechanical” aspect from the institution. With regard to “ cottage homes,” I advocate these as a sane solution of the present “ boording out ” system for the younger children. I cannot see that the present ■phase is an altogether desirable one. The inmates of Caversham aro mostly “orphans,” the victims of circumstance, of environments, and maybe “ the playthings of Fate. ’ Is our present system perfect in—(1) That it does not educate them up to | ; same standard as the norma] child; 1 2) Tbit it does not allow them any advantage from the gigantic strides that technical education has made; (3) That it expects young boys to do heavy garden work, digging, otci, day after civ, tin they ore licensed out; (4) That it teaches the boys at Cavers'ham no trade; (51 That it licenses them out practically as farm cocseabouts; (6) Thai they are thus thrown on the world at twenty-one without a trade. Drifting bade into the towns, what is often the inevitable result! (7) That it takes no-account. of the -laws of heredity and enypaimnrutfc. { ■*——-*" r *k y *yp oyifaiion: -but

after all, ettmming up—“ls our present system as perfect as it might be I” If not, why not? ‘ r H.” claims that “the real interests of Otago are being neglected” by oar polt thdaiis. I ask: Are wo as citizens seeing to it that the best interests of tlie State are being served, by seeking to efface from the Eves of ottr neglected children the sad handicaps with which they have to ■ face life? Are we turning them all into useful ckaneps? Are we making them a valuable asset? We as a society want to. Will “H.” strengthen our hands? Will everyone who lias the interests of the children at heart do likewise? —-I am, etc., A. DodgijAS AmrEK, Secretary Dunedin Prisons and Industrial Scitools Reform Society. October 2.