INDUSTRIAL SOHOOL REFORM.

Evening Star, Issue 12625, 3 October 1905, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL SOHOOL REFORM.

TO THIS BDJTOa. Sir,—J have to thank Mr A. D. Aitlgm (or his kindly criticism of my letter, and hia invitation, which I would certainly have accepted had I heard of it in time. I aw afraid, however, I did not make my meaning very clew, as Mr Aitken has more than onoe misinterpreted we. I have the most pleasant recollections of my boyhood days at a large English public school,' but I say the Oaversham boys are relatively quite as well if not better treated than wo were I also think the lecturer is not fully conversant with the methods adopted at the school at Lookout Point, or he could not stigmatise tn6 m iS " cruel." Sir Aitkeo grants Mr Burbnsons goad qualities, hot says he would mako an ideal reformatory manager. This may bo true, but I think not very complimentary. JV my mind, Mr Burlinson makes an ideal manager for a tchool for boys who ha-ve been unfortunata to be deprived of parents or proper paiental control. He is, and must be, a strict diswplinarian; but, side by side with thut, he is, as we all know, very lindly-hearted, and does his best to roako the boys forget their differences from same of the happier lads in the community. However, no good will be gained by discussing Mr Burlinson's qualities or his methods. &a I said before, thev aro well enough known and respected in Dunedin at any rake. lam afraid I am quite ijiwrant of Burnham, and cacnot defend it, but I not unnaturally thought it was run on the same, lines as Ca-versham, and if so I am prepared to defend these lines. The faults that Mr Aifcken finds with the system appear to me to apply more to what happens when the boys leave the school rather than when they are at the school. By the nature of things these boys cannot expect the pjfck of the jobs when they leave school, and most more or less drift to manual labor on farms, .ate. Such being the case, they must bo trained young, and as long as they urt not overworked"—which I maintain they are not—what is tho harm in them learning to dig, to look after animals, poultry, etc. ? No one will deny that in theory it is better for emy lad to have a trade, but is it possible foe nil these boj« to be turned out flrat-class tradesmen, even with the best o* teachers? Some of them, to my knowledge, are lewniog a trade, but nil of tliem cannot. You often hear of boys being apv>renticed for years to. some such trad© .-is bootinaking, and then, owing to Flnckness of work, being thrown out, and teini; absolutely unfit for manual work. Surely it is wise, than, that the majority of these boys should be sent on to tjie land, where by diligence and thrift they can ultimately become landowners. This letter is already boo long, fo 1 will conclude by saving that X '<m fa- from denying the defects of the present system, but'l am inclined to think that at Cwersham at anv rate kind and rational treatment outweighs tbem. My rcmavks filxui* parochial politics referred to the removal of the school to Levin, and were not intended as any slur on Mr .vi'.KC i > socinly. —I am, etc., "-" " October 2.