SCHOOL ADMISSION AGE

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 19 October 1933, Page 6

SCHOOL ADMISSION AGE

TEACHERS’ POINT OF VIEW

DEPUTATION TO BOARD. EXCLUSION OF FIVE-YEAR-OLDS With a. view to securing co-operation in arousing public opinion on the school admission age question, a deputation from the North and South Taranaki branches of the New Zealand Educational Institute waited oil the Taranaki Education Eoard at New Plymouth yesterday and presented the Institute’s views against the exclusion of fire-year-old children. Members of the board expressed themselves as sympathetic towards the/ views of the deputation, but it was considered that the board could not take action as a board, 1 though .individually members were-at liberty to assist.

Mr Jj. J; Furrie said that -when the exclusion of the five-year-olds was first introduced all were more or less in the dark as to what its effects would be but evidence was now accumulating as to its effects, and it was only now receiving t'he attention and interest- that its importance- deserved. At five years ol' age the children were now voluntarily sent into all sorts of kindergarten schools; many of which were efficient. But as there' was no system of inspection the board had no means of knowing whether the tbaching was efficient Or the environment suitable. He knew of a case where the children were taught in the kitchen without-'suitable ventilation and without a playground. Then from six years until 11 plus the child was put into a primary school, from 11 plus to 13' plus into an intermediate school, and from 13 years or 14 years into another type of school. There were thus four breaks- in a child’s school life where formerly there were only two, having the effect of destroying the unity and continuity of methodical teaching and control. Bej sides that, owing to the numerous I changes of staffing that- were going on the child was- 11 further handicapped behaving a considerable number of extra teachers. The exclusion of the fiv<v ycar-olds was also having the effect of weakening the teaching power of the teachers, as the number of pupils per teacher was gradually rising because of the lower grading-of-schools. He had no hesitation in saying that if the five-year-olds were admitted arid the staffing rearranged to give the best results there would be work for every teacher. Figures proved that the exclusion of the - five-year-old was - definitely unpopular with parents and if some of those in authority could only hear the expressions of disgust and disappointment made by parents they would admit that they were m error in stating that the agitation was Caused by the teachers. They therefore asked the assistance ot the board in giving the people sonic way of expi’essing their opinion in the 'matter as at present they could only do so through school committees or school and home associations. NO CHRONOLOGICAL AGE Mr i\r. Goldsbury said no one could say whether it-' was- correct for a child to- enter -school at the age of five years or six years: There wti’3 no definite chronological age of entering, hnt it depended on when the individual chi-ki was ready to enter -school. Some children might arrive at that age at four years, whereas with others- the age might he five or six years. The State had undertaken, to educate the child, and it was a considerable hardship to the child if for a year it was deprived* of that education when it was ready to receive it. As a. parent as well as a teacher he realised that many children were suffering that- hardship. An important feature' was the- time -of the entrance of the child to the school itself The school work was mapped out for a yearly period starting .at the beginning of February. In 11131. an analysis-of the enrolments at the four New Plymouth schools showed that- ol a total of 346 no fewer than 184, or 53 per cent., entered in the first term, 70 in the second and 92 m the third term In 1933, -since the exclusion of the- five-year-olds, of 169 enrolments duriim the year only 48, or 29 per cent, were enrolled' in the first term, rm the second term and 64 in- the thud term The child was, therefore suffering a hardship by entering school m the middle of the year. . Mr L. B. Galbraith emphasised the loss of teaching power due to the exclusion of the i five-year-olds. 1 He , pointed out that m a 3a school with an average attendance of 36 there weie two teachers, the loss of four pupils - would reduce that to a grade 2 '-school where one teacher would be teaching 32 oupils of all classes while the same applied to a grade 3c school where teachers each had a class averaging 3 pupils and the loss of six pupils would reduce the staff to two with an average of 42 pupils. Thus not only did the fivc-vear-olds suffer, but- also the whole of-the pupils. , The authorities must have realised the unpopularity of the move as they were always making concessions, which really created further anomalies, as, tor instance, the latest one, thereby a child- horn on January 31 could go to school five months before one horn on February T. They wanted the operation of the board m giving the public an opportunity of expressing its opinions for or against the = of the five-year-olds. It had oeen stated that it was purely the teachers that were opposed to the octagon Tliat was not correct, but t\en it it ' were it would be a strong argument i favour of the admission of five-year- : old-l as teachers knew the results, their ' «'x,d and the pupils’ good being so closely bound together. REDUCTION of staffs Miss Robertson said the exclusion of • the five-year-olds had meant the reduction of the staff and the reduction of the teaching power-of the teacheis in her school (Central Ini auto), as they had-olassp-s of 57. 54 and itjat had been rectified last year by the a\pointment of an extra teach or. } agreed that the chronological age did - not decide when a child was fit to go to school. She considered that ft child was ready to bo educated at five yeais of age. Much depended on what they were expected to do with a child /vv hen it was admitted. A child in the infant department must not be regarded as a futurri candidate for proficiency. i a child as ready to lie educated at Inc years of age it. was a- definite hardship to that child and to its parents if the r.fiild was r-unnin-2 about the-streets in stead of being able to attend a wellventilated infant room with modern methods, making a start- m its schoo I,f The exclusion of the five-year-old also created class distinctions, as the children of the well-to-do were sent to kindergartens, some of which were excellent. Grants to- the free kindergartens had been withdrawn, which was another argument in favour of the admission of the five-year-olds Replying to the chairman, Miss Rob-

ertson said she found children easier to- teach at six than at five years,'but; • if their education was started at uao ■ years they made more rapid progress, 'so that she did not think there Avas any Avaste of teaching poAA-er in start- , in" at five instead of six years. V* Mr Furrie said that) if t«here wa-s a.n. : o-aih in the children: being able to leani , more quickly at six years it Avould be offset by the loss in teaching power, due to children being enrolled at all times of the year, so. that instead or being compact- the classes were composite. HEALTH OF CHILDREN

Hr W. M. Thomson said that health aspect had entered largely into the question. It had been expected that when the children had been kept- eu •of school until six years of age they would have been less liaole to epidemics, but the experiences of the HaAvera infant school shoAyed that they were just as liable to epidemics. the arguments regarding the staffing weie very' interesting. The department ■ viewpoint Avas that the children Avould oo affected only during the _first yeat > hut it AA'as obvious- that it did anect the school as it was much more cutticult noAA- toi keep the classes at HaAveia. doAA’n to reasonable numbers. He relt very sympathetic towards the deputation and said that if no'change Avas to be made immediately certain points needed investigating in order to try to reach a- conclusion, principally witJ# regard to the effect on the health or the child, the discipline of the child and its teach-ability Avlien it Avent to school after an extra year running free on the streets;- also AA-liat \\ r ould be the effect of poor teaching at a- kindergarten in the child’s subsequent progress in the school. Mr McKenzie had stated definitely that in’ Canada- there Avas only two months’ lag at the end of the school career betAA-een tlie child \vho started school at six years or at five years. While personally very sympathetic he was not clear what- the deputation Avished the board to- do. - Mr ■Galbraith : Give parents an opportunity of expressing an opinion by holding. public meetings at certain centres. The institute Avould find speakers. ‘ . Dr. Thomson said that AA'as asking the board to conduct propaganda against the department. The chairman said the hoard could not take up that attitude. . Mr Galbraith said that the institute was not attacking the Minister of Education ; it was defending the rights of the primary school children. Mr Jones strongly-favoured the admission of five-year-olds to school. Ide said lie knew from experience that four-rear-olds even were ready to. go to school. He cited an instance where a -iiild had been sent to a- kindergarten and then when -sent to'a- primary school was started at the bottom, Avith the result that his ardour for Avoi’k had been crippled. He held that the action of the department had been based purely on .selfish grounds, with the sole idea of saving-money. - That was the only genuine ground for making the change. All the statements about other countries Avas “camouflage.” The statement that the aA-erage school age in Ncav Zealand had been 5i years Avas due to the fact that children in rural districts had to travel so far. The chairman pointed out that- the decline in the birth rate from 31 to 17 per 1000 Ava-s responsible for some ot the decreased enrolments. Mr Furrie said they fully realised that fact, hut he held that the department should’have taken that- into eon- ' sicleratiori before- making:>any further J change. ■ BETTER- UNDEiRI DISCIPLINE

Mr J. McAllister considered that a, great mistake had been made-in raising the age as the five-year-old Avould be better. at school under discipline and under the influence of an infant teacher than running about. Replying to Mr McAllister, Miss Robertson ‘ -said the children Avere more amenable to discipline Avlien they came to school earlier. Mr Furrie stated that in the Stratford School the -class average had gone up from 44. in 1929 to 4S this year. Mr H. Dempsev said that arguments should lie adduced to show the department that Avliat it had done was not for the good of the country. He t«*«l never satisfied himself whether five years or six years Avas the best age tor enrolment. .i „„„ The chairman pointed out that tlioie was: no necessity for teachers to wait until the end of the year before promoting a child, so-that ft did not follow that because a child mitered a. school a year older it Avould be as long passing through the school. . Mr Furrie said his experience was that the youngest children in the class were generally the smartest. There was a difference between the date ox admission and of enrolment; The chairman complimented the_ deputation on the way it had stated its case, Avliich had the sympathy-of the individual members of the board. El-irlier in the meeting ai circular was read from the Education Department - intimating that a child who reached, the a°"e of six years before the -first school day of the next term might be enrolled within the first four weeks of the term in which he reached the age of - six years. Mr Jones said the concession was a valuable one with regard to the ChristmThe°SetS ary said the pupil could he admitted only during the first fourweeks of the term and the four Aveeks Iliad passed. , • The chairman said it would be valuable next year.-