SCHOOL CARD SYSTEM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXIV, Issue 147, 22 May 1944, Page 4

SCHOOL CARD SYSTEM.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l had thought that the time was opportune for' me to “bury the hatchet” concerning the school card discussion, but seeing that I was “in the news” again in Saturday’s “Alanawatu Standard” and was subjected to a barrage of explanations, relevant and otherwise, I surely must be given the right of reply. As I made the defence of the cards from the commencement of the discussion I think I have the right of filially replying to the charges against them. Mr Crawford opens by making a partly correct statement, “the futility of further discussing the above subject.” I agree when the objection and opposition to the school cards is born of hostility against the Government, and when the capacity to assimilate and accept the evidence of facts in the case is very limited, and only because, blind prejudice makes the vision clouded. Ho then charges me with not having brought any. evidence in favour of the cards. Without, any reiteration, all who have read the correspondence at all carefully. I feel sure, will at once admit that my evidence has been ample, and weighty, supported as it is by such educational authorities as Mr Whibley and the Wanganui Education Board, who by the way made it plain that the cards arc open for inspection to all interested parents. of whom many—in fact the majority —will thank the teachers and guidance and vocational officers for their selfless Interest and care.' There are bound to bo some who, like Mr Crawford, think they can do without this benefit, but I can assure him I have seen many misfits, even when parents arc in affluent circumstances and have much time at their disposal. Further, if Mr Crawford had a little more discernment and a little less impetuosity, he would have noticed that my trump card was the school card. I also challenge the last implication. 4 merely made a statement of fact (which has not been .denied successfully) namely, that the opposition to the cards did not come from supporters of the Government. As for Mr Ellis I am glad he has put himself on side. I accept his apology without reserve. When a correspondent like “Sighkick” refers, to an opposing view as “wordy and meaningless” it is a sure sign of weakness on his. part. If he too bad a little more perspicuity he would not have failed to note that the lack of respect I referred to was not in this instance directed against the child of today, but to himself. A bald statement making a . “cheeky” enquiry without any explanation would be deserving of some castigation surely. He refers, however, to other aspects of education which will not bear analysis, such as ascribing the lack of respect to the improved card system. This cannot be discussed here under the above heading. In conclusion, I would only exhort your correspondent with the somewhat extraordinary appellation, to let us have less “sigh” an'd more “kick” in his effort to justify himself, and wc might make some progress.—Yours, etc,', - A. STENRERG.