OVERPRESSURE IN SCHOOLS.

North Otago Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3978, 1 June 1885, Page 3

OVERPRESSURE IN SCHOOLS.

"Scruta'or," in Truth thus writes re garding the question of overpressure in schools : "Mr Mundella told the House of Commons on Friday that * the London school hoard ia at present conducting an enquiry into Dr Crichton Browne's allegations respecting overpressure ;' and be added that, before Dr Crichton Browne's report was received, the 'Education Department had introduced provisions into the code, and done all they possibly could to mitigate the evils ot over pressure Now, "with regard to the zeal of the Education Department to put down overpressure, we have sufficient evidence in the famous (written to order) memorandum of Mr Chief-Inspector Fitch, who denies the existence of overpressure altogether ; and as for the London school Board enquiry, I confess that my hopes from that are small, seeing that thf> school board has just, by a majority of 31 to 4, rejected Miss Helen Taylor's motion for the discontinuance of home lcsons, and supported Mr Gudgeon's amendment to the efftct that home lessons should only be done away with in cases where the parents object or the children are in a delicate state of health. For my part I regard home lessons in the most extreme case — that is to say, in the case of the most robust child and the most willihg parent — as a downright and useleis barbarity. Before the time for the home lessons arrive*, the unfortunate child has already done five, six, or very likely six and a-half hours' hard work in school. That is to say, the legal school hours are five, but they are nearly always on one pretence or other, illegally extended. However, Iw. 11 be content with the legal numbei or hours - five— and I say that it is enough for any child, however strong, and that when he has done that he ought to be free in the evening. People (on both sides of the controversy) talk as if the question were one exclusively of death, ruined health, or lifelong injury. Not at all. It is a question of childish happiness. The code actually kills or maima for life comparatively lew children. The objection to it is that it makes counties! thousands miserable during those few early years of life alone in which there can ever be much happines* for the poor. The only humane and sensible thing to do would be to split the schoolday into two parts of three hours apiece. Let there be mornincr school and afternoon school, and let a different set of children go to each ; and when they have done their three hours of daily work in school, let them be free to eat, drink, grow, sleep, play, or earn their living for the next 21 hours. Will anybody contend that three hours a day every day, from the age of five to the age of 13, are not enough to teach the stupidest child ever born the three R's thoroughly— that is to say all that he is properly entitled to be taught at the public expense ? This half-time sys tern which I would introduce into board schools would entirely put an end to overpressure. For although in three hours a day ti ere is plenty of time to teach a boy to read, write, and count, there is not time to injure his health or break his heart. The half-time system would have this further advantage. II would practically do away with'the 4 parents grievance' (now freqently cruel in the extreme) altogether. The mother with two girls of school age, and a baby, *ould send one girl to morn- ' ing's school, and the other girl to afternoon's school, and have the day to herself to go out washing or charing. Furthermore, the half-time system woald double the present capacity of every school building and every schoolmaster. This alone is a matter not wholly unworthy of consideration, in days when mch a sum as L6O,OCD of ratepayers' money ia tacked on or taken off a school board estimate with a flippancy which makes the blood run cold."