THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9096, 3 July 1888, Page 5

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

PUBLIC MEETING.

A SHARP DISCUSSION.

A CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM OPPOSED.

The adjourned public meeting held for the purpose of considering the motion proposed by Mr. G. M. Reed with respect to the education system, took place yesterday evening- at the City Hall. The Mayor of Auckland (Mr. Devore) presided. The lower part of the building was crowded, and in the dress circle were many ladies. Amongst those present on the platform were : Sir Wm. Fox, Messrs. J. H. Upton. Theo. Cooper, J. M. McLachlan, Dr. Laishley, Dr. Wallis, Dr. McArthur, Messrs. G. M. Reed, E. W. Burton, W. Gorrie, R. J. Duncan, E. Bell, W. Duncan, G. Peacocke, A. Boardman, R. Farrell, and others. The Mayor briefly opened the proceedings, referring to the importance of the subject to be discussed. Mr. G. M. Reed thought it unnecessary for him to explain the circumstances under which they met that evening. The conviction was universal throughout the colony of New Zealand that the time had come when retrenchment to the utmost extent should be carried out. (Applause.) The Government had professed to achieve the feat of cutting down the expenditure by nearly a quarter of a million., He thought, however, that it was a miserable and inefficient kind of retrenchment which was effected by the mere cutting down of salaries. Officers of all kinds worked according as they were paid, and if officers' salaries were cut down, economy would not necessarily result. In order to effect retrenchment, they should look to the great spending services, and there were several of these that challenged enquiryamong them the railway system, the education system, the defence system, and a great many others. (Applause.) He maintained a reduction of £130,000 could be made by raising the school age to seven years, and by making free education stop at the Fourth Standard. (Cheers, "No, no," and hisses.) He begged them to suspend their judgment until they heard all that might be said on the subject. Mr. Reed said that the resolution he had previously drawn up had now been divided into two parts, and he moved, " That in consideration of the financial position of the colony, and the necessity for further retrenchment, the school age should be raised to seven years." (Cheers and hisses.) He believed he was safe in saying that New Zealand was the only place in the world where public education began at five years. (A voice: "Well, make it six.") Mr. Reed, referring to the framing of the present Education Act, pointed out that, in the original Bill, it was intended to have a capitation tax, and the school age was fixed at; from five to fifteen years for taxing purposes, so as to suit this. Subsequently, however, during the passage of the Bill, the tax was eliminated ; but, in the hurry of legislation, the school age was overlooked, and remained as originally fixed. As showing this, he quoted the recent speech of a member of the Assembly, as reported in Hansard, but ho was frequently interrupted by cries-of "Name." He contended that, apart from tho necessities of the colony, it was altogether inadvisable that children should be sent to school at the immature age of five years. Such an age was' useless in an educational sense. While children were detained from their natural play, and checked in their physical development, they derived no benefit whatever (hisses) —in rapidity of advancement in education. The average age at which children passed the first standard was nine years. (Cheers.) He could speak from his own experience, and he had no doubt that many would agree with him as to the uselessness, in an educational sense, of sending children to school at this early age. The speaker cited a number of illustrations of the fact that children entering school at seven or eight years equalled or surpassed in a few years those who had been engaged in study at a much earlier age. The commencement of school life thus early proved besides most injurious. (Cheers and interruption. If they wished to bring up a feeble and puny race in this colony they were goinsr the right way about it. Mr. Reed pointed out that the public school age in Germany was seven years. It was claimed that the children of these colonies were the most precocious of any in the world, but was that any reason why precocity should be stimulated further ? (Cheers.) Early precocity was a sure forerunner of early decadence and early dissolution, and instead of being stimulated should if anything be curbed in the interests of future development. (Applause, and "No, no.") The speaker gave illustrations of this from the precocity of human life in the tropics, as well as from the usual treatment of precocity in the vegetable world. The reason for sending children to school at the early ago of five was really and simply the desire to get rid of them. (Cheers and counter cheers and great hissing.) This was the fact of the matter, besides the unpatriotic desire to draw capitation. Supposing that it was necessary that the care of children was to be got rid of, was there not a cheaper way of doing it ? Could they not hire a room or a paddock, and engage an old woman to mind the children ? (Interruption.) It would be at once cheaper for the State and better for the children. The taxpayers of the colony were paying £3 15s a head for keeping in the schools, to no profit whatever, those infants who were under seven years of age. The speaker concluded by reading a letter which he had received from a lady, and who strongly urged the raising of the school age, contending that it was cruel to keep children of five years of age at school. Sir Wm. Fox seconded the motion. He could not claiu to be a leading citizen, but he was a citizen of New Zealand. (Cheers.) What were they there to discuss? (A voice : "The poor man's child.") Sir Wm. Fox : "Yes, and the rich man's child, too. Don't let us have this poor man's cry here." (Cheers.) The speaker, continuing, asked why should the State educate the children? (Interruption.) He was willing that children should be taught at the lowest age possible, but then all this cost money. (A voice: Prime Ministers cost money, too, don t they ?) They were necessary evils. (Laughter.) There had been a roar for retrenchment throughout the colony, but tho Government had not reduced to such an extent as to satisfy any thorough reformer. (Applause.) The amount spent in this colony on school buildings was £-15,000, and he did not know where the money was to come from to pay for all this. (Hear, hear.) He believed that from £80,000 to £100,000 could be saved in the education system without in any way impairing the scheme. (Great interruption.) Let them be honest, and endeavour to pay their debts. Mr. Theo. Cooper moved, "That all the words after ' That' in Mr. Reed's motion be left out, and the following be inserted : ' no interference with our present State system of education, either by way of raising the school age or lessening the number of standards taught, is desirable(loud and prolonged cheering)—but that in the opinion of this meeting, a large sum of money can and should be saved by a more economical administration of educational matters."' (Renewed cheering.) It was with some diffidence that he rose to propose this amendment when he found such men as Mr. Reed and Sir William Fox supporting the motion, but he warned his hearers that a red herring was being drawn across tho scent. It was not many months since ho largely shared the views of those gentlemen on this subject, but after investigation, he had come to the conclusion that they could notsnfely raise the school age. (Cheers.) Without raising the poor man's cry, he would point out that the education vote was the only one from which the people derived any benefit. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Reed or Sir William Fox had not pointed out how this money was to be saved ; by raising theschool age 25s per head would be saved, and not £3, as Mr. Reed had stated. Mr. Cooper spoke of the large number of children who would be turned from the schools were the age raised, and referred to tho letter written by Mr. Reed's lady friend. (Laughter, and cries of " Give us her name!") Mr. Cooper: "I don't know her name ; it might bo Mrs. Aldis." (Laughter.) The speaker, continuing, said that tho amount saved by excluding children of five years of age from the schools would hie a paltry £10,000. (A voice : " Mr. Fisher say 8 £'25,000.") Mr. Fisher was wrong.

Again, let them think of the country schools. There were 55 country schools in this educational district having an average attendance of under '25 pupils ; and if the proposal set out by Mr. Reed were carried, these 55 schools would have to be closed, or the House would have to give a special grant to keep them going. (Hear, hear.) The town depended upon the country, and if they took from the country settler one of the few necessities which he must have, how few men would go into the country. (Cheers.) They struck a fatal blow at the education system if they raised the school age to seven years. Mr. Reed had shown them no figures, and this argued that he had a weak case. Mr. Cooper quoted largely from the evidence given before a select committee by the secretary to the Education Department, the Rev. W. J. Habeas, whose testimony was in favour of the admission of children to the schools at five years of age ; and he pointed out that in England the compulsory age commences at five years, whilst in France and Belgium it begins at six. Let any man enter the schools, and he would form an opinion as to whether the children of tender years were not far better off than in the streets. (Cheers.) He urged that a more fatal mistake could not be made than to stop free education at the fourth standard. If they did this they would exclude 12,800 children from the schools, some of them under the age of 15, and even under the age of 13. He ventured to submit that a boy's education was practically only beginning when he was passing the fourth standard. He had no sympathy with the cry that too much education could be given ; and he reminded them that the Civil Service was open only to boys who had passed the fourth standard. Dr. Wallis, rising to a point of order, objected that Mr. Cooper had now taken up too much time, and uproar ensued. Mr. Cooper resumed amidst cheers, and pointed out that if they closed the fifth and sixth standards, they closed the avenues from " log cabin to White House," and as one who, when a boy, had himself felt the want of a public school system of education, he counselled them to pause ere they interfered with the present scheme in any way. He suggested, however, that they would secure greater economy in the administration of the system if they were to reduce salaries—take the most from those teachers who received the most pay, and the least from those who received the least. (Cheers.) A large sum would be saved if 20 per cent, were deducted from the higher salaries. It was a singular thing that the gentleman who had moved the original motion was connected with a newspaper which also supported denominational education — (cheers) — and which had countenanced a petition presented to the House, in which a capitation grant was asked for New Testament schools. He (Mr. Cooper) asked them to vote in a most decisive manner against the resolution which Mr. Reed had proposed. (Loud cheers.) Mr. R. Farrell seconded the amendment.

Dr. Wallis would support the amendment. Education consisted of two distinct partsprimary and secondary ; and the first was a necessity, whilst secondary education was a luxury afforded to the higher classes by the taxpayers. Retrenchment should rather be effected in the secondary system; whilst extravagance should be checked in the other public departments before the education vote was touched. (Cheers.) He did not think the system was free from faults, but if it was necessary let them touch it with as light and gentle a hand as possible. Dr. Wallis spoke at some length, combating the argument that the commencement of school life at five years was injurious, and read an extract on the subject from the works of Dr. Bain.

Mr. J. . M. MoLachlan pointed out that although that meeting arose from one convened by the Auckland Financial Reform Association, that body was not responsible for the present meeting. He wanted to give the opinions of the Association on the subject. (Interruption.) Mr. McLachlan read an extract from the recent report of the Association, setting out that hey were in favour of retrenchment in the education vote ; but he was not permitted to conclude his remarks, because of the disorder.

Mr. Neylon said they had heard addresses from the Press, the Senate, the Bar, and the Pulpit—(laughter)—and lie hoped they would now hear something from the labouring man. (Cheers.) Let them not be led away by special pleading. He was much interested in education, inasmuch as his own education had been sadly neglected. (Laughter.) Lot them not be led away by special pleading. One-seventh of the community, from conscientious motives, could not accept the present education system. They were amongst the poorest of the community, and yet their boys and girls competed tor examinations and held offices. (Cheers and interruption). He thought that free education should stop at the fifth standard—("Hear, hear," and " No, no") and that concessions be made to country schools. Mr. E. McManus would also support the amendment. (Cheers.) At Herekino the schools had been closed to Maori boys. ("Shame.") The speaker mentioned the Auckland Financial Reform Association, which had been euchred as no other body had been euchred. (Laughter.) Mr. McLachlan', amidst uproar, protested against the mention of the Financial Reform Association.

Mr. F. G. Ewington said he was sorry to see a disposition to make a joke of this matter. ("No, no.") He believed the system of education was in danger, and it behoved them, as wise men, to look this difficulty in the face. Notwithstanding the faults in the system, and the absence of the Bible from the schools, he thought it was a good system. But they must have a system which they could pay for, and the present system was costing over £-509,000 a year. This expense was increasing at a rapid rate, and the tax was now 17s fid per head on every man, woman, and child in New Zealand. Could they " afford to pay this tax? ("Yes, yes," and "No, no.") They were spending four million a year, and could they spend over half a million for their system of education? If they could afford it, in Heaven's name let them pay for their present system ; but if they could not afford it, let them look the evil in the face and say that they must do without it; for if they exceeded their income, they would injure their credit in the old country—(several voices: "Good job, too ! ") —and they would leave their children a heritage of evils. If they did not take hold of the helm, the ship would drift on to the rocks ; if they did not settle this question it would settle of itself—the system would fall of its own weight. Mr. Cooper had told them how they might reduce the expenditure, and he thought that added to this, they might split the difference between five and seven years as the starting point for the school age. (" No, no.")

Mr. Cowley also spoke, and mentioned the Financial Reform Association.

Dr. Laishley said at that late hour he would not detain the* meeting ; but he had been asked to move this resolution, "That in consideration of the financial position of the colony, and the necessity for further retrenchment, free education should end with the fourth standard," and as, if the amendment were carried, there would be no opportunity to move the resolution, he would speak to the amendment. He apprehended that he had been asked to speak respecting the stopping of free education at the fourth standard for the reason that in his report to the Government in 1885 he had made an express recommendation on the subject. He then recommended that free education should stop at the Fourth Standard. (Cheers, hisses, and interruption.) His reasons for the proposition were two-fold : Firstly, because the financial necessities of the colony required it; secondly, and mainly, on the ground of principle. The.duties of the State in respect to education were, he understood, to so educate its subjects that they would be of benefit to the State. The Legislature of New Zealand, by sub-section 4 of the 90th section of the Act, had declared that education to the fourth standard was all that they were bound to provide—(interruption) and that therefore free education should stop at the fourth standard. He was, therefore, quite unable to understand why free instruction in fifth and sixth standards should be given by the State, and why they had the right to expend public money on these standards [Here Mr. W. J. Speight advanced from the body of the hall, and mounted the platform amidst cheers, and the uproar now became so great that the Chairman had to appeal for a hearing for Dr. Laishley.] He (Dr. Laishley) submitted that the fourth standard was ample to satisfy all the re-

quirements of the State. Sufficient proficiency was acquired for State purposes, because except to benefit the State, i.e., society, it is unjustifiable to take A's money to educate B's children, the only justification for such a compulsory contributionbeingthat it would indirectly benefit A by reason of his being, together with B, a member of the State or society. The only justifiable expenditure beyond the fourth standard was that for scholarships, or free tuition for poor but brilliant boys, who by acquiring higher education might become ornaments to, and thereby benefit, the State. The question of class distinctions had been imported, but he would. point out that it had nothing whatever to do with the question. If free education ceased at the fourth standard, the State would probably cease teaching the fifth and sixth standards ; and if they did not there could be no hardship in their saying to all, "as further tuition beyond thefourt.i standard is unnecessary for State purposes, and merely education for the purposes of personal ambition, you must come forward and pay for it if you wish for it." (Disorder.) The friends of the present system should vote against the amendment, for a time would come, and probably speedily, when far more sweeping reforms than low proposed would be imperative. The disorder here increased, and Dr. Laishley remarked, Oh, it is quite useless for you to attempt to put me down." This was the signal for continued uproar, and Dr. Laishley had eventually to retire. Mr. Otto spoke, but his remarks could not be heard because of the din, there being cries of "Speight." Mr. E. wished to move an amendment, but was out of order.

Mr. Speight thought that the manwhowas a friend of education should not now speak. He did not know whether there was a move to talk so long that the audience would be tired out, but it looked as though there was. Dr. Laishley was an exponent of a set of men who did not believe in the present system at all(cheers)—and it was evident that once there was a chance they were ready to pounce on the system and tear it to pieces. He could not sit still and hear the attempt which had been made to deceive them. The only true leveller in this country was the system of education (cheers) —it put the children of the rich man and the poor man together, and said, "You will be educated side by side." This system was their heritage as New Zealandere, and he was thankful to God most sincerely and religiously that they had carried the amendment for the adjournment of this question at the meeting held in the Lorne-street Hall. It was imperative that they should stand by the scheme when the Bible-in-schools people and Denominationalists were crying out that they would do it cheaper. They did it cheaper at one time. (Laughter and cheers.) Their denominations had made education stink in their nostrils(cheers) —and the State stepped in and said, " You have proved false to your trust, we cannot prove false to it." The State with its tar-seeing eye marked the negligences of its individual members, and stepping in repaired them before injury came about. There were some Tv ho ten years ago were with them on that question, but they had since fallen away. (A Voice: "Reed.") No, he did not mean Reed; Reed was a very good fellowan excellent fellow. His (Mr. Speight's) advice was that given by a commander to his soldiers when the ranks were broken, " Close up ;" let there be no paltering with this question. The education system must be complete, or they must be without it altogether. (Loud cheers.) The Rev. J. S. Hill said he only wanted to ask them seriously to consider just one question. Were they quite just in dealing with the Roman Catholics as they were now dealing with them on the question of education* ("No," and "Yes, yes.") There were a number of the very poorest among them who conscientiously felt a difficulty in keeping their children under a secular system of education; and he said, were we just to th .m ? (Great interruption, and cries of " Put the question.") If they wanted to maintain the present system of education and keep it intact they must be just to every man in the State. (Cheers, and cries of '' There's no injustice. If they wanted to economise in this respect they should economise by giving assistance to those who were willing to educate their children. (Interruption.) In England to-day they got an amount of help of this nature, but it did not exceed one half the cost. (Voice: " You are an enemy of the system.") lam not. He wanted to give the best education to every man, but it must be on economical principles, and he maintained that unless they did something to lighten the increasing burden- on the State the time would come when they would have to carry such a resolution as that proposed by Mr. Reed. (" Yes," " No," and uproar.) The amendment was then put to the meeting, and carried by a very large majority. Three cheers were called for Mr. Cooper, and given with enthusiasm. Cheers were also given for the chairman, after which the meeting separated.