READING OF THE ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20537, 11 April 1930, Page 13

READING OF THE ACT.

TEACHING CLAIMED LEGAL.

THE "OTHER SCHOOL HOURS."

VIEWS OF REV. W. L. MARSH. I lie grounds fot the claim that the system of religious'instruction is entirely in accord with Hie provisions of the Education Act are set out in a statement by the Rev. \V. Lawson Marsh.

Mr. Marsh states:—" A strict reading of .Section 56 (4) of the 1914 Act means only one thing—that four hours daily must lie devoted to secular subjects. But there i.s nothing in tho Act which expressly or by implication states that any additional school hours prescribed bv the local committee shall bo 'entirely devoted to secular subjects. All tho requirements of the Act are met if two consecutive hours in the forenoon and two consecutive hours in tho afternoon are so occupied.

Practically every school curriculum is organised on the basis of at least one hours instruction additional to the minimum set forth in the Act. But to insist that this additional tirno must bo entirely devoted to secular teaching is an unwarrantable interpretation, and also infringes the discretionary powers set forth in Section 49 (7), which permits the local committee to grant, as it deems fit, facilities for moral and religious instruction.

Power" ol Committees. " Section 56 (4) lead with Section 49 (?) clearly infers that primary, secondary <ind technical instruction given in tho prescribed minimum period of four hours daily shall bo entirely of a secular character. But the school committee has express power under Section 49 (7) to grant facilities for religious instruction at other times, 'as it deems fit.' It is very significant that this proviso is additional to the provisions of tho 1908 Act and marks a definite advance toward the recognition of such instruction. '' It is everywhere recognised that attendance for Bible reading in primary schools is voluntary, but the instructions issued by the Education Board with regard to this are quite foreign to the requirements of the Act, as may he seen from the procedure indicated in the case of another optional subject, that is, history. Section 56 (3), after enumerating subjects which may be included in the curiiculum and referring to 'other subjects of moral instruction as may be prescribed,' states: -Provided that no child shall be compelled to be present at the teaching of history whose parents or guardians object thereto.' A consistent reading of t)ie Act must repudiate the instructions of the board which demand ■ thit children be clearly informed that attendance at Bible reading is voluntary ' and ' th.it. children attending the Bible reading class should obtain a written intimation front their parents that they desire their children to attend.'"

Changes in Act, Mr. Marsh refers to " significant, changes " made in the Education Act of J914. which repealed the 1908 Act. He states: "Where the earlier Act limited the subjects of instruction to those, specifically set out in Section 143 (a), the Act of 1914, Section 53 (3) provides that ' the programme of primary instruction shall include in the manner and to the extent prescribed by regulations, English. ... on the duties of citizens, and on other subjects of moral instruction as may bo prescribed.' The 1903 Act makes 110 mention of religious instruction, while the 1914 Act not. only makes provision for instruction in ' the duties of citizens and on other subjects of moral instruction * in addition to tho.-e set out in the former Act, but also, in Section 49 (7) expressly provides for moial and religious instruction by granting the local committee full powers in that respect, subject to the. by-laws of the hoard

. Mr. Marsh concludes: "It cannot reasonably be maintained that facilities for Bible reading are not in accordance with the intention of the Act, nor that such Bible reading might not even be included in the school curriculum as an optional subject to be taken at some part of the time additional to the prescribed four hours dailv."