THE SCHOOL AGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22267, 21 May 1934, Page 8

THE SCHOOL AGE

MINISTER AND TEACHERS ADMISSION OF FIVE-YEAR-OLDS SELF-SEEKING IMPUTATION RESENTED (Special to Dailt Times.) WELLINGTON, May 19. " The Minister is attempting to bolster up a weak case by the unwarranted abuse of the teaching profession," said Mr G. R. Ashbridge (secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute) in a statement on Saturday. Mr Ashbridge was referring to the Minister's defence of the school entrance age legislation, in the. course of which he stated that the teachers should come out and be " straight and honest," and say that they are embarking on an.agitation for an increase in salary. " There is no foundation whatever," said Mr Ashbridge, " for the statement that the teachers have not been straight and honest. From the very outset the institute has drawn attention not only to the effect of the legislation on the children, but also to its effects on the teachers, especially in so far as it has deprived hundreds of teachers, now under the rationing scheme, of permanent employment, and blocked the channels of promotion for those in permanent positions. There has never been the slightest attempt to obscure this aspect of. the question, as anyone can verify by referring to the institute's journal, National Education, or to a pamphlet issued on the subject. "In effect," he continued, "the legislation has meant a further reduction of many salaries already subject to the two cuts imposed on the general body of public servants. Mr Masters knows perfectly, well that this side of the question has been put before him in an absolutely open and straightforward way on numhers of occasions. It is exceedingly crude, to say the least, to attempt to discredit the case for the readmission of the five-year-olds by saying that the teachers are concerned with the question of their salaries and status. Every extension or retraction of educational facilities affects the salaries and status of the teachers, but the schools exist for the children, and the real point at issue in this case is whether or not it is in the interests of the five-year-olds to exclude them from the schools. If the Minister has no better defence of the legislation than that made in reply to the deputation, it is little wonder that he is anxious to draw a red herring across the trail. s . "When it was stated that on some farms young children were overworked, the Minister remarked that the teachers had insulted the entire agricultural community. When it was said that in some homes low standards of behaviour prevailed, the teachers were represented as making an attack on the domestic life of the whole Dominion, and this came from a Minister of the Crown who deprecated exaggerated statements." The Minister's reference to the exclusion of five-year-olds as an experiment was particularly inept, continued Mr Ashbridge, and displayed an ignorance of the first principles of educational research. If the Minister honestly desired to discover the effects of a raising of the school entrance age, all that was necessary was to select a few sample schools, and then see how those admitted at six years compared with those admitted/at five. "It was obviously unnecessary to exclude the entire five-year-old school population. Furthermore, the Minister should kuow that the tendency in all progressive countries was to tend some form of educational provisiou, not merely to five-year-olds, but to children below that age. Investigations both in England and America had _ shown, sometimes in a most spectacular way, that children from the very best homos could benefit physically, socially and intellectually by attendance at good inf'aut and nursery schools. "The Minister is alone in the British Empire in economising in education by raising the school entrance age," said the speaker. "■ In England the Ray committee on educational expenditure, a body, by the way, which suggested drastic retrenchments in education, considered the proposal and rejected it on the ground that ' the expenditure oh training given to children between five and six is money well spent.' A recently published report of the consultative committee of the English Board of Education concludes with the remark that ' the attendance of children at school from the age of five has on the whole worked well in practice, and that there is no good reason for modifying the existing law.' Actually, the committee goes further and recommends the establishment of nursery schools in certain areas." Scottish educational authorities had considered the proposal and rejected it. It was also interesting to recall that in New. Zealand this method of effecting economy was suggested and rejected in 1888 and 1901 and that at a later date Mr Hogben (director of education) expressed himself as definitely of the opinion that it would not be in the interests of either the children or the schools.