CRITICISM OF SCHOOL METHODS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25364, 23 October 1943, Page 6

CRITICISM OF SCHOOL METHODS

Sir,—Some of our parsons seem to have had a field day yesterday at the expense of the schools. I wonder how they would react if teachers of school committees approached their assemblies and publicly criticised the teachings in their churches, or their own methods of raising money.

In the first case that was referred to the Education Board, apparently because of "an alarming increase in the consumption of alcohol in recent year*, and the large anti-prohibition vote at the election,” the assumption was made that “ there was a tendency to disregard the importance of temperance ” and a tendency for it ” to be crowded out ” in our schools. Actually, the moral training, including teachings regarding real temperance, given in schools to-day is probably the strongest influence for good to which many children are subject. Might it not have been better had these well-meaning but ill-informed gentlemen taken stock of what they themselves could do within their own sphere to improve matters? They could, for example, openly wage war against the illegal practice of children of tender age frequenting hotel bars for the ostensible purpose of selling papers. Let them take a tour through the bars of our city hotels any evening, especially Saturday, between 5 and 6 o’clock, and they might discover a more worthy crusade than one against schools. In any case, the matter of “ what is taught in schools ” is one for the Minister, his departmental officers, and the headmasters concerned.

The second group attacked one school for the sale of raffle tickets by children, in aid, one presumes, of school funds. Apparently these ministers were in a quandary. They could not go to the Government on this matter to ask for prohibitive regulations, for the Government openly runs the biggest art union in New Zealand, besides encouraging the totalisator. They could hardly approach the Council of Christian Churches, for so many church organisations make use of this naughty device as a means of raising money. So once more a school is attacked. Far be It from me to defend the sale of raffle tickets by school children, save to remark that, as an average householder, I softheartedly buy tickets from any child who comes to my door pleading the interest of the school. It may be a ticket in a raffle which I do not expect to win; it may be a ticket for a school concert or flower show in which I have not the slightest interest, and which I have no intention of attending. To me, and to the child selling, both are exactly the same; in my case a donation to school funds; in his a job of work done to help his school, with no more significance given to the sale of one ticket than the other. Here again, surely, a more practical attitude could have been adopted than an attack on a particular school. If the Education Board could use its energies to ensure that the Government provided all the equipment, etc., which schools so badly need, teachers and committees would not need to raise money; and the root of this particular “ evil ” would be removed. —I am, etc., Nosce Tiepsum Dunedin, October 21. [Abridged.—Ed. O.D.T.]