An Explanation. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2086, 15 February 1894, Page 21

An Explanation. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — Your January report of the Education Board reaos that I applied for an exemption "Ttificato for my child, which waß declined. That do- -, no 1 repvenwit t.he- lustier. H*:re are Ino fads *vhii.'h, a,i» bi-iugof general inl-crC'St, I 'i^k -you 1,0 nubiifih. April 189] my Hire 1 , u• < i h K£g l'< ' ; i t.u 'ht at ho-^o. Iv September last/ I was sumiru-uoii ''' • sidy"! cotnunbteu (the meiuljcrs oi v L.-'h v < •' well •uvaro of the fact ot their boing bo i^ughti t » them to the public scho'j' Jim I hsul ui/t/ an exemption certific.Lc J v/v,6 ordered by ILmagistrate to send them for the period re^uirou by law, other evidence being inadmissible under the "Amending Act 1887." To set myself right I at once applied to the school committee for exemption, the reply being that the committee would not take the responsibility of granting it. I then appealed to the Education Board, and the reply to my application was that the act cast the duty on committees, the board not having the power to intervene. Upon advice I then pointed out that under section 90 of the act the board had the power, again asking exemption. The board then admitted the fact, and as the inspector's visit for examining the school would be in December, asked me to submit the children for examination. I agreed on condition that the examination should be in an educational sense, and not conducted on hard and fast rules. I saw the inspector before the examination, and asked him how he would conduct it. I was told the children must pass. I protested. The two eldest passed their standards ; the youngest did not, only having b^en six weeks in the school altogether, and that at intermittent periods, bo that failure was inevitable. Still the board declined to grant exempt:on for her without further evidence. I have again addressed the board, and the application is to be considered at its next meeting, on the 14th inst. It is as follows: — "Re yours of 18/1/91-. Re exemptions for my children. According to 'The Amending Act 1887' a certificate is necessary, but as yours of above date exempts two I can use that. With reference to Eleanor, for whom the board declines exemption for want of more evidence, will the board kindly inform me what evidence is required ? All the children are taught by the same person. The tuition which has been found adequate to pass one child from the Second Standard to the Fourth, and from the Fourth to the Sixth, and to teach the other so that she was presentable at all at a little over seven years in the First cannot be inadequate. (T.jc child referred to bad been doing First Standard work since .June last only.) Before the ixamiaation I asked the inspector what standard he required ; he told me he expe3ted them to pass. I protested. What right has the board to demand from private tuition a standard of proficiency to which it cannot attain in its own schools ? Are failures absent in them ? The age of the children is good evidence. The only competitor of Agnes Maud (12£ years) was H years older ; those of Cecil (10|) were respsctively 15, 14, 13, and 12 ; of Eleanor (7i), the youngest was over 9, the eldest 10. The conclusion is inevitable — tither my children are exceptionally endawed, which is absurd, or the teaching they are receiving at home is more efficient than that furnished by the board ; and as Eleanor had not passed a standard I had tho right to present her in the work preliminary to the first. Does the inspector assert that she was not adequately instructed in that ? 1^ offer these corjsiderations to the boird as evidence which it has before it. What further evidence it can require is a puzzle to me, as I venture to think any unprejudiced person will say it is strong enough. I again ask for exemptions for my children." This is another instance of what may happen to a man in New Zealand. The malicious motives of the school committee are patent here. The first action of the Education Board reminds one of the celebrated firm of Spenlow and Jorkics. Mr Jorkins was the man — Spenlow was sorry ho wouldn't do it. Then as to the assurance of requiring a higher standard from private tuition than it can furnish itself. If all teaching outside the public schools was judged on the same base, the general judgment would be that it was a piece

of gross tyranny, which would be the fact. A*k our Roman Catholic fellow colonists, ask all those who are giving their children private tuition. I cannot think they will have two opinions about it. Teaching my own children, they have not to unlearn a deal which is gratuitously taught at the schools, and is not iv the standards. Apart from these considerations, both the Education Board and the school committee are interested parties. The former is minus the subsidy on each child educated outside, and the echool committee has an eye to clearing money aud enhanced status. I venture to think we are taxed enough without unnecessarily increasing the burden. — I am, &c, W. M. Wade. Blackstone, February 9.