AGRICULTURAL BIAS IN EDUCATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3992, 16 September 1930, Page 26

AGRICULTURAL BIAS IN EDUCATION.

VIEWS OF NEW ZEALAND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE.

DISCUSSED WITH THE MINISTER. At a recent interview, the executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute discussed with Mr H. Atmore the recommendations of the Parliamentary Recess Education Committee on the subject of an “ agricultural bias ” in education. Mr A. Murdoch, on behalf of the executive, submitted the following statement on recommendation No. 6 in the report of the Recess Committee on Educational Reorganisation in New Zealand, viz.:—“That in view of the great importance to the Dominion of our primary industries, the curricula of all our schools must include adequate practical instruction in agriculture and allied subjects.” After considering the chapter on “ Prominence of Agriculture” (pp. 29-39), the New Zealand Educational Institute desires to express the following opinions:— 1. That the schools should give every pupil “ an adequate and vital conception of the country’s dependence upon the farming industry, and should elevate the vocation of agriculture to a position of dignity and respect.” (A slight amendment of the original clause.) 2. That there is room and necessity for more special agricultural schools of the Feilding type to which adolescents may be drafted as the result of exploratory courses or of their own expressed desire to engage in agriculture. And in extension of this, we would recommend that such agricultural schools (and colleges) provide refresher courses for those who nave already made a beginning in rural pursuits and feel the need for further training. “ This,” said Mr Murdoch, “ really meant a refresher course for those engaged on the land and who still desired higher training in order to bring about increased production.” 3. That biological studies (zoology, entomology) and practical botany, as now approached in Nature study ana gardening) should be given greater emphasis in the primary, intermediate, and postprimary schools. The executive was heartily in agreement with this. 4. The New Zealand Educational Institute is emphatically of opinion that reorganisation must fail to conserve and further the real interests of the Dominion’s youth if the folio-wing fundamental principles be abrogated, viz):— (a) Primary schools must never become vocational; (b) primary schools must lay a broad unbiased foundation; (c) that intermediate schools should provide exploratory courses. They should not, however, impose, but discover a bias, (d) Once discovered, the bias or affinity must be respected, whether it be in the direction of professional, industrial, or agricultural pursuits, (e) Secondary education, taken as a. whole, should furnish equal avenues of education for all subjects up to university standard, thus giving higher agricultural education its due, but not more than its due emphasis. The Minister interjected to say that there was no suggestion that the primary schools should become vocational. It was only after the primary school course that the exploratory period would begin. Obviously vocational training could not be given until the aptitude of the child was discovered. Elementary botany would be taken in the primary schools. The idea was not to make every boy and girl a farmer, but to give them a proper understanding of the importance of our primary industry to a country like New Zealand. Mr Murdoch said they were glad to have the Minister’s assurance on point. Mr Brew said that he was a member of the sub-committee that dealt with this question when it was before the executive. He was glad to have the Minister's assurance that practical agriculture was not to be taught in the primary schools. The Minister repeated that there would be elementary botany and, of course, the school gardens would be continued. Mr Brew drew the Minister’s attention to the committee’s recommendation, which said . . . “ the curricula of all. our schools must include adequatte practical instruction in agriculture and allied subjects.” The Minister said there would be elementary botany so far as the primary schools were concerned. They had drawn a wrong inference; they had his assurance for that. “C ” answered “A ” and “D ” “ E ” —that was the idea of the exploratory course. “F ” was in accord with the intention of the committee. 5. The New Zealand Educational Institute is deeply impressed with the cogency of the economic, arguments embodied in the attached article (by the chief of the agricultural service, International Labour Office) issued by the authority of the League of Nations: — (Report of Mixed Advisory Committee which considered special education for boys and girls in country districts) “We have to deal with the argument that a definitely rural complexion should be given to rural elementary schools, with the object of preparing country children for rural,' and, above all, agricultural occupations. Thia idea is often expressed in the words “ the country school should keep country populations on the land.” It seems doubtful whether this can be done The economic forces drawing population away from the land are far too great and far too much a part of the inevitable and natural order of events to be countered in this way, and there are good grounds for holding that there would be almost a misuse of educational efforts m attempting to do so. Agriculture cannot absorb the surplus population, who are bound to migrate to the towns. On the whole, it is better that they should so migrate at the outset of their career than start on the farm and then go to town too late. Agriculture would be constantly losing its best workers. Agriculture does absorb less and less of the population owing to the mechanical means of produo tion.

“ Any' capital available goes to mechanisation of agriculture not to employ more labour. It is chimerical to suggest that most country children can enter an agricultural occupation. Giving up the country children to the towns is a sign of economic progress, for more people are released from producing food and raw materials, and so can produce other goods and services. Rural bias, if it means keeping the population on the land, is

really a sentimental end pursued in defiance of a fundamental law in economics. Countryside education should never oe such that, the town and country children can be said to have been differently educated. Rural bias would be an injustice to the rural population by putting them at a disadvantage in seeking employment. Mutual understanding is lost if education is specialised, and we should refix the gulf between urban and rural life, which it is one of the principal achievements of the nineteenth century to have swept away Ih e advantages of rural life pointed out to children must be real and not disputable. “ Rural bias, if carried to the point which gives true vocational guidance may be attacked as an improper attempt to force certain groups of the population into certain occupations. It verges on subtle interference with true freedom of contract. The boys and girls in the country must have the privilege of the same education as those in the towns.” lhe Minister said that there were many statements contained in the article that were not applicable to New Zealand. Mr Murdoch thanked the Minister for clearing away the misapprehensions they n.ad in the matter of agricultural instruction.