FREE STATE EDUCATION.

Southland Times, Issue 3856, 29 October 1880, Page 3

FREE STATE EDUCATION.

modifications, I all that is necessary would be the re-introduction of the clause enabling the local committees, in case of proved inability, to remit colh c tionof fee <— a system which I know obtains in the North Island, but which to my knowledge was? never needed sa\ -<\ in a few instances among -t large urban populations, when it worked' satisfactorily. As to the next, ami in my opinion the main point, the xoci.nl one, T believe the abolition of fees in many instances lessened, and in some totally destroyed, the feeling of responsibility which every parent should feel to provide for the education of his offspring. 1 will exemplify my view by a case thus : Suppose a father with four children of educatable age, and with limited means, accustonnd to indulge in stimulating drinks. He would only have to deny himself one drink per day to enable him to" find funds for school fees and school necessaries — not a very mighty act of selfdenial, but one from which I maintain the abolition of fees just removed the wholesome incentive for its adoption, and thus i added to that tide of self-indulgence which more than any other threatens rum to our young community. I Mr Scandrett I know spoke strongly aR to the necessity for self-denial in connection with the up-bringing of our children, but percolating, as his argument did, through Customs' tables, and property tax schedules, his views would require some knowledge of the science of Political Economy to comprehend ; and in practice would consequently exercise small influence; while I cannot help thinking that the practical and immediate demand for his children's supply of mental food throngh the School fees would be felt and sanctioned by every parent in the community deserving of the name. — I am, &c, Beta. Invercangill, 25th Oct , 1880.

, ; | ; \ ; 'TO THfc BPITOB* Sir,— Pressure of business at the time Mr Scsndrett published his letters on this sabjecVin your jtfuinal and the News, prevented my sooner making some commentsthereon. With your permission I will do so now, connecting my leuaarks more or less with the leading articles which, appeared in botli papers criticising Mr Scandretf b communications from their respective points of view. I am aware your contemporary advocates freft and secular education, pure and simple, and while in both points I hold a different opinion, and I believe one more 3 ill qUMfr trf* 1 *^ 0 * 11 " *W&s. i te c P reßent Occasion I will confine my remarks to the subject of Bchool fees, and the value of their retention or abolition. And, in passing I will just remark with reference to the News' criticism of Mr Scandrett's letter, that 1 ! was much struck at the time with the editor's pungently worded pieces of advice co disinterestedly tendered Mr S., and have BOtne curiosity to see if they will affect that gentleman's conscience. ! In Mr Scandrett's opinion the success of QurState »*steln flependa entirely on our maintaining inviolate the clause abolishing all school rates and fees. From this view I respectfully differ with Mr Scandrett; and as regards fees will, with your leave, as briefly as i' can ptate my grounds of dis- ■ "'tfantT" " ' ' ' For the purpose of my argument I will consider tfequestion of fees undergo heads— the fiscal and the jsocial. As to the ' first, I, in common with a considerable section of the community, consider the abolition of fees was not called for, and that with certain modifications tneir re--imfibsitioE{"would in no~way impair our Educational system, while one of its immediate effects would be to relieve ihi Exchequer of an anuual payment of scraa £50,000, more or leßß— just now a conRderatido of eowe wo»wt. Aoa ac to