SCHOOL ENTRY AGE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1935, Page 22 (Supplement)

SCHOOL ENTRY AGE

MINISTER’S STATEMENT

“NOT VERY CONSISTENT.”

INSTITUTE secretary replies.

In the course of an address to the annual conference of the Dominion Federation of School Committees Associations, Mr. G. R. Ashbridge, secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute, commented on some recent utterances of the Minister for Education (the Hon. S. G. Smith) on the question of the school entrance age legislation. “In an address at New Plymouth on August 8,” said Mr. Ashbridge, “the Minister is reported to have made a number of statements which do not appear to be very consistent. First the Minister told his audience that in spite of drastic economies it was a notable fact that the education system remained intact. Then, apparently unaware of the contradiction, he went on to refer to the exclusion of the five-year-olds. The process of reasoning by which it is possible to maintain that legislation excluding thousands of children from school and rendering it impossible for hundreds of teachers to secure permanent positions, leaves the system intact is, to put the position moderately, a little difficult of comprehension. “The Minister next attempted to show that the legislation is by no means as drastic as many people imagine. _He is reported to have said: ‘For a period of ten years it has been ascertained that the average age at which children commenced their schooling was at five years and seven months. At the present time children can commence their schooling, at five years nine months, §o that there is a difference in the age of entering school of only two months.’ “TRIFLE OF TWO MONTHS.” “If this is correct—if a mere trifle of two months is involved, it would seem an easy and inexpensive matter to readmit the children and to satisfy the demands of the parents and teachers who are urging the repeal of the legislation. However, after being at such pains to show that the legislation is having almost insignificant effects the Minister proceeds to point out that the cost of re-admitting the children would be as much as £84.000 and suggests that this sum would be a great burden on the taxpayer. Finally, on the top of all this, the Minister refers to the falling birthrate, and states that it is estimated that there will be 5000 ■ fewer children at school in the next three years—a fact which, if it means anything, means that children are fewer and more precious and that instead of restricting their educational opportunities by shutting them out of school the authorities should be making every effort to extend them.” Continuing, Mr. Ashbridge said that the Minister’s statement that there was n difference in age of entering school of only two months was very misleading. It was illegitimate to compare the average age of entry before the restrictive legislation w’as passed (5 years 7 months) with the age at which all children could enter school now (5 years 9 months). The only proper basis of comparison was the average age of entry in both cases and the average age at present was certainly much in excess of 5 years 9 months, because some children, often with very good reasons, did not commence school until they were six or even seven. No manipulation of figures could obscure the fact that hundreds of children were losing a full nine months. According to official departmental reports the percentage of school children under six to total pupils fell from 9.4 per cent, in 1930 to 1 per cent, in 1933. “The contention of the Minister that the exclusion of the five-year-olds was rendered vitally necessary by the financial crisis contrasts strikingly with the attitude taken up by the authorities in Britain—a contrast which has added point when it is recalled that before the last election great play was made with the slogan ‘Keep in step with Britain’,” continued Mr. Ashbridge. “In 1932 the British Government set up a commission to consider economies in education. The commission suggested some drastic economies, but when it came to consider a proposal to raise the age of entry to school it reported as follows: ‘We consider that the expenditure on the training given to children between the ages of 5 and 6 is money well spent and justified by its effects. We desire most strongly to urge that the discontinuance of this work is highly undesirable on grounds of national health and welfare; and • that if further economies must be obtained means ought to be found for doing so with less injury to the community.’ “It should be emphasised that this was the considered opinion, not of a body of educational enthusiasts, but of an economy commission which sat and reported in the midst of the financial crisis. If, in Britain, where taxation has for years been higher than in New Zealand, it was found possible to weather the storm without attacking' the infant departments of schools, it should have been possible here also. It is obvious, of course, that money spent on schools cannot be spent in other directions, but we feel sure that there are few New Zealanders with any knowledge of the facts who desire to see the continuance of a type of retrenchment which is almost universally condemned by enlightened administrators.”