The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1898.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 2890, 15 December 1898, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1898.

The Rev. W. J. Comrie yesterday resigned his post on the Board of Education's Scholarships' Committee, to avoid being concerned in the management of what he characterised as a "bungling scheme" for equalising the scholarship appropriations. For some years past the Board have had unequal amounts to dispose of in fresh scholarships in successive years. For 1899, for instance, they have to allot .£lO6 to carry on for the second year's scholarships granted for 1898, leaving £234 for new scholarships. For 1900, assuming the scholarship fund to be the same amount, under the practice which has obtained in the past, £234 would be required to carry on existing scholarships, leaving only £106 for new ones. The " equalisation scheme " was proposed to remove these great differences. The scheme which Mr Comrie condemned as a bungling one is this : To give the whole of the £284 available for new scholarships for 1899, in one-year's scholarships ; and in 1900 half the £340, or whatever the total of the fund may be, in one-year, and half in two-year, scholarships. Thereafter there would be equal amounts year by year for new scholarships. As Mr Comrie pointed out, the scheme involves spending £400— £234 in 1899 and £170 in 1900 — on useless one-year scholarships, when the desired equalisation could be effected by using only £64 of next year's fund in that manner. It is clear that Mr Comrie is right. If £64 is deducted from the £236 available for 1899, and spent in one year's scholarships, £170 is left for two-year scholarships. The equalisation is commenced at«once instead of in 1900, as under Mr Barclay's scheme, and with a minimum of waste and injustice to pupils. The blunder in the adopted scheme is so obvious that the Board must see the propriety of rectifying it. Rectification would not affect the allotment of scholarships for 1899, but it would ensure the highest on the lists of competitors, and the majority of the winners, receiving two-year instead of one-year scholarships. Assuming it to be correct that oneyear scholarships are practically useless, and seeing that the Board ordinarily offer more junior than senior scholarships, the suggestion may be offered that if Mr Comrie's plan of equalisation is adopted, the extra £64 should all be disposed of by providing extra senior scholarships, which would extend the term of free schooling of some who have enjoyed a two-years' junior scholarship, but could not in ordinary circumstances gain a senior scholarship. Or it might be considered whether the £64 could not be used to provide two-year scholarships by paying two years' fees at once. We notice that after Mr Comrie had announced his intention of resigning his position on the Scholarships Committee, the Rev. George Barclay said " that the scheme (that is the scheme to which the Board of Education at present stand committed) had been approved by the Minister, that it was the only possible one, and that he could not understand what Mr Comrie meant by '£64.'" Possibly Mr Barclay will have a better comprehension of the subject when he has read this article. We have shown that the scheme which has been adopted is an uncommonly stupid one, and that something very much more reasonable can be substituted without any trouble. As for the Minister's approval, if Mr Barclay intended to imply that it was a sufficient guarantee of the excellence of the scheme, all we need say is that we cannot accept it as such. The Ministerial j approval, if anything can be gathered from it, shows either that the Minister had not given suffi- j cient attention to the matter, or that he had not thought it necessary to run counter to the expressed wish of the Board of Education.