RURAL SCHOOLS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14392, 6 January 1911, Page 7

RURAL SCHOOLS.

REPLX jiY MB MORRIS. Jo the Editor of the "Timaru aoritld.' Mr Fraser has replied, but has ogain carefully avoided any reply io mv criticisms cf his pamphlet. Neither has he attempted, except m i.ne instance, to explain the untrue statements made in his previous letter,. but on the other hand has repeat- d; one of them. Nor yet has he stated ; the eminent services he has poriornicd j in the cause of education and the last- j ing good he has conferred upon the I rural schools cf the Dominion. lie accuses me of telling untruths iu my speech in Timaru. I again say fiat I :im sorry I made tho speech becauro a personal attack is no argument and is always bad form, .but I r.ni well acquainted with the facts and I solemnly aver that I believe tho SL-te-ments to be true, and that I know onother ex-Otago teacher who is -veil acquainted with them now in ?ou:h Canterbury who believes them to be true, and "at the time the events were taking place hundreds of people in Otago believed simdar statements and could give solid reasons for their belief. Again to show that I am not truthful Mr Fraser say: "Now .n the last year I left, percentages such as he quotes had ceased to be recorded. He refers of course to the 60 per cent, business. His statement is a m»:e sillv quibble. It is true that the actual" per ientage was not recorded, tn» the numbers presented were record-id, and the numbers that passed were accorded, and could not and did not every teacher make out the percent-go for himself, and if it was a high oi.e it was very soon advertised abnau? It is very few years since the Inhit ceased among ordinary people of f,wing the quality of the work by the percentage of passes. Now Sir, as far as I am concerned the personal element in this corrr-i----pondenoe ceases. Mr Fraser cart write what he likes of a personal li ad and I shall reply to nothing. If he writes showing that I am wrong in mv articles against his pamphlet i shall perhaps with your perni'iWion reply, but after the pubho has ad the conclusion of my letter I think that any one whose opinion is worth having will agree With me Jiat Mr Fraser is not worth troubling sbfirfc as an educational expert or critic. Since writing my last letter tho fere has greatly changed. I was then waging war single-handed against Mr Fraser upon the subject of his pau.rlilet r which had been before the piH-X for months and had been unchallenged as to facts and figures by any ere Trat myself, but now it has been trullenged and refuted most conclusively bv the members and inspectors of his own Board. Mr Fraser's main contention, and to prove which Iris ■p? m ' a J?j was written and which being disproved the rest is of no importance,, was ihat •the education in a large part of iise mral districte of Nevr Zealand at tho Resent tune can. only -be jJescribed as if not desperate.' 1 In

writiug my article t simply ask-ed ilia qutsuou, --Does any simo pernoa beLevo that tiio education in a .true part of our rural schools caa to described as deplorable?" and made ibo questions reier to South Cantemary, the only district of which 1 had tho exact figures. The Otago Board h-a taken up the matter {or its own Usenet, and at a meeting which is reported in the "Otago Witness" of Dec. 21st, Mr P. B. Fraser tot tho surprise ot his life. Mr G. C. l.iael began the attack, and in his speech says: "In grades 2 and 3 there weie 75 schools. Of these 20 had te*:ners who w-cre uncert.iicated or parti i ly uncertificated. There were 11 Kl. 10 1)1, 13 K2 and D2, 13 l'-3 -:nd D 3, and U E4 and D-4. lu these the teachers were certificated and uulo not or should not be insfficieai. la referring to these schools the inspectors brought out, very plainly that Id wew very good, 31 good, 25 tory, 8 fair and only 3 wtak, and i.i;s out of 75 schools, la the race ot that it was impossible to make the »*\«Viug statements made by Mr luj-cr. It should not go forward trout .h.s Board that they considered tho»o. -o schools inefficient, when really there were only three weak schools. Air Borre who supported Mr Israel, s.ul. that he had the authority ot tue> .Inspectors for saying that the *%***! ortho country **°° ! V° m F& favourablv with the city schools. ihe chairman (Hon. Thos. Fergus) =>aio thaf Mr Coven's report out a very strong case for the schools. Mr Fraser m h the stand that no one's fewesw re_ norts were worth anything except his & who supported Mr Israel, said the figures he had us d (taten i~» the Board's own report I t hmk) £ not worth the paper thj were wr.-ten Sack won Mr Israel, invited torn, "to ?rSI upWthe. tail of his coat," in a war and he "would give him in the papers as any man Trer ■ W." Mr McKinky who i? a member from the same district as Mr FrW and only a short tune on the <uiDDorted .Mr Fraser, and Srcly lie (Mr Fraser) is right Mr Mitchell partly supported Mr Fraser. There wore no. other speakers. N OW si r, who iB fo be believed, the veteran inspectors of Otago the Ui_et of whom, McGoyen, has had 3D •■ «s experience of every on* of ttra Otago schools, and who is so widely known ns an educational expert that the Jasmanian authorities actuary borrowed him from the Otago Board to go..over and assist them m their educational difficulties, supported as he is by Mr Borrie and Mr Fergus, of -whom Mr Borrie was well-known as an expert, although he is no great speech maker,

before Mr Fraser was on the Board at ■ all, or Mr P. B. Fraser, who in all pobability has never been inside or had anything to do with 20 per cent of , these schools in his life. Tate South Canterbury for a. moment. Are the publio going to believe Mr Fraser that tbs greater part of the South Canterbury sole teacher schools are in s , deplorable state, or are they going to believe their own inspector, Mr Gow, | who in Jus report of 1909 gives thfl number of sole teacher schools as C 4. '. Of these 39 are classed as from very good to satisfactory, nine are classed as fair, and only 6 are described as moderate and inferior. That is to say the miserable inefficient sole teachers of South Canterbury had 7:2 2 |. per oent. .of the schools described as i satisfactory or better, 16.6 were described as fair and 11.1 as moderate or inferior. I have not the slightest '' doubt that Mr Fraser would deje'ibe the report as not worth the paper it ' was written on, but I would re-nind the public that Mr Fraser was probably- never in a single one of those schools in his life;"and Mr Gow hss known every school and pretty ti ell every child for over twenty years. It is absurd to say that either Mr Goycn or Mr Gow classes a school as ' /rood" "satisfactory," "fair," etc., when it is not so.—l am, etc., GERALD MORRIS.