SCHOOL ENTRANCE AGE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19804, 21 May 1934, Page 11

SCHOOL ENTRANCE AGE

REPLY TO MINISTER. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, May 19. In a statement to-day, Mr G. R. Ashbridge, secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute said with regard to the Minister’s defence of the school entrance that the Minister was attempting to bolster up a weak case by unwarr. -ited abuse of the teaching profession. There was no foundation, Mr Ashbridge said, for the statenjent that teachers had not been straight and honest. From the very outset the institute had drawn attention not only to the effect of the legislation on chfldren, but also to Its effect on teachers. There had never been the slightest attempt to obscure this aspect of the questions. In the effect, the legislation had meant a further rereduction of many salaries, already subject to the two cuts imposed on the general body of the public servants. It was exceedingly crude to say the least, to attempt to discredit the case for re-admission of five year olds by saying that the teachers were concerned with the question of their salary and the status of the schools than for the children, and the real point at issue was whether or not It Is in the interests of live year olds to exclude them. He said the Minister was alone in the British Empire in economising in education by raising the school entrance age. A warm reply to the recent statement by the Minister of Education (Hon. R. Masters), that the Institute was using the five year old admission request as camouflage for Increases of salary, was made by Miss Magill, pastpresident of the New Zealand Teachers’ Institute.

She said that in its 51 years of life the Institute had never been dishonest, and always placed the child first. She also dealt with the Minister’s statement, that the restoration of the 5 year old prf vision would interfere with his objective. That objective, she said, had thrown 1500 teachers out of work, and effected a large saving in teachers’ salaries.