FRILLS IN EDUCATION

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVI, Issue 23014, 4 October 1944, Page 7

FRILLS IN EDUCATION

Less Attention Advocated (F.0.P.R.) WELLINGTON, Oft. 3. ■More attention to the laying of a foundation in solid subjects such as English and arithmetic, rather than a too great Interest in frills, was advocated by Mr A. J. Murdoch (National, Marsden) during the discussion on the estimates of the Education Department in the House to-day. Mr Murdoch quoted from the recent report of Professor Rutherford, of Auckland University College, regarding •trite standard of English shown by certain first year students. What was vfrong, asked Mr Murdoch, with the system that produced results such as those recorded by Professor Rutherford? Something must be lacking somewhere. Professor Rutherford had found instances of sheer illiteracy. English was missing and grammar was shocking, there being a lack of ability to put thoughts into words. . The Rev. Clyde Carr (Government, Timaru > suggested that Professor Rutherford was having a bang at accrediting. Mr Murdoch: He was having a bang at faulty education—the lack of system—that’s what he was having a bang at.

The Minister of Education (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) said the point to be remembered was that accrediting was not yet actually in effect. Professor Rutherford had reported upon students who had not been accredited but who had entered the University under the existing system. Owing to a confusion of thought, those who were opposed to accrediting had used Professor Rutherford’s comments as an argument in favour of the matriculation examination, but if there was an argument at all it was certainly an argument against the existing system. As for what Professor Rutherford had said, anyone who had attended a university college knew that history was looked upon as a very easy subject. Generally speaking, while history also interested many good students, it was a subject which he supposed was also bound to attract those who were not so good and, consequently, it might not be surprising to find that many of the less ambitious students could not exnress themselves in good English. The complaint was a very old one. It had been made in years gone bv and, no doubt, it was justified then as it was to-day.

Mr W. S. Goosman (National. Waikato) : It was more justified then. Mr Mason said there would always be pupils who were poor, average and very poor, and, after all, to express oneself in good English was not given to everyone, although one would not like to see all so poor as those who had been condemned in Professor Rutherford's comments.