School Committees, Reflect!

Observer, Volume XIV, Issue 795, 24 March 1894, Page 2

School Committees, Reflect!

I am in receipt this week of a circular setting forth in rather involved phraseology the claims of one W. Woodward to the vacant seat on the Board of Education. This circular f urnisheß to ray mind a host of sound reasons why Mr Woodward should not be elected to the position to which he aspires. The more I have studied hiß circular the more I am satisfied tfcat Mr Woodward's appointment to such a responsible and important trust would not be in the best interests of education, and therefore I would urge country school committees to pause and examine his pretensions to the position very care fully before they commit themselves to a final choice in the exercise of the ballot.

It is unfortunate that these Education Board eleotions are so conduoted that the committees to whom is entrusted the seleotion of members have no opportunity of meeting the candidates and hearing

their views from their own lips. This is to be regretted, because judgments formed from personal impressions are as a rule more correct and sound than those based upon the perusal of lengthy printed circulars which seldom give their readers much idea of the individuality or capability of the man who has indited them. This fact was fully established by the grievous error made in the choice of certain of the members at the period of the extreme agitation several years ago. Those mistakes the committees would not have perpetrated if they had known the men personally.

To my mind, Mr Woodward's later circular is the least satisfactory of all those that have reached me. Mr Woodward appears to be opposed to the standard system, though he admits the standards to be useful in their way. This is very good of him. At the same time, he is afraid the standards will destroy the goodness, truth and purity of the children and their individual thought and power of thinking. How ridiculous. In other words, Mr Woodward requires a catch eleotion cry, and seizes upon the motto : ' Down with the standards ' as an effective one. Utter nonsenße. But this is where Mr Woodward will find most of the committees opposed to him. It is an easy thing to destroy and overthrow, and there are always thoughtless and unreflecting minds prepared to support proposals in that direction. But the logical mind is not so easily deluded. It is slow to destroy one system until it can see a better one with which to replace it. And we are satisfied that the majority of the committees are composed of men of logical minds.

This is where Mr Woodward's greatest weakness ließ. He is opposed to the present standard system, but he has nothing tangible to put in its place. Then why interfere with it ? And, after all, it is just as logical to quarrel with the principle of ascending a ladder by buocessive^ stepß as to oppose the system of educating children by successive standards or stages. Mr Woodward has wholly failed to grasp the weakness of the system. The syllabus is at fault, not the standards. The fault is with the subjeots taught and the time allotted to each ; not with the system by which the pupils are grouped or classed and subsequently advanced.

As far as it is possible to follow out Mr Woodward's line of reasoning, he contends that a child who knows much of birds and animals and flowers and grasses and insect pests should not be forced to learn very much of geography or arithmetic. Quite wrong, Mr Woodward. Arithmetic and geography are two essentials of a simple English education, and the child who can acquire the secrets of Nature from observation will find no difficulty in acquiring a knowledge of these also. But perhaps Mr Woodward's moßt verdant idea is that ' inspectors should examine boys in general intelligence.' He does not say how the intelligence is to be guaged, but probably he would be prepared to add ' with a foot rule.'

The circular throughout discloses no reason why Mr Woodward should be sent to the Board, but the intemperate language in the last paragraph concerning ' anonymous slanderers ' and ' grinding of axes ' is a sound reason why he should not. We require our public men to be moderate. Another reason lies in the fact that his wife is a teacher in the employ of the Board. I believe she is a clever and capable teacher, but nevertheless the principle is bad that the immediate relatives of teachers in the Board's service should sit on the Board in judgment upon other teachers. It was bad enough to have one member whose daughters were teachers under the Board. Now we are asked to elect a man whose wife is a Board teacher, and very soon, at this rate, we shall have the teachers themselves standing for election. The principle is open to grave objection.

Mr Woodward is not the only candidate in the field. There are many others. We regret that Mr Harris is not standing, because he would have made a splendid member. But Mr McKenzie, of Whangarei, has strong olaims upon country committees. He has devoted much attention to the education question and possesses all the qualifications of a good member, besides the ability to push country olaims. Mr E. H. Montgomery has

also many recommendations, not the least important of which are a strong sympathy with the education system as it stands and a good knowledge of public life and administrative bodies. Mr Bladeß's services in the capacity of Chairman of the City Schools Committee entitle his claims to strong and favourable consideration. There are other candidates also, but these are the three who seem to us to be most entitled to the support of committees.