AGRICULTURAL BIAS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 371, 15 September 1930, Page 12

AGRICULTURAL BIAS

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE DISCUSSION WITH MINISTER. At a recent interview, the executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute discussed with the Hon. H. Atmore the recommendations of the Parliamentary Recess Education Committee on the subject of an “agricultural bias’’ in education. Mr A. Murdoch, on behalf of the executive, submitted the following statement on Recommendation No. 6 in the report of the Recess Committee on Educational Reorganisation in New Zealand, viz:— ‘That in view of the great importance to the Dominion of our primary industries, the curricula of all our schools must include adequate practical instruction in agriculture and allied subjects.’ After considering the chapter on “Prominence of Agriculture” (pp. 29-39), the New Zealand Educational Institute desires to express the following opinions: (1) That the schools should give every pupil ‘ an adequate and vital conception of the country’s dependence upon the farming industry, and should elevate the vocation of cgriculture to a position of dignity and respect.’ (a slight amcncment of the original clause). (2) That there is room and necessity for more special agricultural schools of the Feilding type to which adolescents may be drafted as the result of exploratory courses or of their own expressed desire to engage in agriculture. And in extension of this, we would recommend that such agricultural schools (and colleges) provide refresher courses for those who have already made a beginning in rural pursuits and feel the need for further training. ‘This,’ said Mr Murdoch, ‘really meant a refresher course for those engaged on the land and who still desired higher training in order to bring about increased production. ’ (3) That biological studies (zoology, entomology) and practical botany, as now approached in nature study and gardening, should be given greater emphasis in the primary, intermediate and post-primary schools. The executive was heartily in agreement with this. (4) The New Zealand Educational Institute is emphatically of opinion that reorganisation must fail to conserve and further the real interests of the Dominion’s youth if the following fundamental principles be abrogated, viz:— (a) Primary schools must never become vocational.

(b) Primary schools must lay a broad unbiassed foundation. (c) That intermediate schools should provide exploratory courses. They should not, however, impose, but discover a bias.

(d) Once discovered, the bias or affinity must be respected whether it be !in the direction of professional, industrial or agricultural pursuits. (e) Secondary education, taken as a whole, should furnish equal avenues of education for all subjects up to university standard, thus giving higher agricultural education its due, but not more than its due emphasis. The Minister interjected to say that there was no suggestion that the primary schools should become vocational. It was after the primary school course that the explanatory period would be gin. Obviously vocational training could not be given until the aptitude of the child was discovered. Elementary botany would be taken in the primary schools. The idea was not to make every boy and girl a farmer, but to give them a proper understanding of the importance of our primary industry to a country like New Zealand. Mr Murdoch said they were glad to have the Minister’s assurance on the point. Mr Brew said that he was a member of the sub-committee that dealt with this question when it was before the executive. He wa glad to have the Minister’s assurance that practical agriculture was not to be taught in the primary schools. The Minister repeated that there would be elementary botany and, of course, the school gardens would # be continued. Mr Brew drew the Minister’s attention to the committee’s recommendation which said.. . . “the curricula of all our schools must include adequate practical instruction in agriculture and allied subjects.” The Minister said there would be elementary botany so far as the primary schools were concerned. They had drawn a wrong inference; they had his assurance for that, “c” answered “a” and “d.” “e”—that was the idea of the exploratory course. “f” was in accord with the intention of the committee.

(5) The New Zealand Educational Institute is deeply impressed with the cogency of the economic arguments embodied in the attached article (by the chief of the Agricultural Service, International Labour office) issued by the authority of the League of Nations: —

Special Education in Country Districts.

We have to deal with the argument that a definitely rural complexion should be given to rural elementary schools, with the object of preparing country children for rural, and above all, agricultural occupations. This idea is often expressed in the words “the country school should keep coountry populations on the land.” • It seems doubtful whether this can be done. The economic forces drawing population away from the land are far too great and far too much a part of the inevitable and natural order of events to be countered in this way, and there are good grounds for holding that there would be almost a misuse of educational efforts in attempting to do

so. Agriculture cannot absorb the surplus population, who are bound to migrate to the towns. On the whole, jt is better that they should so migrate at the outset of their career than start on the farm and then go to town too late. Agriculure does absorb less and less of the population owing to tho mechanical means of production. Any capital available goes to mechanisation of agriculture, not to employ more labour. It is chimerical to suggest that most country children can enter an agricultural occupation. Giving up the country children to the towns is a sign of economic progress, for more people arc released from producing food and raw materials and so can produce other goods and services. Rural bias, if it means keeping the population on the land, is really a sentimental end pursued in defiance of a fundamental law in economics. Countryside education should never be such that the town and country children can be said to have been differently educated. Rural bias would be an