JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18159, 25 October 1930, Page 5

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

SYSTEM COMMENDED. ADDRESS ON EDUCATION REPORT. Support for the junior high school system as' suggested by the Select Committee on Education was expressed by Dr. J. flight, Rector of Canterbury College, in an address he gave to the meeting of the Canterbury School Committees’ Association. He also commended the principle of the proposals regarding local control, but he remarked that some of the proposals were “delightfully vague.” It was Indicated that a special committee of the association would produce a report at the next meeting and would deal particularly with the question of what powers were to be left to school councils and committees.

Dr, Hight supported the proposed junior high school system. Everywhere now the principle that a child should receive only an elementary education was passing away, for it was realised that education affected the whole nation and the whole life.

General preparatory education should cease at 12, when it was necessary to introduce subjects that had a practical value, and still had an educative value. At the age of 12 it was found that the average child began to lose interest in subjects that did not have a bearing on the practical things of life. Developing Particular Bent. Junior high school courses 'would still be educative, but would tend toward developing a particular bent by a pupil toward a certain occupation. Such schools tended to develop the natural powers of the child, to minimise economic misfitting, and to promote the free and full enjoyment of life.

More definitely vocational courses would be provided in the senior high schools. Whether these schools would be in separate buildings would depend on the population of the town and other factors. Courses would be differentiated in much the same way as in present technical high schools. On the question of local control of schools Dr. Hight referred to what he had said before the committee: That local controlling bodies should have direct contact with the centralised body, but regionalism should not be unduly restricted. There was a growing tendency overseas to leave a good deal to local control.

There was little in the report to show just what authority was to be given the district education boards, the school councils, or the school committees. It was all very well to say there should be “a large measure of local control," but the question crucial to the matter was “just what control” ? Uniform Control. Perhaps in the balance the advantage was with the suggestion to uniform control of secondary schools, always provided Hint nothing was done to stifle the individuality of the school. Nothing was worse in education than dull uniformity, and a useful measure of power should be left to the school councils. ■. Questioned on the proposal to have

teachers appointed by a national body, he said that, as a student of political economy, he thought it would be against public interest for the school committees or councils to have no say in such ' appointments. There were considerations that could be advanced in favour of the proposal, but on the • whole he thought it a bad thing, particularly in the case of the appointment of the head master. On behalf of the special committee that is considering the report, Mr S. R. Evison said that a recommendation to the association would be brought down shortly. The burning question for school committ,ees was how much the new system was to be centralised in Wellington. It was desirable that local interest in the schools should not be lost by centralisation.

Dr. Hight recommended the association to formulate a policy on the question of how much power should be retained by committees and to present it to the Government as quickly and forcibly as it could.