25

1.-8.

Mr. W. C. Hodgson, Nelson, to the Chairman, Education Committee. Sir,— Nelson, 21st November, 1887. I have the honour to submit to you my views with regard to the four points on which my opinion has been invited, premising that my replies are given without any previous reference to the opinions of my employers, the members of the Nelson Education Board, as I understand that an entirely independent judgment is what is required from me. 1. If the raising of the age upon which capitation allowance is to be paid be considered from a purely educational stand point, I am of opinion that the age of admission to our public schools should never have been fixed at less than six years. That very young children should be compelled to sit day after day, for several hours, very partially occupied, in the often impure atmosphere of a schoolroom, can be good neither for their mental nor their bodily health. I have no faith in the kindergarten system, or by whatever other outlandish name State nurseries may be dubbed. The proper training-field for children under six is home. But, from a money point of view, I confess that I do not see how the serious loss of revenue that wonld ensue from the exclusion of children under six years old is to be made up, unless a special and additional capitation grant were made to the small country schools, now so exceptionally numerous in this district. The proposed exclusion would inevitably result in the closing of threefourths of these most valuable establishments. This consideration, however, by no means affects my contention that the admission of very young children is, educationally, not only useless, but mischievous. 2. Although I have grave misgivings as to the effects of exacting fees for higher standards, which should only be done, it appears to me, as a last resource, the imposition of a school-fee amounting to half of the capitation allowance on all scholars beyond the Fifth Standard seems, on the whole, to be less open to objection than any other mode of raising revenue that occurs to me. The number of children in this district who would be affected by such a device would be about 300, but there can be no doubt that the levying of a school-fee would at once largely thin the ranks of the Sixth and Seventh Standard scholars. 3. From the outset the Nelson Education Board has been honourably distinguished for its economical administration of the funds placed at its disposal, and where every item of expenditure is reduced to its lowest terms it is difficult to suggest any further retrenchment that will not obviously affect the efficiency of the service. For example, the allowances to School Committees for fuel, cleaning, and small repairs are on so modest a scale that they do not admit of the employment of " caretakers," who, in other districts, as a matter of course, undertake the lighting of fires and the cleaning of schoolrooms. In Nelson all this is, of necessity, almost invariably done by the children themselves. The same spirit of carefulness is displayed in the grants for repairs, the funds for such necessary matters as the repainting of school-buildings being, indeed, occasionally doled out on a scale that may be termed parsimonious. By far the largest portion of the Board's annual maintenance fund is absorbed by teachers' salaries, which accounts for about four-fifths of the Board's annual expenditure. Here, again, the margin of possible reduction is painfully narrow. The best paid master in the Board's service receives no more than £300 a year, without residence, while the number of teachers whose salary exceeds £150 amounts to no more than fourteen. The remuneration of the vast majority of the head-masters varies from £100 to £120 per annum, that of the head-mistresses ranging from £72 to £100. Any serious reduction in this scale of salaries would simply mean that, in future, the Board would have to rest content with the services of uncertificated and presumably inferior teachers, the present rate of remuneration being, in many instances, insufficient to command the services of certificated or competent teachers. 4. I should deprecate any alteration of the Syllabus at present on the following grounds : After much consideration, and after the opinions of the Inspectors and other competent advisers had been taken, the Syllabus was revised little more than two years ago, the amended regulations not having come into force, indeed, until January, 1886. It is better, on the whole, to put up with the inconsistencies and imperfections that admittedly exist in the present Syllabus than to be perpetually meddling with the school-course. The alleged grievances, of which so much has been made, do not appear to me to be so intolerable as to warrant a second change being made before the present regulations have had a fair trial. Once in five years is quite often enough to revise the work of the Syllabus. I have, &c, W. C. Hodgson, Inspector of Schools, Nelson and Marlborough. The Chairman of the Committee on Education, House of Representatives.

Mr. R. J. O'Sullivan to the Chairman, Education Committee. Sic,— Answer 1. I approve of raising the age. Answer 2. I am doubtful about this ; I am inclined to favour it. Answer 3. Doing away with Boards. Answer 4. I think the Syllabus, when judiciously dealt with, is not too much. R. J. O'Sullivan, James G. Wilson, Esq., M.H.R., Inspector of Schools. Chairman of Education Committee 4—l. 8.