FREE SECONDARY EDUCATION.

New Zealand Illustrated Magazine, Volume VII, Issue 6, 1 March 1903, Page 474

FREE SECONDARY EDUCATION.

WE anything concerns the women ||l of New Zealand, the question irj now before the public of the ?\ colony certainly does. It is a question of paramount importance to the mother who has ambittions for her children, and who yet finds herself unable to realize those •dreams. If, as he intends to try, Mr Seddon finds himself successful in carrying through his scheme for free secondary education, he will have earned the gratitude of every good mother in the colony.

case, that opportunities may be put in the way of her boys and girls, is a natural ambition of the mother. Now, it very often happens that, while deeply impressed with, the advantages of a thorough school education, the head of the family cannot easily see her way clear to carry out her desires. The other children have to be fed and clothed, and fees at a High School for the eldest become, in many cases, an impossibility. Or again, in the ordinary family, ages are so close that even if the fees for one child

It is, an inborn instinct that the parent shall deny herself in order that her children may have all possible advantages. Whether this is altruism or selfishness is not quite decided. Granting the former — it is yet a matter of more than doubt Avhether self-sacrifice on the part of the mother is altogether for the good of the children. But, in any

can be squeezed from the family income, another child has passed his standards at a primary school, and there is not enough to pay for his secondary education. He must either wait or seek employment. And it is rarely the case that, having once left school, a boy or girl will ever again seriously become fond of study.

It seems perfectly necessary that for studies to have good effect, they should be carried on without intermission. But the crux of the whole question is money.

There is another aspect to the matter which concerns girls and women more than it does men. Mr Seddon has touched upon it, in

answering the objection urged by some secondary schools that they have no room for an influx of primary school pupils. " Oiro," hi says, " should go the children of tender years whose parents look down on those who send their children to public schools." If there is one thing more detestable, and at the same time ridiculous, in such a community as that of New Zealand, it is the rank snobbery exhibited by girls who seem to acquire it while, and by virtue of, attending a school where fees are paid. T have known girls, who have won scholarships which will take them to the secondary school. They have been apparently nice-natured girls. But after a few months of secondary school they seem to lose their eyesight when quondam teachers and pupils of the primary school meet them in the street. The next step is contempt for their simple parents, their father's occupations become professions, or if this is impossible, are carefully hidden from the knowledge of other snobbish friends.

Now the Premier's; ideas on the subject are most praiseworthy. He

is essentially a democrat, and does not attempt to disguise the fact. What good are young children doing at a secondary school ? Far better to teach them the elements soundly, as they can be taught in the common Board school. Secondary schools should 'be only for secondary work. Primary education is attended to in its proper place. It is my honest opinion that if every child of the colony were taken through the Government primary schools, the average education would be on a higher footing. For what is learnt there is quite sufficient to implant, in likely soil, a desire for the so-called higher education. When standard classes are done with, let the bright boys and girls go, if they so wish, to the High School, and from there to the University. What happens now ? George or Mary attends a secondary school for a year. After such a course of honour, parents cannot dream of letting 1 him or her earn a living as a common carpenter or dressmaker. No. George must keep equal to his genteel acquaintances. If he cannot, through lack of means, be allowed to study for a profession, he

must sit on an office stool and become the well-dressed, ill-paid clerk. Mary's dreams never condescend to the level of common housework. She must, if she is forced to earn a living, unwillingly teach, or spoil hay eyes and nerves

over a typewriter. Thus the weary struggle with Sham, commenced at the secondary school, follows the child into manhood or womanhood. And the clever girl, whose mother goes out washing that her girl may get through her standards, is shut

gence. There are so many anxious parents who will wish, if the scheme is carried, to avail themselves of the opportunity. A great many children have not the least desire for more knowledge. It should be made compulsory to have genuinely true reports so that those who honestly are not availing themselves of opportunities may be sent away to give place to really deserving scholars. If something of the kind is done, there will, undoubtedly, be heartburning for many a mother, but in the main issue, which is the weal of the nation, there will be no doubt as to the result.

off from all opportunity of gratifying a wish for education that would probably do her much real good. Even if her mind still sees the common sense of taking pleasure in work at home, the educated girl lias lost nothing by her education. Her intelligence is all the better fitted to cope with the domestic work which her more ignorant forbears have made slavery of. It is the educated girl in whose hands lies the solution of the domestic service question. Why then should not the child of the poorest parents have given the opportunity to cultivate her intelligence ? Why should the dull child of moneyed parents waste the time of teachers and live; a life of weariness just because "• it is the thing " to send girls to a secondary school ?

The Premier is right. Parents who now pay fees can, in most cases, afford to pay much higher ones. Let them, if they do not care for the association of their children with poorer ones, give help to the many " select " private schools which struggle on badly in the competition with the large colleges. There is still a point to claim attention. This is the matter of dili-

" F. J.H." sends the following on " Superstition in Woman " : — Considering all we hear as to the enlightenment of the age, and the progress of women, it is strange what hold silly, trivial superstitions still have over many women otherwise sensible. Many hold peacock's feathers in horror as unlucky, and would not for the world employ these for decorations. I am constantly finding out that this, that and the other is decreed " unlucky " by some female acquaintance whom I had hitherto looked

on as a rational being-. One ladylooks on it as terribly unlucky to prepare the short clothes of an infant before it requires them, and apparently took the death of the

baby of a friend as the direct result of its clothes having been prematurely made. Another will on no account employ black pins for any purpose. No doubt all of these would be made miserable by any thing in the light of a portent or warning. Such beliefs imply a total incapacity to reason from cause io effect. They must add much to the burdens of life, and to those not sharing them, they seem wholly inconsistent with a' belief in a Providence ruling the world. But arguments are to no purpose. " How can you believe that a fan of peacock's feathers placed in the draw-ing-room caused your neighbour's child to sicken and die of typhoid fever V you may ask. Your friend will not attempt to explain how ;

she only assures you that the fan did cause the calamity, or at all events had something to do with it ; because the child became ill soon after the feathers were brought out, and she has known of other instances of peacock's feathers causing ill-luck.. No wonder that Dowies, Worthingtons, and a crowd of faithhealers, fortune-tellers and other imposters reap a rich harvest from the credulity of the masses ! The old ungallant idea was that reason belonged to man alone — woman was briefly defined by one masculine censor as "a creature that cannot reason and that pokes the fire from the top !" Do not women often try their best to justify this prejudice ?