THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1902. THE COST OF STATE EDUCATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 46, 13 November 1902, Page 16

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1902. THE COST OF STATE EDUCATION.

N glancing through the election speeches which are being poured forth on the electors at the present time, we notice that one subject crops up very frequently. The question to which we refei is ' Free education from the primary schools to the University.' The aspirants for parliamentary honors either state their views on this subject in the course of their speeches, or are asked to state them by a question from the audience, and answer almost invariably that they are in favour of ' Free education from the primary schools to the University.' This is a most important proposition, which if adopted would materially increase the cost of education in the Colony and proportionately affect the working man, out of whose pockets through taxation must come most of the money required. We propose in the course of this article to give some pertinent facts and figures which will show that even at present the working man has to bear an educational burden out of all proportion to the advantages he receives, and if, as is proposed, the vote for ' free education ' be increased by some tens of thousands of pounds, his burden will become almost unbearable, while his advantages will remain much as they are at present. * From the statistics of New Zealand, we learn that in December, 1900, a total of 130,724 children were attending the public primary schools of the Colony. The expenditure on their education in the same year was £490,378 2s. 2d., or something like £3 15s. for each pupil ; or, if we reckon on the average attendance, which was 110,092, on which payment was made, we find that it cost the Colony £4 9s. lOd. to educate each child in the State schools. From the same source we learn that there are close on 75,000 children attending the primary State schools of the ages of eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve years. After twelve the attendance shows a very remarkable and significant falling-off, so that only 10,641 remain at school to the age of fourteen, only 5558 to fifteen, and only 2665 pass their fifteenth

year at school. This table proves decidedly that the vast majority of the children do not remain at school to take advantage of the education given, the reason being that the great majority of parents are not in a position to allow their children remain on at school when they come to the age that they can find employment, and thereby help to earn their own living. We may also state that the more advanced the class the greater the expense in providing instruction, as teachers of advanced classes receive large salaries and the accommodation for such classes is on a proportionately more elaborate scale. We take it, therefore, that it costs the Colony more to provide instruction for the 2665 children whose parents can afford to leave them at school up to and after tne age of fifteen than it does to provide instruction for 15,000 children of twelve years of age. Yet the parents of the latter, whose circumstances do not allow them to leave their children at school, are compelled by our system to pay for the tuition of those whose parents are in a position to leave them at school, and are also presumably better able to pay for extra tuition. Here we see that even in our primary scheols an absolute injustice is done to the working classes in compelling them to pay for a system of education of which their circumstances will not allow them to take advantage.

The injustice of our educational system to our poorer citizens may be seen still more^clearly by a look at our High Schools, the class of students who attend them, and the expense to the Colony of their up-keep. The returns show that at the end of the year 1900, there were 2792 pupils at the State High Schools of the Colony. There was expended during that year on the education of these pupils £76,561 7s, a fraction over £27 15s 7d per pupil. The direct fees received during the same year from the pupils amounted to £31,067 4s 9d, which left £45,494 2s 3d to be made up by the State or about £16 5s per pupil. Here we have the State paying about four pounds for the education of the child of the average working man, while it pays over £16 a /ear, or four times as much for the education of the child of its richer citizen, and the working man is compelled to pay more than his due proportion to this educational tax. This is ' Free Education ' with a vengeance, which costs twenty seven pounds per pupil — sixteen of it borne by the State. And our would-be law-makers are not yet satisfied, they are very anx ous that the working men should present their richer neighbors with this £16, or in other word^ that the Colony bear the further burden of £31,067 4s 9d, so that its richest citizens should have their children educated at the expense of the poorer classes.

"We know it will be argued that this sum which goes to the support of the high schools does not come out of the taxpayers 1 pockets, that it comes from educational endowments. It does not matter from what source it comes, what is the property of the people is the property of the poorest as much as the richest citizen, and the educational endowments are the property of the people, therefore it is only a question of which pocket the money is taken out of — the right or the left. Yes, it is more, it is here a question of taking money out of the pocket of the poor man and putting it in the pocket of the rich. We contend that the word ' Free ' is a misnomer when applied to our educational system, where education costs as much — probably more — than in any other part of the world. We have also shown how unjust is this tax on the poor man, who is compelled to pay dearly for the education of his own children, and when uo longer in a position to keep them at school, is still forced to pay yet more dearly for the education of the children of his well-to-do neighbours. Yet such is the effect of the fine-sounding phrase ' Free education ' that the workers of the Colony continue willingly to bear their unjust burden, and seem only anxious to have it increased. They say, 'We are not only willing to have the S xth and Seventh Standards free, to which a few _of our children may go, but we are willing to present to our richer neighbors a free secondary course, through which one or two of the more favored oues from our own ranks may pnss. This docs not even exhaust our generosity, as we are willing to present you with a free university practically for the use of your children alone.' In other words, the workers of the Colony are willing to tax themselves to the extent of many thousands sterling ptr annum that they may

help to educate the children of the wealthy classes. But if the system i 3 unjust to those who can take some advantage of it, what shall we say in regard to those who cannot conscientiously make use of it. We refer to the Catholics of the Colony. The Government statistics for 1900 tell us that at the end of that ye»r there were 10,687 children attending the Catholic Bchools of New Zealand, for whose education the Colony was not paying one penny. This means that according to the scale of charges in the public schools the Catholic body was being robbed (we cannot use a milder expression) of £48,000 annually, which amount, Urge though it is, does not represent our whole loss, as many of our children are receiving a secondary education, which in the State schools costs about £16 for each pupil. We feel we are within the limit when we say that the present system of education robs the Catholic body of £60,000 a year. And our legislators are not yet satisfied ; they are keenly desirous to increase the burden, and, like Roboaju, they answer our petitions to lighten it : 'My father put a heavy yoke upon you, bat I will add to your your yoke ; my father beat you with whips, but 1 will beat you with scorpions.'

The people of the Colony, as far as this question of education is concerned, may be compared to a vast co-opera-tive association. This association has to obtain an article namely, a certain standard of education — for which it has to pay a certain price. Two subordinate firms, the one the public schools, the other the private schools, have undertaken to supply that article ; the members of these supplying firms are also members of the purchasing association, therefore equally interested in the article supplied and the price paid. In justice, then, it should make no difference which firm supplied the article. The buyers should not discriminate ; equal price should be paid for equal value. What would be said of a similar association where the majority of its members ased their power to crush the firm represented by the minority, even when they knew that this minority had conscientious objections to deal with the firm represented by the majority, but were supplying and were willing to continue supplying equally as good an article. Snch action could only be described as tyrannical and unjust, yet this is how the State treats its Catholic members. It compels them to pay for an article which it knows they cannot use, and in addition it places on them the burden of providing themselves with the similar article obtained from a different source. Such is our present educational system. «Jb is unjust to the poor man, who cannot take advantage of it to the extent that he is compelled to contribute to it. It is unjust and tyrannical on the Catholics, as it compels them to pay for an article which they cannot ase, and, in addition, places on them the burden of supplying an article of equal value to the State, which they can use.