Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 68

The Education Debate

page break

The Education Debate

The following verbatim report of the Education debate in the House of Representatives is reprinted from Hansard.

Consolidated Fund.

Class V.—Education.

Vote, £360,624.

Mr. Fisher.—As this vote relates to a very large and important question, in which the people of the colony generally feel a keen interest, I desire to express the hope that the discussion upon which we are about to enter may be approached in an impartial and dispassionate spirit. In order to eliminate from the discussion one contentious element, I desire to explain, with regard to the Order in Council to which such frequent reference has been made, that that Order was issued as an answer to hundreds of applications for information forwarded by every educational institution and every educational authority in the colony. No step has been taken, and no step is proposed to be taken, under that Order, until this House, by its vote, shall have expressed its decision on the whole question. Having given that explanation, I hope the House will eliminate from the discussion any discordant feeling which may have arisen in consequence of the issue of the Order in Council. Now, I desire to place the proposals of the Government before the Committee in the plainest possible form; and I may explain that the discussion is taken in Committee in preference to being taken in the House for the reason that it will give members an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the specific points raised in a way in which they could not have been expressed in a restricted debate in the House. I shall explain to the Committee in short form what the proposals of the Government arc, and It will ask honourable gentlemen to make a note of each proposal as I proceed, for that will facilitate the discussion upon the several points, and will avoid frequent requests for information upon those points as the discussion advances. The proposals, then, are these: By raising the school-age to six we anticipate that a reduction of about 8 per cent, on the total educational expenditure would result. We should save, say, from £26,000 to £30,000. We can only put it approximately, because there is a difficulty, as honourable members are aware, in ascertaining the exact number of children under six attending the schools. That is the first proposal. The second proposal is to take away the 4s. capitation at present paid, which will mean a further saving of about £16,000. The late Government, it will be remembered, had already taken Is., and we propose to take the other 4s. That means a further reduction of £16,000. The third proposal is to substitute the principle of "strict average" for the principle of "working average" in making out the returns. That change, I anticipate, will result in a further saving of £8,000. The fourth proposal is not to renew the vote of £8,000 for the training of teachers which appears annually on the estimates. That is the vote for the maintenance of the training colleges, or normal schools as they are called, in the different education districts. Having thus clearly placed the proposals of the Government before the Committee, we propose to give the Committee an opportunity of voting separately upon each. To give that opportunity any member of the Committee on either side of the House may submit a proposal to reduce the total vote by £5. the first discussion will be taken on the question of raising the school-age; and, if a resolution to reduce the vote by £5 is carried, that will be accepted as indicating the decision of the Committee that the school-age is not to be raised. Then the Committee will be invited to make a second and further reduction of £5 on the total vote, and if that is carried the resolution will be taken to mean that the capitation of 4s. is not to be withdrawn.

An Hon. Member.—How can we show that we wish a shilling taken off each year?

Mr. Fisher.—We do not propose a gradual reduction at all. If the Committee desires the reduction to be gradual, there will be no dilfi- page 6 culty in making that clear by a subsequent distinct proposal to that effect we shall have no difficulty in dealing with that point when we reach it. Next, if the Committee objects to the substitution of the principle of "strict average" for "working average," it will carry a resolution for a further reduction of £5. As to the fourth proposal, if the Committee objects to the abolition of the training colleges, it will reduce the total vote by a further sum of £5. Thus there are marked out four distinct stages. I propose that the discussion shall, so far as is possible, be restricted to the consideration of the particular questions in the order in which I have named them. I make these suggestions in the interests of the Committee itself, because the Committee will better understand while discussing one subject that the others have to come on in the order in which they will be put.

Mr. W. P. Reeves said it was understood that, if the school-ago were raised to six years, certain provision would be made to prevent the change falling heavily on country schools.

Mr. Fisher.—I will explain all that in due course. With regard to the question of raising the school-age, possibly many honourable members have not yet had an opportunity of reading the evidence given before the Education Committee. I do not propose to read any of that evidence, or even to discuss it, but I propose to put before the Committee the net results of the investigations of that Committee as far as they have gone, and I shall state briefly the opinions of some most experienced men—gentlemen of high educational standing in this colony—who have forwarded to the Education Committee their opinions generally upon the subject of education the answers given by experts in regard to the question of raising the school-age to six numbered thirty-nine. Of the thirty-nine, twenty were in favour of raising the school-age, sixteen were against it, and three offered no opinion at all. Of course it is fair to analyse these opinions, and it is fait also to say that, while twenty witnesses, principally School Inspectors, were in favour of the age being raised, the sixteen against are mainly gentlemen interested in the maintenance of the system as it is. I should mention that all these gentlemen have given opinions upon other questions submitted to them by the Education Committee, and, as their opinions, being the opinions of experts, are interesting and valuable, I presume I need make no apology for placing them before the House. In addition to being interesting and valuable, they also show how diversified are the views of those best qualified to express opinions upon the question how and in what manner retrenchment should be effected. The names of the witnesses, their opinions, and their educational standing are as follow:—

page 7

Name of Person or Hoard. Ah to raisins School-to Six Years. Ah to Payment of Fees for high or Standards. In favour of *Mr. Hodson, Insp., Nelson and Marlb. Yes ... Yos *Mr. O'Sullivan, Insp., Auckland Yes ... Yes *Mr. Smith, Insp., Wostland ... ... Yes ... No; special rate †Mr. McDonald, Waitaki Br. Ed. In.,Otago ... No Yes Mr. Gibson, Grad. Lond. Univ., Taran. Yes ... Yes Dr. Brown, Chairman Ed. Board, Otago Yes ... No *Mr. Hogben, Insp., North Canterbury Yes ... No Mr. Wood, Insp., Cliristchurch ... ... No No *Mr. Fidler, Insp., Auckland ... ... Yes ... Yes, for Standards V. and VI. *Mr. Murray, Insp.. New Plymouth ... Yes ... Yes Mr. Anderson, Insp., North Canterbury ... No No *Mr. Petrie, Insp., Naseby ... ... Yes ... No *Mr. Robinson, Greymouth ... ... Yes ... Uncertain *Mr. Gammell, B.A., Southland ... Yes ... No Mr. Smith, Sec., Ed. Board, Hokitika ... ... No No Mr. Voale, Ed. Board. Taranaki ... Yes ... On all if on any Mr. Brown, Sec., Ed. Board, Wanganui Yes, in popu-... lous districts †Mr. Whitelaw, Hon. Sec., Taranaki ... No Small fee above Teachers' Inst. Stand. IV. †Mr. Just, Hon. Sec., N. Cant. Teach. Inst. ... No No †Mr. Purdie, Sec., Wellington Ed. Inst. ... No No †Mr. White, Pres., Otago Ed. Inst. ... ... No No †Mr. Cowles, Hon. Sec., Nelson Dist. ... No Above Stand. IV. Teach. Association Scholarships to be provided Mr. C. Hulke, Newtown, Wellington ... Yes ... No Mr. Pryde, Sec.. Ed. Office, Dunedin ... Will not state ... No Mr. Hain, Hon. Sec., Southland Ed. Inst. Yes ... Not stated †Mr. Aitken, Pres., S. Cant. Ed. Inst. ... ... No No Mr. Neill, Sec., Ed. Board, Southland... ... No No †Mr. Murdoch, Hon. Sec., Canterbury ... No No Midland Branch Mr. Kelly, Chairman, Ed. Bd., N. Plym. Not given ... Not given *Mr. Taylor, Insp., Dunedin ... ... Yes ... Only Stand. VI. Mr. P. Goyen, Ed. Office, Dunedin ... ... No No †Mr. Matheson, Sec., Wanganui Branch ... No No Ed. Inst. Mr. Rico, Sec., Ed. Board, Auckland ... Yes ... No Rev. W. Tebbs, Auckland ... ... Yes ... Yes Rev. G. Barclay, Timaru ... ... ... No Not given Mr. Worthington, Wellesl. Str. Sch., Au. Not given ... Not given Mr. Mowbray, Wellington ... ... ... No Yes Mr. Stead-Ellis, Sec., Ed. Office, Nelson Yes ... Yes, over St. VI. *Mr. Goodwin, Insp., Auckland ... Yes No Suggestions for Retrenchment. Cannot suggest. Doing away with Hoards. Sweep away Hoards and Committees. Abolish Boards. Reduce number of Inspectors; make them inspect only. Abolish either Boards or Committees. General reductions in salaries, bonuses, grants to Committees. Abolish Boards. Fewer Inspectors. Enlarge districts. Larger classes for teachers. Reorganize classes. Reduce number of subjects in smaller schools. Abolish Boards. Reduce salaries over £150. Country Committees to have larger districts, each Committee to have charge of several schools. Abolish Committees and Boards. Reduce numbers of members. Advertise in Gazette. Inspection and examinations to be done by department; salaries on fixed scale. Abolish Boards. Equalise districts. Local contributions to buildings. School-buildings to be a burden on reserves. Change in duties of Insp.; place under Dept. Districts to bear part cost of buildings. Abolish Hoards and limit powers of Committees. Not stated. Small rate, not to exceed Is. per child. No suggestion. No suggestion. Inspectors and teachers to be under department. Uniform rates of salaries. Plans of buildings to be made by a central architect. Percentage reduction on grants for primary, secondary, and higher education, and general cost of working Act. Reduce capitation-grant. Reduce vote for school-buildings. No school-books at Government expense. "Teas" and prizes not to be provided by Government. Abolish schools for separate sexes in country districts. No grants to secondary schools. Fix rate of maximum expenditure per scholar in small schools. Abolish training-schools. Place Inspectors under the department. Not given. Combine small schools. Reduce grants. Abolish Committees. Smaller districts to Boards. Local rate for buildings. Elective Boards. Inspectors under department. Abolish present capitation-grant. Make fresh regulations for salaries, Parliament to vote sums for scholarships. Enlarge school districts. Place teachers on Civil Service list, with colonial scale of salaries. Abolish Hoards and Committees, and make Education Department do the work. School-buildings to be partly paid for by districts. Not given. Reduce Hoards. No allowance to Committees. No State aid to secondary schools and colleges. Inspectors to be under Dept. Abolish scholarships and district high schools. Teachers to examine and classify scholars in Standards I. to IV.; Inspectors, V. and VI. Reduce capitation allowance on children under seven and over thirteen. Merge all reserves into reserves for primary educ. Dispense with High School Boards. Make savings in salaries of stall". Reduce capitation-grant. Discourage small schools. None given. None given. * School Inspectors—in favour of. † School Teachers' Associations—against.

page 8

Now, Sir, in discussing the question of raising the school-age it has to be remembered that the children enter the school at five years, and, as a rule, they pass the First Standard at about nine years. Therefore the Question which the country as well as this Committee has to consider is this: Is the country in a position to pay for a period of four years £4 a head for somewhere between forty and fifty thousand children while they are passing through a number of infantile exercises which do not advance them very much in any proper scholastic sense? I think it a sufficient demand upon the resources of the country that it should be asked to begin to pay this £4 a head at six years of ago. We have the opinion of Dr. Brown, Chairman of the Otago Education Board, that it is positively injurious to the physical system of the children that they should be sent to school at this early age; but, he says, being Chairman of an Education Board, "we are interested in getting them into the schools for the purpose of obtaining the funds. Therefore," he says, "I do not speak so strongly as I otherwise would about the necessity of keeping these children from the schools." That is refreshingly candid. One sees plainly that, while these gentlemen—medical men as well as educational experts—hold these rigid opinions in regard to the necessity of preserving the physical systems of the children, their view is modified or altogether obliterated by the other consideration that the Boards want the money which the presence of these children produces. I come now to the point raised by the honourable member for Nelson. He wishes to know whether we intend to carry out the proposal that a pupil who has passed the Sixth Standard shall not continue to be educated at the public expense. I may say that I was not aware, until I assumed the office of Minister of Education, that there was a Seventh Standard taught in the public schools. The common impression throughout the country is that the standards end at Standard VI.; but the Education Report for the year shows that there are 1,667 pupils in the public schools who are in a Seventh Standard, and that the cost to the country of their education in that standard is about £7,000. It is therefore a question for Parliament to consider, whether these pupils should obtain this higher education gratuitously and at the cost of the country. I hold that it was never intended they should. Why, I have learned from reading some Inspectors' reports that the headmasters of certain schools are not engaged in teaching Standards I., II., III., IV., V., or VI. They are exclusively engaged in teaching Standard VII., while the rest of the school is neglected. Now, I am quite aware that, in connection with the education of children of tender years, the kindergarten system is highly approved by men like Professor Huxley and Matthew Arnold, and I should like to see some such system introduced into this country. And while speaking upon this branch of the subject I should like to mention that, while I am not in favour of denominational education, it is a singular thing that one religious body—the Anglican Synod of Auckland—should be in a position to offer to educate all our children of tender years at a cost of 30s. per head per annum. Now, if that can be done, is it right that we should be asked to pay £4 per head per annum for children five years of age? I think this is the proper place to mention, in connection with this proposal to raise the school-age, that the Government give an undertaking that no country school shall be closed in consequence of the adoption of this proposal, should it be carried. We give that distinct undertaking. The Government will provide whatever money may be necessary: but, at the same time, I think the expense of these schools might be very considerably reduced if female teachers were appointed, as is the case in many other countries. I do not think it at all necessary to employ high-class teachers for the work of going through the infantile training of these young children. Now I have said all I have to say in regard to the first of our proposals. I come now to the second: the proposed reduction of 4s. in the capitation. In discussing this, or any other proposal which touches the cost of the education system, I hold that Parliament is bound, as a matter of right, to take into consideration that large proportion—one-seventh of the population—who labour under a serious & advantage because they are unable to avail themselves of our educational system. It is our duty to make that disadvantage as lights possible by reducing the cost so long as we take care not to weaken or lessen the efficiency of the system. That is the point which I have to urge in regard to the necessity for making reductions. Common justice demands that we should have some regard for the feelings of that large section of the community who, on conscientious grounds, object to avail themselves of our education system, and who object to the high rate of expenditure incurred in keeping it up. That is the position. On the one hand stand a large and important section of the community who quite rightfully demand that the cost of the educational system, from which they derive no benefit, shall be minimised. On the other hand stand a great and influential scholastic guild who regard education, and the education system, as a fetish to which aught else should be sacrificed. But, Sir, above and beyond all this, we have to consider the interests of the taxpayer as a whole. It will be the aim and object of this Government, as much as it was the aim and object of any Government which preceded it, to maintain the efficiency of the education system; but at the same time I say that, taking into consideration the financial condition of the country, we are bound to see whether any reductions can be made without weakening or breaking down the system. We say such reductions can be made. I hear an honourable member, in an undertone, say, "Show us how this can be done." In answer page 9 to that, I say that it hardly devolves upon the Government now to show how that can be done, for it has already been done by several Education Boards in the colony. The Hawke's Bay Education Board has frequently made known its willingness and its ability to carry on the education system at a less amount than the sum now voted. The Auckland Education Board has also frequently discussed the question of making reductions; and on a recent occasion it voluntarily showed a reduction in its expenses to the extent of £1,000. But there is a Board in the colony, the name of which I do not care to give, which shows, by its own estimates, that on its ordinary maintenance account it will have in December, 1887—at the end of the present year—a surplus balance of £5,601 13s. 4d. Indeed, the difficulty with some Boards has been how to spend their surplus money, and some of them have spent it in a manner similar to the manner mentioned by the honourable member for Dunedin South a few evenings ago, in his reference to the expenditure on high-school buildings in Dunedin.

Mr. Dodson.—Will the Minister give us the name of the Board?

Mr. Fisher.—I would rather not give the name of the Board, but I will give the name of another Board which has taken up a very creditable position. It is the case of the Otago Education Board, which has voluntarily offered to meet the exigencies of the country by reducing its expenditure by a sum of nearly £9,000 a year. Now, this proposal of the Otago Education Board is to be found fully explained in the Otago Daily Times of the 18th November last, in which paper will be found a very able speech by Dr. Brown, the Chairman of the Board, from which I take this businesslike sentence:—

"The total estimated reduction, calculated on these lines, would come to between £8,500 and £9,000, giving a fair margin over the estimated loss of revenue."

In connection with this subject I may be permitted to read a letter which I subsequently received from a member of the Board, who says,—