The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1910. STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 743, 16 February 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1910. STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

■•.. The public,may be- beginning to feel that it has Had a surfeit of education conferences;' but' there, ..were . two questions. discussed yesterday, by, the: Conference; of School,. Inspectors which are bfsp much 'interest and. importance! that;' ; they 'cannot be' passed by.! without notice. ; The first .of. these arose.put...of, a,motion .by M£'Bakewell '.'that, the present five . classes of 'teachers' : certificates.be • re-. duced"—a motion designed to meet, the great 1 weakness of the "A" '• certificate, namely, the possibility- that a teacher of' 1 this grade may, .although he is -a .Master of Arts,' have' next to no knowledge of ; : English.-; The proper.study: of English is; in our,'; opinion,; the';, most'...,>important part of education. -The Inspectors could hardly find a better object for' their championship. The second important question dealt with,, and the , one to. whicfy we .wish particularly to refer, concerns, the. principle .that should guide the State in prescribing the; limits'of .'eligibility,'for. Junior ,:National Scholarships. ■''. -'. '.These : scholarships.-.,are at present, \under ' the EducatiPn Act of 1908; open onlyto the pupils; of Board schools.. Mb.' Mtjlqan moved'that; subject to the' other restrictions'; in the Act,; they be', i made., open, to: pupils .from "all ) : schools": which have been, subject to ; inspection under the Education Act ■;- for'three, years ■immediately preceding the date-of the'scholarship, ex-: '■ .amiriation.'',..'.,'.;^Y..':.;-'-' : ;- : , , Tho .discussion at once took" the'. ' shape ,;of .a consideration of, the claims'' of ,the : inspected '..Komari. ' Catholic Schools to participation ; in the benefits of:the scholarships, and ■ it ; is satisfactory, to note, that .the motion was carried; after an almost unanimous, endorsement of its principle; \; Our. Catholic friends, have for many years maintained at their own . cost a considerable number of'good ■. primary schools for the education of their; children,, and as citizens,they have'.'in'.addition, contributed their, - share, of'the general .'cost of.' the - .:State schools. , There'.is-manifestly- * ...no reason.; why,';if these .schools- are c inspected like the\ State' schools, - the ■ pupils attending them should not be " : 'eligible .for the scholarships.' ;• The .point is really finally disposed of in , M.n.- Stewart's, statement that "he could hot see that; a class in the com- - munity which was taxed. for educai, tion, whether it was Eoman Catholic or any. other,. should be debarred from: competing, -.-for; the schblari ships." The argument here. is so ",- sound and'final that-we are quite at a ; ;loss .to understand the point 1 of view of the Hawke's Bay Inspector, - .Me.'Hill, ;whb. asked the conference 7; to adopt;',!the"principle that' State '' benefits:in ; education should not pass j_ beyond the-gates of the State insti- ■'.■ tutions." \So far as: the Catholic •■■■ schools are their, separa- "\ tion from-the State is surely not an . argument for thepenalising l of those ; .whosupporMhem, but rather an j. extra reason why' the State whict ■ they relieve, should be glad ""' them to- send up candidates for the ' national scholarships. ' Pursued tc its full logical ; conclusion, Me ;, Hill's principle would shut the '■' doors of the University, against the ■ boys from St. Patrick's College, arid, indeed, place-all private denominational education;,: Catholic and other, under "a ban. That would obviously be ah intolerable oppres- ;•' sionl; 'V ; ;''V •.•■•'"-.: ~:■'/ .---V■. ■'•..'.'.-■■' The real difficulty, commences when 5, one comes to the choice of the second; ''•■' ary school at ■ which a' scholarship' holder is to receive his instruction; - Under, the Act a junior- scholar must , ; prosecute hia studies "at a secondary school or its equivalent approved of iby: the Board and the Minister.'.' ;" Whether a private and denomina■jj tional secondary school would, or ih could, receive the necessary approval jg under tho Act-as it stands ; is ver,y uncertain. Legislation could.easily , .ovorepme any difficulty on this.point of interpretation, but a fresh. diffi- /■■'. culfcy would arise forthwith. Fen-, , although there can be no suggestion Y, that there is any shadow of subsidising a. denomination in the bqrc == justice of placing inspected Catholic 18. schools on the same footing- as Board —: schools in granting the scholarships, there may bo ground for - holding m- that \if the State pays tho fees ,for $}•■ a scholar who attends a Catholic ato secondary school it is thereby in a ine manner subsidising that schools j"\Ye af *j j incline to think, however, thatjthe m * State may very well consider that it ' , ' ■■'!.'".

is none of its business whether or' not any particular secondary school is a denominational one provided that it is held to supply the instruction that is the whole intention of the scholarship scheme. One can readily perceive that there would be no room for complaint if, all the leading denominations, maintaining good secondary schools of their own, the State were to allow scholarship-hold-ers to .attach themselves to any schools they chose.•■■■ It is not the fault of-the Catholics that the actual circumstances are otherwise:.' the other denominations can establish tueir own. secondary: schools if! they choose to do.so. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard supplies the principle that may very well govern the.settlement of what is ad-i mittedly a rather troublesome question—the principle that/neglected opportunities, leading, to unequal conditions, do not establish a ■grievance. ■!■ •■,-.. -.■';.■■:.