LETTERS TO THE EDITON

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2895, 6 October 1916, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITON

RE EDUCATION SYSTEM Sir,—l see with great interest in yotu? issue of this morning some opinions of business hien with regard to proposals mado by a sub-committee of tho Wellington Technical' Education Board. There are two or three points in the proposals which appear to have escaped tho notice of critics. Tho report of the sub-committee doce not suggest a two years' compulsorycourse in secondary or technical schoof. —it suggests a three years' course, beginning at the age of twelve years; The character of such a course must, obviously be different from that taken, by pupils leaving the primary schools at 14.years of age. In that the courso must be adapted to tho needs of-pupils of Fourth or Fifth Standard attainment, it must be largely elementary,, but, in that it will be designed to be preparatory to and continuous with th<* higher courses, whether in secondary or technical schools, it will bo different in. character from the ordinary Fourth and! Sixth Standard work of the primaryschools. How far it will be different ■in character will depend on the senior courses, whether. secondary, technical high, or evening and parttime technical, for which it forms a preparation,,' The intermediate compulsory course,, between primary and secondary, should, in tho opinion of the sub-committee, bo> of the most elastic and diversified! character.. ' "

It is well'known that in most civilised countries study of a number of subjects of secondary, education 'is begun by pupils long before the age of fourteen. The secondary schools in New Zealand have long been asking for their pupfls to enter at an earlier age; and, in fact,; the average ago of passing students, through the Sixth Standard .has been: gradually lowered, more by the direct policy, of the Education Department?than by tho earlier ripening of thei pupil.

.: In attempting to formulate a working scheme the sub-committee assumed, oil very strong grounds, that no pupiL should remain in any school less than three years. This was taken as the minimum period in which the full benefits of a course could be realised, and as the shortest time of attendance by individual pupils which would allow o£ the development of a definite school atmosphere and tradition and a. permanent impress of the spirit and tradition; of the school on its pupils; two processes. of fundamental importance in. education. It was recognised by the sub-commit-tco that it is impossible to raise by : much the compulsory school ago. The committee therefore took a period of nine years as tbe normal period of! compulsory education, and divided the nine years into three school periods, as. follows:—Up to tho age of nine, infant school period; between nine and twelve elementary school period, between twelve and fifteen intermediate school period. • . Thin raises the compulsory age by the. minimum possible period of one year. A kindergarten period of three years, from three to six years of age, takes its natural place below the infant school period. It is perhaps not out of placo tomention that the kind of division recommended by the sub-committeo is one that is .strongly supported by' many, educationists iu America and England,' and has had,-practically, an extensive tr J.out. in the preparatory, lower school, and higher school courses token bv public school boys in England for many years. . ' » Tho proposals would'also largely obHate, in a perfectly natural way, the. difficulty which we find emphasised every year in the reports of secondary and technical high schools in New Zealandthat free place holders-do not rcm?,inJoDg enough in these schools,, on the average, •to benefit materially by _their attendance. The committeo put forward this scheme in the belief that its directness and simplicity, and tho considerable strength of the foundations on which, it i 8 based, would make it at any rato a useful basis of argument in ttic discission of the many complicated problems of great inherent difficulty which beset the educationist.

Jn regard to the question of-delaying tho entrance of boys into the practical branches of their future callings, the cogency of many of tho arguments used may readily bo admitted. No ono should believe that all boys can bo taught their trado in a technical school. Thero aro trades in which, perhaps, it is possible, but they aro few' at present in this country. And .even if it be possible, it is certainly not desirable. It is probably more desirable that they should in many cases receive . their technical school training in tho workshops. ' This, however, does not quite touch' tho main which is that of the best age of admission to workshops. This best age, I take it, must vary according to the circumstances of the trade, and the aims and ambitions of the individual.

However, in a recent investigation in. the State of lowa, it was found that, among 401,130 workers in 65 of'the leading industries of the State, there were only 249 boys and 76 girls under 16 years of age; and the employers, not the school system, were the cause of there being so few. They had come to the conclusion that' an employee under 16 years of age was not an '"industrial asset." This is "some" argument—as bur American cousins would say.—l am, etc., _ W. S. LA TROBE, Secretary to the Sub-committee. ■ October 5, 1916.