THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 86, 4 January 1918, Page 6

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS

Sir—From year to year the Now Zealand Educational Institute takes advantage of the opportunity afforded it to "have its say" on what it is pleased to call the' sectarian question. I beg your indulgence to let mo give an emphatic denial to the statements and insinuations made by tho institute in regard to the establishment of denominational schools. The institute views the church school as an agency founded expressly "to import all the evils of sectarian differenco and to sow strife and dissension among a united nation." I can only characterise this view as a groundless 'prejudice. It betrays a hopeless ignorance on the part of the critic (whose utterances are supposed to represent tho opinions of the majority of members of the institute) of tho objects expressly stated by tho inauguration of church schools in this country, and ovinccs cither a still more woeful lack of knowledge or a malicious misrepresentation of the management of', the numerous church schools already existent. No impartial observer can deny that tlicso schools have'set about and so far have carried out their work iu a spirit of broad toleration with tho definite aim of producing efficient, purposeful, tolerant, and patriotic citizens. No 0110 has a right to make tho bald statement without giving facts to substantiate it that one particular section of tho community is either knowingly or unwittingly pursuing aims which are contrary to the national welfare.

It. is difficult to see what the institute's attitude really is. Tlio church school is, in fact, only a day school and Sunday school combined, and if the institute finds the religion taught in these schools so obnoxious it can obviously have little love for the Sunday school. Reference has been made to so-called opportunities for roligious instruction in th<! public schools. Will the institute deny that in hundreds of cases school 1 committees have refused to allow religious bodies the reasonable use of school premises for religious instruction ? While the • anomaly exists of committees having the power to grant or to refuse facilities-for religious teaching, a person who speaks of "the opportunities for this work" cannot be treited as sincere. If the Educational Institute would save the State sohooU ifc must apply itself "without delay to getting rid of this anomaly.—l am, etc., JAM.ES S. MACKENZIE. . Wellington, 3rd January, 1917.

Sir,—And so the Educational Institute cannot regard without regret and misgiving that a check is being given to the national spirit through the establishment by some denominations of church schools. Sectarian differences are to be impbrtcd to 'sow strife and dissension among a united people. And the church soools will divide the children, ajid the people too, I suppose, into twofold hostile camps of sectarianism and social strata. And all because the Churches (which doubtless means the ministers of the Churches) refuse and still refuse to make use of the opportunities for this work which the Education Act allows. And the heavens are. about to fall. It is to be wondered that a body of such excellent and capable and worthy men as tho members of the instituto cannot find a better argument for the maintenance of the secular system or cducatipn than by abusing the ministers of religion and hurling at them what is to all intents and purposes a charge of laziness, or worse. As cue who lias "onsistentlv and for years made use of the so-called opportunities offered by the Education Act, I assert that these opportunities, if -they do exist, are next door to useless. And surely tho members of the institute cannot be so dense as not to know that this is true. They know very well that when the child comes cf school age he passes almost entirely out of the hands of either the parent or the Church under the present system of education. The schoolmaster has the child body and soul for such a timo every day at lessons or games that the chilli is spent and has had quite enough of school before the minister cr other religious teacher can have his opportunity. And- then the minister is at the child's disposal in matter of attendance. He may please himself. llow long will this gross absurdity of refusing to take a presented opportunity be insisted 011 by a body of intelligent men ? The opportunity does not exist. > Then what about sectarian strife r Has forty years of secular education 3tilled the noise? Or did the noise really exist before the present system came into force? I have taken a keen interest in things educational in New Zealand for about 37 years myself, and I am not ignorant of the stato of affairs in this country prior to that time, and the sectarian strife complained of has sometimes been bitter, maybe, but never more bitter than on the part of those who belong to the sect

of secularists. And do the secularists think they will quell the strife they complain of. by creating and maintaining another sect —a sect that is the most obnoxious of all, for it determines to -stifle tile deepest convictions of the souls of those who differ from them. And if the Churches do speak unadvisedly with their lips against each other, let the secularists be reminded that "brickbats are better than tombstones."

In regard to the bogey raised that the children of the poor will find no place in church schools, it is quite sufficient to reply that there is quite enough of intelligence and democratic spirit and liberality in the Churches to cope with that difficulty. It is a remarkable thing that so long as this secular system has been in force (.ur leading educationists 'have been defending it with one breath as something that must bo upheld at. all hazards, and with the next breath denouncing it as rotten to the core. Every year there have been indignant demands made for an alteration of the syllabus, the remodelling of the Act, or a discontinuance of an alleged system of cram, and so on. One after another have denounced the whole system in i'o measured language. To take up tho parable of Wellington's worthy Chief Inspector, they liavo been "bailing" at the trough for years. And they V/ill bail many years more before they bail out all the defects, for they will run into tho trough faster than they can bail, and all because they have not the sense to turn the tap off. When they do this we will cease to follow Germany's lead in our education system, and consequently ceaso to fear German competition at the close of tho war. sAnd with this secular tap turned off, the pure river of water of hfo may flow into our schools. It is this river of life the Churches desire to see. flowing, and they have been compelled to take the education of their children in their Own hands. And the tap will not be turned off, because it is too high for the secularist to reach. — 'I am, etc., JAMES M'CAWI Lower Hutt, January 3.

Sir,—From the wording of the report of tho executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute one would imagine that the ejergy are to blame for not giving religious instruction in the State schools. What are "the opportunities'" afforded tliern? They may, with the approval of the school committee, have the use of the school for the instruction of children out f-f school hours. In many instances such permission is absolutely refused. Note that instruction can only bo given "out of school hours" to those children who are willing to stop for another lesson. This provision for religious instruction is not worthy of consideration. It resolves itself into another school lesson versus football or cricket. We know which is likely to appeal to the average child. Would any schoolmaster care to give secular instruction on the' same conditions? Certainly not for long. Give the clergy an opportunity to be of use to the children and they will respond. Until those in favour of secular education give _us a fair deal we shall agitate for Christian schools.-! am, etc.,