The Dominion WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1928. A GAP IN EDUCATION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 10

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1928. A GAP IN EDUCATION

Perhaps the most important task with which the Conference of Inspectors, formally inaugurated in Wellington yesterday by the Minister of Education, is faced is that of bridging the gap at present dividing the primary from the secondary school stages of the education of the young citizen. The problem is a two-sided one. First, there is the question of devising a syllabus that will carry the primary school pupil from the infant-room, where he begins his educational career, right up to the higher grades of education, and that without a perceptible break in the continuity of his studies. The second part of the problem is to adapt the education system so that the new syllabus may be applied successfully. In the course of his opening remarks, the Hon R. A. Wright mentioned that the results of the investigations which had been carried out for some considerable time past by the Syllabus Committee, appointed by him as Minister, would be reviewed by the inspectors at their present conference. This committee was composed of educationists and business men—an admirable collaboration. As the Minister explained to the conference, the inclusion of the business representatives was intended to elucidate “as far as possible what should be included in education to form, so to speak, a balanced ration.” One may assume from this remark that what was intended was that the vaulting ambitions of the educationists might be subjected to the restraining influence of practical minds fully seized of the financial limitations of the various suggestions, and yet clearly aware of the importance of a progressive educational policy. The Director of Education (Mr. T. B. Strong), who followed the Minister, expounded the practical aspect of syllabus reform, and submitted two points of view. The first was that the gap between primary and secondary education should be bridged on the American junior high school plan. The second was that the gap, in the opinion of some, actually resided in the fact that the pupil passed from the most experienced teacher in the primary school into the hands of the youngest and most inexperienced teacher in the secondary school.

As to the first, one would like to have a report on the success, or otherwise, of the American junior high school plan, upon which we have, at considerable outlay, experimented. If the results are satisfactory, then the obvious thing to do is to forge steadily ahead on that line. If, as has been suggested, we cannot yet afford to develop the American plan to its maximum efficiency as regards buildings, staffs, and so on, then it is due to the younger generation, upon whom are ultimately visited the results of our experimental failures, to repair the faults by other means. It is clear that it is educationally unsound to pass a graduate from the best senior teacher in the primary school to the rawest novice in the secondary school. We ought to correct that weakness at once, though we may be undecided as to the future of our general policy. In this connection the suggested restoration of the old Seventh Standard in the Primary Schools may present a workable solution, having regard to the resources of the national exchequer, of this particular problem. In any case, the gap must be bridged either by one system or another. What we have to remember is that though we might like to spend twice as much on education as we do now, we have but a limited supply of funds. The question, therefore, is to spend what we have to the best possible advantage, with the reservation that as soon as we may be able we will gladly spend more.