THE FIVE-YEAR-OLDS

Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 6

THE FIVE-YEAR-OLDS

EXCLUSION RESENTED BY SCHOOL COMMITTEES MINISTER CRITICISED AND DEFENDED The exclusion of five-year-old children from the schools, a topic of warm interest, was the subject of much criticism at the annual meeting of the School Committees’ Association of Otago last evening. The meeting was definitely antagonistic to the entrance age being set at six years, the decision of the Minister of Education finding only two champions—Mr James Wallace (chairman of the Education Board) and Mr L. Deans Ritchie. Mr Wallace voiced a spirited defence of the Minister, and Mr Ritchie declared that he had not heard one reason why the age should bo put back.

There were three notices of motion to set the ball rolling. These were:— Oturehua.—“ That children should be admitted to school at five years of age.” Mornington.—“ That the Minister of Education be emphatically requested to restore at the earliest moment the right of entry into public schools of five-year-old children.” Maori Hill.—“ That, although the raising of the school age of admission was introduced as an economy measure, believing it not to be in the best interests of the scholars or schools, this association urges the immediate restoration of the optional entrance *at five years.” The Oturehua motion was presented by the secretary (Mr R. S. Vereoe), who said that it was the result of a circular sent out to the schools of Otago to seek the opinions of committees. Members would recall that the South Island Federation agreed two years ago to the temporary exclusion, of five-year-olds as an economy measure. Much had been said and written about the attitude of the Government, but here the meeting had the evidence of the voice of the parents. Eighty per cent, of the schools responded to the circular, and all with the exception of two, were in favour of the repeal of this legislation. A significant point of this movement was that the motion under discussion came from Oturehua, which was the school with the highest altitude. A rigorous and hard winter was experienced there, but parents evidently had no fear of the effect of weather conditions on their children. Compulsory entrance at five years was not asked' for, only the right of that privile"e it was desired. Mr Vereoe stated that the strongest argument for the motion was that public opinion was behind it. Mr A G. Osborne drew attention to the number of teachers in the schools at the present time, and the tact that there was no work for them all to do. In some schools there were six or seven pupil teachers hanging round with nothing to do. A Voice: Don’t give them away. (Daughter.) „ Mr Osborne said that if the five-year-

olds were admitted these teachers could be put on grading again. Mr James Wallace: They are on th« grading list now. . . , Mr Osborne contended that his statement could be regarded as one of the chief arguments against this so-called economy measure. He also pointed out that children under the age; of sis were being taken into denominational schools, and the grading of the public schools was being affected ■ Mr W. G. Maslin objected to Mr Osborne’s remarks. He considered that the teachers were given too , much to do. The inclusion of five-year-olds would perhaps give employment to those teachers out of work to-day. ; Mr J. 0. H. Somerville suggested that the Teachers’ Institute, could provide an admirable lead to which the Minister would pay attention, if its members showed themselves quite content to keep their present salaries,, even if grades did go up with the inclusion of these children in the schools.

“ You may be all agreed that five years is a good age for a child to go to school,” said ■Mr .Wallace- “But do. you think the Minister has made a mistake? I don’t. I think’he has done a good thing for New Zealand. Th© child who enters school at the age of six years will receive equal benefit to that entering at five.” The Minister had been confronted with the necessity, of effecting economies, and in this respect had made a saving of £IBO,OOO a year. Mr Wallace entered a protest against Mr Osborne’s statements. Mr Osborne should have known better than to speak as he did. Mr Wallace said that he rejoiced that every teacher in New Zealand had a job to-day—a year ago some of them were teaching for onlv three months. “ You should regard the Minister in a more kindly fight,” urged Mr Wallace. ‘‘ In effecting these economies I doubt whether he has reduced the efficiency of-educa-tion. Are you thinking of the children or the parents? And can you tell me of any child who has sustained harm, from a< scholastic point of view, from not entering school at five years of age? ” Mr 6. Rutherford: , It’s a year wasted. - v Mr Wallace; Well, look at.'me-I didn’t go to school until I was seven. ( Laughter.) He contended that the Minister, should not be pilloried in this way. Mr Masters, had done a ; great deal for education in New Zealand, and was one of the most approachbl© men Mr WallaceMiad encountered. Mr Osborne said that he was quite sincere in his remarks as to supplementary teachers. Six were sent to Mornington. At the same time, no one felt more pleasure to know that they were in employment than he did. Mr L. Deans Ritchie said that he was definitely against the motion. He had not heard one reason advanced, except that referring to the denominational schools, for the age being put back. “You are wanting the Government to etsablish kindergartens or nurseries, he declared. “It is not a matter of children losing education at all.” After some further discussion the first motion, that from Oturehua. was carried. The Mornington motion was lost, and that from Maori Hill embodied in the Oturehua resolution.