"ECONOMY."

Feilding Star, Volume VIII, Issue 71, 16 December 1886, Page 3

"ECONOMY."

TO THE RIMTOR OF THE STAR

Sir, — Iv reading the article on " Economy," which appeared in your issue of Saturday last, I felt that on such an important subject, you would pardon me, if I took the liberty of criticising it. That economy is necessary, in die government of the colony, there is no doubt, bui, why, Sir, may I ask, do you select the Education Department, as the special department for practising economy in? You admire the system of education in the colony, but not as you term it astonishing extravagance (the italics are my owtt). Now, Sir, I will not go so far as to say that there may not be some extravagance in this department, as no doubt there is in all other Government Department but not to that extent as you term it. Does it not stand to reason, that as the country is opened up, there must be more schools and consequently more expense to the colony, and year by year we may be sure the education estimates will increase, and possibly may exceed those of Public Works, and should we be annoyed at this ? I think not, as there can be no doubt the benefits derived by those who are educated, and the state as a whole, fully repays for the expenditure. No Sir, I cannot quiet agree with you as regards the astonishing extravagance (my italics) but, I think there might be some amendments made in the present Education Act, which might tend to make the burden less heavy on the state, and make education better appreciated by the masses ; for instance If the old provincial system of taxation were restored, when each house paid £1 per annum, and parents paid school fees, the Government would not be hampered, and lam sure the children would be benefitted thereby, if only on the principle of having value for money invested, for parents would then send their children to school if they had to pay for them, add it would <Lr away with truant inspectors, but so long as education is free, so long will many parents be negligent in sending their children to school. I know my view of this is likely to be considered conservative or unpopular, but at the risk of that I •am strongly of the above opinion, anil am couvinced it would be more satisfactory for all concerned, whether the State, parents, teachers, or children. Another item of some moment is the ridiculously short distance at which ■some schools are placed from each other I know of a district close to Feilding where there are 3 schools within about 2 miles or very little more of each other. Now, this is perhaps a case of extravagence as 2 schools should have been ample for this distrust. Another item, I, as a looker on, think that might He reduced, and that is iv the officering: of suiu<3 i*f ttie schools. Iv some schools there seeuis to be a teacher for every standard, and in others one teacher has to manage the whole of the school. The first appears to mo -very expensive, and the other •*xaetly the opposite, as the same results are ■expected iv both cases, although 1 sne J»y the published reports of schools examined, the schools with the single teachers have outshone the fully officered ones. I think, however, there are other departments which could he worked much more economically than could the Education Department. F< >r instance — the Railway Department. What a loss must be entailed by the erratic running of the trains, cost of coal, wear and tear, and wages for comparatively little traffic. But, I think the noblest and most disinterested way of Parliament showing that economy was necessary in the government of the State, would be the voluntary resignation by the honorable members of the honorarium, and to which they seem so fondly attached. Should they do this what an earnest of what they meant to do as regards retrenchment would be there. I will now conclude, Sir, trusting you will excuse my criticism, and apologing for taking up so much of your valuable space. — I am &c., Economical.