The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1976, 11 January 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1907.

The question of centralisation of the control of Inspectors ol primary schools has been taken up and discussed by the Educational Institute at a meeting held in Christchurch on Friday last; but the discussion was evidently not of an absorbing character, if we are to judge by the meagreness of the report accorded to it by “The Press.” Indeed, the tone of the report, such as it is, gives one the impression that little or nothing was advanced in favor of the resolutions advocating centralisation, and that, therefore, the opponents contented themselves with brief speeches, except Mr. W. Foster (’Wellington), who, we arc told, “made a powerful speech against centralisation, pointing out its evils, and arguing that to centralise the inspectorate would be exceedingly detrimental both to the teachers and to the pupils.” Against this ‘‘powerful speech” there appeal's to have been nothing advanced except by the mover of the first resolution, who merely repeated the stock argument that “the present system, under which Inspectors wore servants of Education Hoards, and not subject to the control of the Department, was an absurd system, and in no two districts did Inspectors have tho same idea regarding the Standard of Examinations.” The motions to which these assertions (one can ,hardly promote them to the distinction of arguments) were applied wore, “that to render the system of primary education a national one, it is necessary that the Inspectors should be under the direct control of the Education Department,” and, “that the Inspectorate be centralised.” The first motion was put and carried by 25 votes to 18, and then the second was moved by Mr. E. A. Just (North Canterbury), who gave no reason for wasting the time of the assemblage by moving what was simply a reaffirmation of the first motion just passed, nor -did ho offer any excuse for the mandatory cuteness of its ; tone, which on the face of it, as-1 I -sunied that the body to which he | submitted his resolution was vested with all the legal authority to make the change, for the resolution simply isaid “it shall be done,” and the meeting adopted the sentiment by a vote of „32 to 15, and rejected an amendment by Mr. Mehaffey, “That teachers and Inspectors should be under the same administrative body, ami therefore that, while Education Boards have the appointment of teachers, it is desirable that they j should have also the appointment of l Inspectors.” ’Whether the passing of I the second resolution was considered ' necessary to esplain the crudeness

and ambiguity of tho first resolution, j or to arrogate to tlieiusolvos tho authority to do the job right off without consulting tho proper authorities

oil tho matter at all, does not appear quito clear, hut in either case there T 1 is a tinge of inappropriateness and sobs futility expressed in both resolutions that evidently did not occur to those cro ;, who supported them. The first; rose- TJ lution contains ail implied denial that real our system of education is not “a national one,” and that to make it coll] such all that it is necessary to do is T to place the Inspectors “under tho was direct control of tho Education Do- • H partmont.” Emanating from a con- j j clave of scholastic .gentlemen, sitting j p] a undor tho august title ol an Edu- j If national Institute,” this proposal af- ' b »« I fords a unique study. It must ho -yj ( I assumed that those gentlemen undei- agi stand the nw-ning of common English bu words, and that when they put their I ideas into the concrete form of a “ I motion, they at least mean exactly what the language of that motion exI presses. Therefore, wo must con- op elude that the 25 supporters of the I first motion are under the impression t) ' | that our system of education is not K |, a “nationai” one, and that the trails- a for of control of the Inspectors will hi I make it such. On looking up our die- ’ tionary to fortify ourselves against vi I this array of scholasticism, we find K 1 I that the word “national” means I I “Common to all, public, general, not 1 private,” and the more we study w J that definition, the more puzzling tl j and involved becomes the meaning oi si I that motion for which 25 pedagogues ” voted. The perplexity obviously

arises from tho fact that the In- ;l spectors are not tho systom, and that e if the Inspectors were annihilated or transported to Mars, the system would still retain its “national” character t according to Webster’s interprota- l tion of the word ; so, either Webster 1 is wrong or the 25 pedagogues have | a glossary of their own akin to Vola- . 'pule or Esperanto, or the language i of tho gods which people of ordinary ‘ intelligence cannot be expected to I understand. Eor that reason, perI haps, we should not worry too much about it, for fear of serious conseI quencos; but as we are really con--1 corned about the fate of tho InspectI ors who have to deal with such I superhuman intelligence, we must be I excused for endeavoring to enquire 1 further into the matter in order that I our system of education may not bo I allowed to suffer undue inflation of intellect at the hands of its exponI ents and reformers. What they want is centralisation; why they want it they have failed to explain with orI dinary intelligence; why they should I have their wishes satisfied they apI parcntly do not know, except that it I would, according to their view, “render the system of primary education ■I a national one.” Hut as the system is undeniably “a national one” alI ready and cannot be made more naI tional in character, wo must look else--1 where for reasons for the suggested I change. What they really want is 1 not centralisation of control, but uni-

formity in the standard of examination ; but they will not be persuaded that that should not be called “centralisation of control.” That there should bo uniformity in the standard of examinations is perfectly logical and right, and when they ask for that in a proper way without clouding

the issue with false logic and assertion, they will receive the support of ali those who desire to see the best results from our national system; but centralisation of control must not be mentioned in the same connection.