OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 285, 26 October 1875, Page 2

OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

[communicated ] Two notices of motion were given at the last meeting of the Central Board of Education to be dealt with at the next. The one was to alter the principle upon which the teachers are paid, and the other to erect additional accommodation at the Bridge-street school. Everything connected with public education is of importance. There is no one thing upon which, in all English speaking communities at least, there is such unanimity of opinion and feeling as upon that of affording to the rising generation as thorough an education as circumstances will admit; while no expenditure of money is deemed too hmh wheu eUowa to| be aeceaaary,

A subject of such deep interest will ever demand the watchful oversight of the public, and lays with an emphasis which is all imperative obligations upon them to watch over it, and by suggestions and criticism to assist every effort which is made to perfect the system. We have nothing but good to say of the assiduity and zeal of the gentlemen to whom has been entrusted this onerous duty in our midst. But while according them all praise we venture fco think that they are either uninformed as to the systems which had been brought into operation elsewhere, or that there are special circumstances which the uninitiated are uninformed of that prevent the cdoption of those methods here. The special object of dealing with the system of payment in vogue, we believe, is to change the present apportionment upon attendance to that of a fixed salary. We care not to discuss the relative merits of those plans, as we deem both to be essentially vicious. Neither our space nor inclination will allow us to strike the balance of evil. But we wish to ask the Central Board and Committee of Management if they do not think the time has come for altering our system altogether. We are fully satisfied that it is by far too primitive and crude to obtain from it the results that the public are entitled to expect, and which the expenditure incurred justify them in demanding. We are fully satisfied that the correct principle of payment is that by results. This has everything in its favor ; its I direct and indirect benefits alike commend it. It is just and fair to the teachers as public servants; no man nor class of men are justified in objecting to be paid for their labor at a just appreciation of its value, and they should ever be found ready to give a cheerful acquiescence to any effort made to j arrive at it. The teachers have nothing to fear except incorapetency. We believe wherever it has been tried in a generous spirit the competent teachers have always benefitted by its adoption, and we are well assured that such is the only spirit in which there is any disposition to deal with this useful class of men ; indeed, the conviction is growing daily that parsimony here is suicidal, and destructive of the object in view, the imparting of a good sound education to the youth of the country ; to do this, good men must be attracted to the profession, which being interpreted into plain English means that the teachers must be well paid. We need not say that such is not the case in our province, as it is generally felt that the payment is altogether inadequate. This method begets a generous emulation among the teachers, and so leads to more systematic and painstaking teaching. But one of the chief recommendations of this system is that ifc necessitates the adoption of a definite and specific programme of instruction, which has to be worked up to, and thus definiteness is imparted to the teaching, and determinate results are obtained^ at the same time that it necessitates a more thorough, we were about to say scientific, classification of the children, while it enables the Inspector to arrive at the knowledge not only of the progress of the school as a whole, but of each individual child year by year. With this we leave the subject for the present, simply saying that the only plausible objection we have ever heard advanced to the system is that ifc places the teacher at the mercy of the Inspector. But with a proper system and programme of examination, the Inspector is powerless to injure. The proposal to build an additional room for the accommodation of the younger children opens up another most objectionable aspect of our present system. In seeking to arrive at a fair estimate of this, we have been convinced that one of the radical defects is the separation of the children into so many schools; they should all be gathered into one, or at the most two, under a responsible head, entrusted with the organisation and management of the whole. What is our present method ? Not only have we several schools, but virtually several independent departments and independent heads in the same school. We scarcely need say there can be no possibility of any systematic teaching under such a mode of procedure. What we suggest is that the Bridge-street school should be so enlarged that it would accommodate all the children of Hardy-street school, boys and girls, and place it under one responsible head; and let the junior teachers be classed as pupil teachers, and be placed under instruction by the headmaster, and thus become qualified in their profession. This school would thus serve as an experiment, upon the success or otherwise of which further action may be determined upon.