Truth Two Minds With Bat A Single Thought

NZ Truth, Issue 1144, 3 November 1927, Page 4

Truth

Two Minds With Bat A Single Thought

THE PBOPL-ES I>A.l>E>R^

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1927

MOT so long' ago an Englishman said: "The man with an unchangeable mind is an unchangeable ass!" "N.Z. Truth" does not go so far as to apply this bon mot to Prime Minister Coates or Minister for Education "Wright. Their attitude,, however, over the suggestion made by this paper, and subsequently taken up by social organizations, that the Child Welfare Branch be divorced from the Education Department, might easily be considered by most people as ample justification for attaching the simile. The Minister's reason as given on the floor of the House is just so much political guff. The position is simply that James Parr, the Minister responsible for the introduction of the Child Welfare Act, made up his mind that child welfare was primarily a matter of teaching the young idea that two and two make four. Having arrived at the very erroneous conclusion, that the Director of Education must boss the job, Parr then made up his mind to see that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Reform Party made up their minds, that "James' " mind had functioned hi the true Parr fashion m coming to the conclusion that academic education and child welfare were really one and the same thing. What does it matter if there is a world of difference ? Having had their minds made up for them bM; should Prime Minister Gorden Coates and James Parr's successor suffer the mental exertion necessary to change them? This appears to be the position and possibly m addition there may be a slight reluctance to admit that James Parr and the Reform Party generally did not know the first thing about the subject upon which they passed legislation. Even the reason given by Minister Wright when refusing to make any change on the ground that the Education Department had experts enough to administer the Branch, and that the head of the Department was an enthusiast reveals the deplorable lack of knowledge he possesses of the Department he is administering. "Truth" is not m any way desirous of disparaging Director of Education Strong, but what does he know about social welfare with its important section of child welfare ? What practical experience has the director ever had, even granting that he may have made a study of many of the subjects essential to the knowledge of the welfare worker? Graduating from the ranks of the teaching profession as most directors of education m the past m this country have done, his whole career has been a training m the academic side of education, with very little time to worry about the social welfare of his pupils. No doubt he is an enthusiast but he can hardly claim to bt an expert. Can it be expected under the circumstances that he will understand the necessity for a great many of the demands made* upon him by the Child Welfare Branch, or that he will be m absolute sympathy >with the progressive ideas along modern lines of social welfare organization presented for his approval? Though other countries are encouraging the establishment of training colleges for social welfare workers who may secure a diploma of Social Science, the Government, making available a certain number of scholarships annually, New Zealand offers neither encouragement nor facilities to the university student with a leaning towards this field ' m which to labor. This paper has no wish to belittle the social worker of private organizations, but if the practical experience of these people could be allied with the scientific training of young enthusiasts the result would be invaluable to the Dominion. As the position stands the Government is merely tolerating this section of the Education Department, which it established with no more serious object than as a political sop to social welfare organizations, which it would have\been undiplomatic to offend by turning a deaf ear.