UNIFORM SCHOOL BOOKS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 18

UNIFORM SCHOOL BOOKS.

SVROjSTG CANTERBURY OBJECTIONS. CHRISTCHURCH, February 12. At a meeting of the Board of Education to-day the subject of uniform school book* ■was discussed. The board had before it a report from the inspectors and one from ihe Appointments Committee, to whom the laatter had been referred The report of the inspectors stated that they were uncompromising in their attitude of opposition to the demands made on behalf of the introduction, of a uni--Eorm set of reading books for U6e in the public schools of the Dominion. Their .views were also supported by the general trend of enlightened opinion wherever there existed anything worthy to be called; an educational system. . The experience of Ontario. Queensland, and other places ■where it- had been tried was cited to show Vhat it had had ihe effect of disheartening teachers and retarding genuine progress. The other reasons given by the inspectors nay be briefly summarised as follow : — 1. Such a 6j'stem debarred the teacher from all choice in some of the most important tools of his calling. 2. It robbed him to a great extent of nil initiative, putting; him on the footing of a piece of mechanism, working arcording to rule and pattern on prescribed lines. 3. It ignored the special needs of particular communities. 4. It loses sight of the paramount importance of imparting variety to the mental fare of children. The discouragement of competition amongst booksellers and publishers would tend to lower th*> value and general quality of their output, besides which a system of uniformity was in direct opposition to the ■well-known natural law that progress could not exist apart -from variety and change. With reference to reading books, ihe humanising power of good literature •wae duly receiving increased recognition, tut its potency as a means of elovating -national aims, of widening the general .outlook, and extending the scope of publio sympathies, though in some quarters fairly isalised, was unhappily imperceptible as •:et amongst too large a section of the community. It wa6 not entirely reassuring when watching the signs of the times to note that in North Canterbury the amount spent lyearly in reorea-tion and ••Heged amusement was probably con«ider- - ably greater than the whole outlay on primary. secondary .and university education Whilst not grudging anyone a well-earned holiday of wholesome, amusements, they could not brimz themselves to believe that the neople of New Zealand were sopoveitystricken that they need stand appalled .it the prospect of spending a few extra shillings per year in procuring a reasonable variety of reading material for use in the public schools. The Appointments Committee reported that "it had ' carefully considered the question, and was unanimously of opinion that the adoption of .a •uniform set of text books throughout the primarr schools of the Dominion would he in a high degree detrimental to the , interests of the scholars concerned. It was true that the proposal at first "sight teemed to have two great merits. _ Firstly, it was characterised by a beautiful simplicity, and secondly, there was an apparent "Cheapness about the proposal. But that simplicity and apparent cheapness were the J>nly merits that the committee was able to discover in the proposal, and in that case the committee was satisfied that simplicity *ras not a virtue, and that choapnos- v* is »nlj apparent, and e\en if it -were real.

would be obtained at a sacrifice of so much that was best in our primary 6ystem of education as to render it dearly bought. The report contained a statement of the more important objections to the proposed system, of which the following is a summary:— 1. The effect of uniformity is blighting and stunting. 2. The proposal takes no account of the special needs of different communities. 3. The Education Department seeks the services of teachers familiar with the principles of education, yet nowhere in educational thought can any reason for uniformity be found. 4. The adoption of the -proposal would deprive a teacher of the choice of his tools — a. disability that is imposed upon i»o other worker. , 5. It must be borne in mind that it is the average and mediocre teacher who muit in this matter be considered. A teacher of genius will rise superior to his tett books, whatever they may be, but this will not be the case with the vast majority of tc;.chers, and to compel them to use books which may not fit in with their intellectual idiosyncrasies will be, in some cases, to render their work far less efficient than it might be. 6. The cheapness, which is the 6toek argument of supporters of the proposal, is only apparent. 7. The present system leads to keen competition between various publishers of repute, and the result is that text-books are both good and cheap. 8. This lack of competition- would be strongly conducive to stagnation and stagnation breeds corruption. 9. The proposal has been put into effect only in a few countries, particularly in a few States in America, and there the results have boon little Ipss than disastrous. The system of education has become hidebound and wooden. The profession <>f teaching has fallen into disrepute. The teachers have become narrow in their outlook, and in the text-book department there have not been wanting in some cases hints of political jobbery. The commits? has no desire that such a state of affairs should obtain in th's country. For the foregoing r-easons the committee most strongly opposed tKe proposal to adont a uniform series of school books, and. n fact, believes that the wav of education salvation lies rather in a widening than :n a narrowing of the choice of text-books.