South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2558, 2 June 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1881.

The discussion which took place at the meeting of the Education Board yesterday on the subject of the capitation grant was of an exceedingly tame, weak, and unsatisfactory nature. It will be remembered that some weeks back the Government intimated that the capitation grant would not be allowed for children under five years of age. The decision has caused great inconvenience to Boards who are not in a good financial condition, and unfortunately most of the education bodies of the colony are in that way. The South Canterbury Education Board is one of the number, and it perhaps feels the action of the Government more keenly than others because there appears to be more than the usual number of children under five attending its schools. The loss will amount to £4OO a year, after making all possible deductions in the teaching staff. As far as the wages of that staff is concerned they are low enough, in all conscience, for the attainments and class of work required. And it would be really a grievance to discharge a teacher through no fault. However, if the Board is to make both ends meet a sacrifice must be made somewhere. We are afraid that fifty resolutions would not alter the decision of the Government. There has been a great cry out about the expenses of education in this colony. There seems to be unanimity of opinion on the subject when it is looked at in the abstract. But no sooner is the pruning knife applied than a howl is raised. In dealing with the matter it must be steadily kept in view that South Canterbury is not‘exceptionally treated. A great deal of the hardship now entailed has been the result of lack of prescience on the part of the Board, or else an incorrect interpretation of the Education Act. It was perfectly well known eighteen months ago that there would be a curtailment of State expenditure for edacational purposes. The various Education Boards of the colony had no good reason for believing that they aldne would escape any economical scheme of the Government. The wonder is that the large expenditure was so long continued. The Board had, somehow or other, got the idea into its head that it had no power to exclude children under five years of age from the schools under its charge. It appears, however, that the Board has had some doubts on the subject, for last year it asked the Government if the capitation grant would be paid on children under five, and an answer was received in the affirmative. We are told that the Board made its arrangements accordingly. Now, the Government is not altogether blameless in the matter. It misled the Education Board of South Canterbury—a body which does not appear to have sufficient capacity to read the Act correctly. Perhaps it does not desire to do so. Now, does it not forcibly strike the member of that body that Government would not dare to stop the capitation grant to children under five if the parents of those children could compel the Board to admit them to its schools. It would be an anomalous thing for the Government to do. If there is a defect in the Education Act in this matter, the Ministry would have waited till the approaching session to have it amended before issuing the circular which has so much troubled the members of the

Board. That body need quibble no more over the matter. The Government has interpreted the Act for them, and the authority should be good enough. No good purpose will be served by hairsplitting over the clear provisions of the Education Act. The members of the Board are not lawyers, whose interests often are to drive a coach and four through an Act of Parliament. They should read the law like plain, sensible men. As far ns refers to school age, there was nothing overlooked in the Act. It was clearly left optional with the Board whether or not it should admit children under five years of age. The intention was, no doubt, that Education Boards should be guided by the circumstances of their particular districts. In Auckland there appears to have been no doubt on the matter: In that district no children under five have been admitted to the public schools. In other places such children have been allowed to attend as a privilege, not as a right. In yesterday’s issue -will be found the resolution passed re the capitation grant at the late meeting of the Board. It is founded upon a mere legal quibble, and will only serve to make that body ridiculous. The Board might easily have framed its complaint on better grounds.