South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2731, 21 December 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1881.

Every now and then for some time past we have read in the broadsheets of the colony, in leading articles, and in reports of speeches of public men, assertions that the existing system of education in New Zealand is too costly, causes too great a drain upon the public revenues, and that large modifications must be made in the manner of providing the means to defray the expenses of education. Those who make such assertions must surely forget for what reason the national and “ free ” system we now possess was instituted in the colony. It was instituted simply because the pre-existing systems were insufficient to perform the work that our legislators in their wisdom deemed necessary to be done in the interests of the people at Urge. It was instituted, not on behalf of individual children, nor on behalf of individual parents, nor on behalf of-any number of either, but on behalf of the whole population. The pre-existing systems were deemed insufficient to provide for the growing generation such an education as was considered necessary “ to make them good citizens ” when they grew up. A more extensive system was demanded as necessary to the welfare of the community, and on no other ground could the taxpayer who had no children bo justly called upon to contribute a farthing of the cost of educating another’s child. Now a cry is raised that a general and systematic education of future citizens is not a matter that the community has so general an interest in. A few years ago it was argued that every man had an equal interest in the securing that the young should become good citizens when they grew up ; now it is beginuiug to be said that this is no longer true, if it ever was so, but that parents have a greater interest in the matter than others have. Have circumstances or has human nature so profoundly altered within so short a time as to justify this change of front ? We opine not. We believe that it is the simple duty of the community to take whatever steps are possible to secure its safety, in whatever direction that safety is threatened, or to improve any of its conditions as a community in any way that presents itself. It is unquestionable that the possession of a certain amount of education not only improves the condition of a people, but has become a necessity in the present age—not, be it observed, a necessity to the individual merely, but to the community. If this is questioned, what answer can be returned to the inquiry—lf it is not such a necessity why should the community take any care about it ? Then if it is conceded that the education of the young is a matter in which the whole community is interested, it follows that every member of it, parent or non-parent, should bear an equal share of its cost and the nearest approach to this division of liability is obtained by maintaining the educational system out of the public revenues. A very little consideration will show that the parent considered as a member of the community, l.as rather less interest than others in his child’s future character and conduct, which are supposed to be influenced by the education imparted. Of the average life of mart, in the great majority of cases, by far the greater portion is spent under circumstances that admit of no influence being

exercised by either parent or child upon each other. From youth to age the individual is brought into as close contact with a hundred others, as he or she is with his or her parents, and it is to fit them tor the more extended spheres of social and industrial organizations that the education of the young is demanded. The family may exist happily and conveniently without education, and so far as the welfare of the community is concerned, it cannot signify in the least degree whether the dwellers around any separate domestic hearth are well educated or densely ignorant. But when the members of a family act as members of the community, when they come in contact with others, whether in social onion or as units in an industrial organization, the difference is at once felt, —and by whom ? Assuredly at least as much by those who hare to do with the uneducated, as by the uneducated themselves. This line of reasoning might be followed to great lengths, but it is unnecessary to follow it far in order to perceive that if the education of the young will prove of advantage to anyone, it is to others than either the child or its parents, to at least an equal if not to an incalculably superior degree. This being the case it follows that if the community interferes at all in this matter, if it makes any special demand that the young shall be educated, sets up any standard of attainment, coerces any individual in his treatment of his children, the community should bear whatever costs the fulfilment of its demand entails. The cry that the cost of education is too great to be borne by the public exchequer and that parents must pay something directly is either a senseless one or it is used merely as a cloak to conceal designs of those who, having no children and unable to see that the education of other people’s children is a benefit to themselves, desire to lighten or get rid altogether of the portion of the general burden they at present bear. If it is not so used, the cry is a senseless one, for it implies that while the community bears the whole cost now, the community would not bear the whole cost if parents paid any part of it directly. Ab if school fees would be supplied, week by week, like manna, from the «kies ! As if the burden being (as it is said) too great now, it would be lightened for the whole community by making a portion bear a double burden !

We do not dispute that our education system is too costly. We have written, not against that position, but against the method proposed for lessening the cost. So long as the community demand that such and such an education shall be given to the young, so long should the community pay for it. Our system is too costly, but so long as the same amount of work is demanded so long must it be paid for, and no taking out of one pocket to save the other will lessen the strain upon the people. What is wanted is a cutting down of the standard of attainment required by the State to the lowest limit compatible with the ends to be served by educating the people at all, and then allowing parents to tax themselves directly to give further attainments to their children if they will. We believe that our Legislators had sensible and practical ideas in their heads when passing the Education Act, but in one direction they were not practical. They provided machinery to give the people an education, but what that education was to be they left to the decision of enthusiasts who have added subject to subject until the machine is threatened with ruin from the amount of work they have required it to perform. We must have a free State education, but it should be strictly limited to those subjects which are essential, and the acquirement of which by the young is certain to result in benefit to the community at large. Anything more than this parents may well pay directly for ; so much it is certainly within the power of the public to easily afford.