South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2853, 17 May 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1882.

Wk have had more than enough crude and hasty legislation, and therefore we have no desire to see the Parliament now about to sit attempt any slipshod law-making. But we do earnestly trust some serious and careful attention will be directed to the Education Act of the colony, which, alter a sufficiently long trial, has proved a disappointing measure, and has produced very unsatisfactory and inadequate results. In some respects it is a well-conceived Act and obviously the production, originally, of a mind of no ordinary calibre. For it seeks to give complete local freedom of action, while enforcing a national system. The design, however,is superior to the execution. Fop the attempt to unite a national system with complete local freedom has resulted in a most exasperating vagueness, which has the effect only of making disagreements wider and more hopeless than would be possible under an Act more precise in its terms and provisions. Let us begin with the powers and duties of Committees. Provisions of the Act under this head are, in appearance, very excellent. But they prove to be vague and unsatisfactory. What, for example, is one to understand by this :—“ That Committees shall have the management of educational matters within the school district.” Control and management, forsooth! Well, a good many Committees think it incumbent upon them in the exercise of their “ management ” to visit the school at intervals, officially. And in nine cases out of. ten the teacher resents this, or if he does not openly resent it, he chafes inwardly. His groans are echoed by similar sounds from his brethren, and they all, being in the same plight, agree to consult a solicitor as to the legality of these objectionable visits. The lawyer, after bestowing all sorts of trouble in research and in weighing authorities, arrives at the decision, that while there is nothing in the Act directing such visits to be made, there is also nothing forbidding them. Exactly so, but this goes no further than any person practically acquainted with the Act could have instructed them. Anyone of themselves (the most intelligent did so) might have arrived at the same conclusion. That delusive word, “management,” does all the mischief. It is given to committees to place their own interpretation on the term “ management,” and this permission has been the cause of no end of illfeeling and heart-burning. The relations between teachers and committes are now unsatisfactory. The teacher is galled by tho sense of having over him a body having indefinite. powers in addition to the official authorities entrusted with the working of the Act, who are clothed with defined powers. The result is the constant occurrence of ill-feeling that must terminate sooner or later in the departure of the teacher, and is wholly to the detriment of the school. The complaint is made all over the colony that teachers are perpetually on the move ; and the service is thereby weakened in efficiency and districts suffer. Wc venture to say this is due, in a very great measure, to tho unsatisfactory basis on which the relations of teachers and committees arc placed. la this respect 'the Act undoubtedly requires amendment. The system of inspection is another important provision of the Act. Wc have here a very anomalous ami unsatisfactory position of affairs. Tho Act provides for a certain course of instruction, rigidly defined and measured out. But the Inspectors, whoso duty it is to see to the efficiency of tho schools in imparting knowledge, and to examine the children within the

Statutory limits, with whom it lies to interpret the standards of education are men holding their appointments from Boards, though working under the Act; and, though there is a functionary known, by a polite fiction, as the “Inspector-General of Schools” the Inspectors are no more under his control that them under that of the Postmaster-General. They may, if they please, snap their fingers at him ; and probably would if he did not adopt a very suave and deprecatory style of writing to them. Even the teachers have no sort of feeling about this officer. His title, of course, exercises a little influence over them, but the man himself and his office, they regard with no more fear than they regard a parent who is’nt on their committee. They vote him a bore, and the mildest of them sometimes explodes with anger at the strictness of “ certificate examination ” questions, for which the In-spector-General is held responsible.. The inspectors rule in their respective districts and are in no way amenable to a chief officer, nor is there any requirement or provision for their meeting together and agreeing upon plans of action and interpretation of syllabus. Everyone pursues his own way in this respect. Can anything be conceived more prejudicial to the interests of national education than that children should be subjected to the varying moods and crotchets of unregulated Inspectors ? Quia custodial has custodes ?

Lastly, but most important of all, there are the syllabus of instruction and standards of education. If these are not soon amended our system will so thoroughly collapse before long, that there will bo no disguising the truth any longer. It is not too much to say that a perusal of the “ Regulations” under which the work to be done in public schools is defined, will disgust and horrify any man or woman of intelligence who takes an interest in the instruction of the young, or knows anything of teaching and the mental constitution of children. A complete system of cram is what every effort to impart the specified course must of necessity be. Good heavens ! are our children’s minds to be strained into uselessness by bungling legislation? Do we want them educated, or crammed ? Because, if we want them educated , we must protest, and that strongly, against the present course of instruction as useless and positively mischievous.

These considerations we commend to our readers, aud with our humble dutv, to the hou. the Minister for Education.

While every effort is now being made to help the “ widows and the fatherless ” who have such bitter cause to remember last Sunday, there is another matter in connection with the late wrecks, affecting persons happily alive amongst us, which ought not to be forgotten. Our admiration has been kindled by the intrepid conduct of the men who voluntarily went forth to save life, at the risk of their own This community, every member 'of it, heartily thanks the noble fellows for their heroic endeavors, and we feel that we should be but ,1 half fulfilling our duty if we did not take some stops to bring their gallantry under the notice of the proper authorities, the Royal Humane Society, which is always prompt to reward meritorious conduct. We would suggest that a petition should be signed by leading residents who were witnesses of the brave action of those who manned the relieving boats. We shall, ourselves, bo pleased to draw up, obtain signatures for, and transmit, such memorial, and endeavor to obtain for every volunteer oarsman some recognition by the Society of their exertions, and for the most prominent of the heroes, the medal of the Society. We shall be glad to hear that our principal citizens will join us iu carrying the proposal into effect.