EDUCATION SYSTEM.

Shannon News, 12 April 1929, Page 4

EDUCATION SYSTEM.

THE EXPECTED REORGANISATION

For many months much public discussion has centred round the need for a reorganisation of the education system. The probable form that the reorganisation may take has been the subject of anxious speculation. The Executive of the. New Zealand Educational Institute, in view of the probability that it will not be long before an official announcement is made, takes the present opportunity of putting before the public the main principles that should be observed if a system is 10 be developed that is at once in keeping with modern thought on the educational process and worthy of the nation in which' it is to be applicxl. By way of brief historical introduction it may be pointed out that our education system in the beginning was a primary school system only, administered by Education Boards in the various districts. As the needs of the country grow, secondary schools and, later, technical schools were established. not administered by the Education Boards but by separate governing bodies of their own. These schools were thus added to the system but not incorporated into it; and it is to this fact more than to any other that the criticisms and complaints against .the faults of education in New Zealand have been due’. In fact, there has not been a single system of education in New Zealand, but three systems, each a separate compartment, ignoring if not actually ignorant of what is going on in the other compartments. Many columns could be filled with descriptions of the evils arising from this division into compartments of what should be a united whole. Unity.

The Executive of the Institute therefore would, lav it down as the first principle to be" observed in reform of the. system that there should bo unity. It has been the custom to speak of the various stages of education, the secondary stage, the technical stage, the University stage. In actual fact there are t,«« such stages. Education is a continuous process, and the education system should be so constructed as to recog niso and apply that fact. The break that is heard so much of between the primary and secondary schools is not a. natural break inherent in the qualities of children, but an education system. There should be no greater break for the pupil in, passing from the primary to the post-primary school than in passing from the second standard to the third in the same school. . The loss of ability that the nation suffers through the clisjointcdness of the existing system is beyond calculation. The first thing, Hum,'' that the Institute looks for in any scheme of reform is unity,—not uniformity,—but unity of organisation.

Continuity. The reason why the Institute asks for unity of organisation is that by that means alone can the greatest need of an education system be met —the need for an orderly continuous progress of the pupil from the infant school to the eiuf of the school course, —whether that bo at the high school, trade school or University. In every enlightened country to-day effort is being made to get rid of the artificial and false distinction between primary and secondary (or technical) education. It is customary to talk of the break at the eleventh or twelfth year. There is no such break in Ihe pupil’s growth, and there should bo none in his school course, said Dr. Ballard recently. “There is no universal change or psychical crisis at eleven years of age.” The second principle, then, that the Institute hopes to see embodied in the reform of the system is the possibility of a siugle continuous course or curriculum that will allow the pupil to proceed without any break at all through the whole of the school career. That docs not mean that all pupils are to follow the same course: —far from it if modern educational science has anything to teaiffi it is that there is infinite diversity among pupils and the essence of educational administration is that it should provide in as large measure as possible for parallel courses along which differing qualities and aptitudes may be developed and utilised. In this way, by this provision of parallel courses, pupils of literary bent will bo able to follow their bent, pupils of what is called the motor type will devote themselves more to tne hand-vvoik course, scientific leanings will find scope in the laboratory and tlie budding farmer in the agricultural course, and so for the commercial course, and, by no means of least importance, the home science course That is what is implied in tlie phrase continuity ol progress; and by that means the breaks that have done such mischief in the past and are doing it now will be avoided. How is this to be about? There is probably only one way. Certainly the most obvious way is by a co-ordination of control. Co-ordination. To give effect to the principles of unity of progress and continuity of curriculum, there must be a breaking down of the barriers that separate the so-called primary schools from the so-called secondary and tech meal schools. In each district, instead or three separate governing bodies dealing with only a part of the work, there should be" a single authority. In real fact there is only one work to do, and one body could do it much better than three. It is inherent in the nature of the work to be done that it is only one bodv that can do it to advantage and not" three. Given a single 'controlling authority in any area, it would be possible to so arrange the work that the facilities available- could be used to best advantage of the pupils. A boy of mechanical tendency need not then be compelled to pass his time in the uneonceniai atmosphere of the grammar school, nor would a girl with a leaning towards science be confined to the commercial school. Tlie parallel courses under co-ordinated control

would give opportunity for changing from course to,course as abilities and temperament and desires began to declare themselves. A singlo authority would be able to take a comprehensive survey of the whole of the area under its control, and arrive at the. best means of using the facilities available and estimate the need for development in one direction or another. It is not a matter of calling pupils primary pupils till they are eleven years old and then calling them something else. It is a matter of providing for all pupils such opportunities of finding and developing their real powers, their natural endowment of intellectual, moral and social qualities, as will enable them to make the best of themselves for the community, and not, as it so often the case and even the fourth best. Such a scheme means, of course, the welding into a single body of the three existing forms of governing bod ies. No apology need lie ma'de for that. The old tripartite system has had its day and has done its work. It is not suited fbr, and it is not capable of doing, the work that has to be done in the administration of a system that will be worthy of the name of an education system as distinct from a schooling system. A single authority is needed to survey the whole field and direct the work within it. Such a body must have definite responsibilities and the Corresponding powers. Modern education makes an ever-increasing appeal to the hearts and minds of the people, and the system that is going to adequatelv recognise that fact that must give scope for and opportunity to and make use of all the thoughts and feelings and endeavours that arc summed up in the term local interest. Local knowledge, local enthusiasm, local pride, offer a wealth of support and assistance that no wisely desgined system will neglect. In what has been here set down the Executive of the Institute has confined itself to what it regards as the three cardinal principles that govern the situation. Matters of detail have been avoided. They can be dealt with- as occasion demands, and the only probable effect that would follow their introduction here would be to confuse the issue. At the proper time the Institute will be ready with replies tn any questions that may arise on particular, points.