RETRENCHMENT IN EDUCATION. PROPOSED REDUCTION OF SCHOOL AGE AND LIMITATION TO THE FOURTH STANDARD. AN ENTHUSIASTIC PUBLIC MEETING.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 279, 7 July 1888, Page 4

RETRENCHMENT IN EDUCATION. PROPOSED REDUCTION OF SCHOOL AGE AND LIMITATION TO THE FOURTH STANDARD. AN ENTHUSIASTIC PUBLIC MEETING.

Auckland, July 3. A mass meeting was held in the Ciby Hall last evening for the purpose of taking into consideration certain proposals of which due notice had been given through the press, with the view of recommending the Government to raise the school age to ( seA'en years and limit free education in the public schools to the Fourth Standard. There was a very large audience, the stalls being crowded, while there was a fair attendance, including a sprinkling of the gentler sex, in the dress circle. His Worship the Mayor presided, and there were also on the platfoirn : Sir Wm. Fox, Dr. Erson, Dr. Lai&hley, Dr. Wallis, Dr. McArthur, Messrs W. Gome, J. M. McLachlan, R. J. Duncan, W. Duncan, Theo. Cooper, G. Peacooke, J. H. Upton, G. M. Reed, R. Farrell, E. Bell, T. B. Hil), E. W. Burton, F. G. Ewington, W. J. Speight, the Rev. J. S. Hill, and others too numerous to mention. His Worship stated that the meeting had f been called for the purpose of considering the suggestion made through the papers and in Parliament that the school age ba raised to seven years, and that free education should end with the Fourth St mdard. He impressed upon speakers the necessity of keeping their remaiks within reasonable limits. Mr G. M. Reed rose to move the first resolution. He said that there was a conviction throughout the colony of New Zealand that retrenchment should be earned out to its utmost extent. This had gone as a roar round New Zealand. The Government had done a good deal towards responding to the roar. It had been proposed to save a quarter of a million by the amalgamation of offices and cutting down salaritb. He thought it was a miserable retrenchment that was effected by cutting down salaries, because officers of all kinds, whether they were employed in the public service or not, generally worked < according to their pay, and if they were discontented with the reductions made in their salaries the result would not bo economy. It was rather our duty to look to the great spending services, and see if we could not effect a reduction in the lump sum, if it could be done without in any way impairing the efficiency of the service. Amongst the great spending services that challenged retrenchment were the railways, education, defence, and a great many others. If they did not bring before the meeting proposals for retrenchment, in defence, railways and other great spending services, it should not be supposed for a moment that this was because they undervalued retrenchment in these. They simply took one of thesa services and brought before the meeting a proposal by which education could be retrenched by £130,000, without the system being in the slightest degree impaired. (Applause and dissent.) The pioposal was to i - aise the school age to seven and to make free education end at the Fourth Standard. (Uproar, and a voice : ' ' You had better do away with it altogether.") He asked the audience to &uspend judgment till he gave his reasons. He had two resolutions to propose, and the firsc was — " That, in consideration of the financial position of the colony, and the necessity for further retrenchment, the school age should be raised to seven years." (Applause and uproar). Mr Reed proceeded to state how it came about that the school age was fixed at between five and fifteen years. The original intention was that free education should be given between seven years and fourteen years, but the Government were then in a liberal spirit, and the people had taken the benefit of their liberality ever since. The particular resolution that had been left to him was the raising of the school age to seven years. (Applause and disorder.) He argued that if children were taken away from their natural play between the ages of five and seven years, no advantage was derived from the rapidity with which they wtre educated. Statistics proved that although children ente>ed the schools at 5 years the average age at. which they passed the First Standard was 9 years. He asked any parent was there any ordinary child coming to school at seven years and not able to master the First Standard in two years. He mentioned a settlement in this colony where children had grown up to 11, 12, or 13 years of age, and had been able to pass the Third Standard in twelve months. (Cries of "Where?" and uproar.) He maintained that it was not only useless, but positively injurious, for a child to enter school between the ages of 5 and 7 years, because its otganism would bedeleteriou&ly affected by crowding in warm rooms. It was the stomach rather than the brain that required development between 5 and 7 years. The German Government fixed the age of seven years for children entering public education, and the same prevailed in Fiance. Ho admitted that there was more precocity in the children in the colonies than at Home, but he contended that piecocity should not be encouraged, for early precocity was a sure precursor of early decadence. The fact of the matter was that the real rpason they had for putting their children to school at an unnatural period was simply to get rid of them (applause and uproar) — they might disguise it as they pleased— besides the unpatriotic desire to get capitation. For every one of those children who were being inju>ed, the State was paying £3 15s per head. Mr Reed then read a letter written "from a mother's point of view," asking him to convey the opinion of many lathers and mothers on the questions under notice. It was asserted in this letter that it was surely better to poison infants with carbonic acid, gas rather than to coop them up in our unfortunately mixed schools and. their injurious atmosphere. (Applause and disorder. ) At this stage Mr John Bell placed on the stage a smart-looking boy, whom he dessribed as one of Mr Worthington'a five-year-olds, and suggested that a doctor should examine him to see how much he had suffered from schooling. The little fellow accepted the Mayor's invitation and took a seat on the platform. Sir Wm. Fox seconded the resolution. He said that he had given the subject of education very great attention for many years. What was the question they had to discuss? [A voice : "The poor man's child."] And the rich ipan's child too. The basis upon which the State education stood was what ? There was no natural responsibility on the State to educate our children. [Uproar and a voice : " We are the State."] It was that common sense had taught all civilised nations that it was absolutely necessary for their own safety that they should educate the people lof the State. (Applause.) It would be

[ a very good way of solving this question by having no children for a year or two, as they did in France (laughter), but as the children did come we must educate them. He would give as much education to the children as he possibly could, and children were learning in England at the age of three years. But educationcost a lot of money. [A voice : " And so do Prime Ministers."] Well, Prime Ministers were a necessary evil. A great roar for retrenchment had gone up in New Zealand, and he believed that it was possible to save under the heading of education from £100,000 to £110,000. The present Government had made proposals by which £30,000 would be saved, and the present resolution would save about £80,000. He asked, where was all the money to come from ? They were going to have a tea duty, and Major Atkinson said he would put a sugar duty on top of that. (A voice : " And flour on top of that. " Laughter. ) Wore they to go on burning the candle at both ends, or was it not their duty to save this £80,000 or £100,000 in one department without impairing efficiency, if it could be done ? There would be fewer educated in a less time, and that was all. He now left the matter in the hands of the meeting, with the parting recommendation that we should be honest and pay our debts. (Applause and uproar.) Mr Theo. Cooper said that he desired to pub the plain issue of this quostion before the meeting, for it had not been put before them yet. He moved as an amendment, "That all the words after the word 'that' in Mr Reed's resolution be struck out, and that the following words be inserted in lieu thei'eof : • We should have no interference with our present State system of education (cheers), either by way of raising the school age or lessening the number of standards taught, if advisable (prolonged cheering), but that, in the opinion of this meeting, a large sum of money can, and should ] be saved by a more economical administration of educational matters.'" (Cheers.) He felc some diilidence in rising to propose this amendment when he found such men as Sir William Fox and Mr G. M. Reed supporting the motion, but he felt that a red herrintr had been drawn across the scent. Nod many months ago he was himself under the impression that retrenchment could be cairied out in a manner suggested by these gentlemen, but aftor having gone through a large amount of State papers and after having given more thought to the subject than previously, he came to the conclusion that they could not safely raise the school age (cheers), nor safely lower the standards. (Cheers). That we could retrench in educational matters he was quite satisfied, and he would point out how it could be done later on. On Monday night he had tried to sound a note of warning that the education system should not be touched till we had exhausted all other means of retrenchment (cheers), and he ventured to submit that the money spent in this colony for education was about the only portion of the vast expenditure throughout New Zealand that the people as a class obtained any practical benefit from. It was a somewhat strange thing that a tax should be made upon our educational system, and he would point out the reason why. It £100,000 or £130,000 could be struck off one large vote, there was no necessity for Government to touch the Civil Service, the defence, or the railways. The roar for retrenchment would ' have passed over in twelve months and we should have lost, whether we were working men or not, one of the mainstays of our educational system. There was this further remark inreferenceto the previous speeches, They had not indicated how this money was to be saved. Before they discussed the question as to fairness, let them consider what would be saved by the proposal. (A voice : " £3 155.") Nothing of the kind. The highest authority on education in the colony, the Rev. W. J. Habens, said that we cannot save more than 25s per head, and that was the cost of these 19,000 children under seven years of age attending the public schools. (Cheers.) They had had no figures from the opposite side, and he would give them a few. (Cheers.) There were 19,000 children between 5 and 7 years of age attending the public schools of the colony. It did nob follow that these were only five years old, and Mr Habens stated that a great many were over six. A child six years and nine months would be excluded under such a system as that proposed by Mr Reed. (Cheers.) Mr Habens found that perhaps half of the 19,000 were over the age of 6 years, and there would be but some 8,000 or 9,000 of the tender years upon which Mr Reed had dwelt so pathetically. (Laughter.) Mr Reed, had a lady mend by the way (laughter), but he didn't give them her name. (Laughter.) She might bo Mrs Aldis for all he (Mr Cooper) knew ; and Mr Reed also quoted from Hansard, but did not give the name of the speaker. Well, supposing there were 8,000 or 9,000 children in the schools between the ages of 5 and 6, the amount saved bv excluding these would be a paltry £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000— it was paltry compared with the issues involved. (A voice : "Mr Fisher says £25,000.") He said Mr Fisher was wronsr. (Cheers. ) Now let them see how this saving was to be effected. For one moment think about the country schools. (Hear, hear.) There were 55 country schools in this educational district, with an average attendance of 25. If this proposal of Mr Reed's were carried they would have to shut up these 55 schools or get a special grant from the House to keep them going, because if we took away all tho children under seven years and all over the Fourth Standard, there would remain a number so small that it would be impossible to carry on school work. It would reduce the average to something like 12 or 15 for each school. The welfare of j every working man in this colony was bound up in the welfare of the country settler (hear, hear), and if we took frr m the country settler one of the few luxuries — he should rather have said necessities — which he had a means of supplying at the present time ; if we would not educate the children, how could we expect men to go into the country ? We struck a fatal blow at the education system if we raised the school age to seven years. (Applause.) What was the necessity for it ? They *ci c told that retrenchment was the necessity, but they had received no figures in proof. Mr Reed said it was a cruelty to compel children to go to school between the ages of •5 and 7 years ; this was a fallacy. There was no compulsion, and people were not obliged to send their children to school below seven years if they wished to keep them at home. He did not agree with Sir William Fox as to his definition of the duties of the State. (Applause.) If the experience of mankind showed that parents could not or Ayould not properly educate their children, it was the duty of the', State tp do it. _ (Cheers.) ije understood they were going to have the opinion of a doctor on the physiological aspect of the question, but he (Mr Cooper) preferred to take the experience of the Education Department in New Zealand to that of any doctor. (Laughter and applause.) Mr Habens gave evidence before a Committee of the House in the month of November last. He was asked, " What do you think of the general effect of discipline and teaching on these younger children (children

between 5 and 7 years) ?" and he replied that, " Considering the early age ab which the children of the artisan and the labourer ordinarily leave school, it is necessary to admit such children at an early age, in order that fclieir course may be of reasonable length." (Cheers.) Mr Habens had also stated that such children derived very great benefit from the discipline and instruction they received, and were prepared for the discipline and instruction th-.it would follow in the more advanced classes. It was absurd to say that because a child took four years before he passed into the First Standard, that that time was lost. It was improving the child and training his mind to discipline, or preparing him, in fact, for superior studies later on. If the children of the artisan received their early education out of doors, moreover, it was detrimental from a moral point of view. (Applause.) The English Government recommended the attendance of children just above three years, and every child above three years was entitled, to grants from the treasury. Mr Reed had stated that no other civilised nation, besides New Zealand, admitted children to the schools at five years of age. (A voice : " England is not civilised," and laughter.) In England the compulsory age commenced at five years, and here the compulsory age did not begin till seven years. In France, the compulsory age was six years, in Belgium it was the same, and he believed that it was also six years in Germany. Mr Habens was asked, "Is there any undue mental sti'ain involved ?" and his reply was, " In a properly organised school the exercise is pleasant and healthful, and does not involve any harm to the brain." Mr Habens, in reply to another question, said that he thought that the different conditions of childten ought to be considered. The children of the working man and the artisan usually left school at an earlier age, and they ought therefore to go to school earlier than others. These, said Mr Cooper, were surely sufficient grounds for reacting Mr Reed's resolution (Cheers.) No sane man could come to the conclusion that a child of five years could get any harm in the public scho -is, and if they were to have retrenchment, they must have it in some other way than that now pi*oposed. (Cheers.) He understood that a resolution would be moved directly limiting free education to the Fourth Standard. A moro fatal mistake could not be made. (Applause.) He admitted that if that were done they could save a large amount of money, but would it be well &aved ? (" No, ,no.") It came out of the pockets of the people. £400,000 a year was spent for education, and the total revenue derived from the property tax did not amount to much more than £350,000. Property, of course, bore its proper share of burdens, but the education of the people of necessity came out of the pockets of the greater number. (Cheers.) It was the people themselves who contributed to the revenue for this purpose, and they had a right to say whether or not they could afford the money. (Cheers.) By limiting free education to the Fourth Standard we would exclude from the public schools of the colony O"er 12,800, and he ventured to submit that a boy's education was only beginning when he pa.Nsed the Fourth Standard. (Applause.) The Sixth Standard was looked upon in Englishspeaking countries as the finishing book for the education of the working classes, and the Civil Service of New Zealand was only open to boys who had passed the Sixth Standard. ( Applause. ) At this stage the Rev. Mr Wallie rose to a point of order, and was met by a storm of hisses. The Chairman ruled that Mr Cooper was in order, and he resumed amid cries of " Go on." Mr Cooper then recommended the audience to pause before they took any step such as had been proposed by Mr Reed. He was going to show how £50,000 could be effected in educational retrenchment without preventing one child from attending the schools or lowering the standards. (Cries of "Go on.") They had 3,000 teachers in the colony, including 185 sewing mistresses, and a very large number of pupil teachers ; 570 teachers receiving salaries under £100 ; 100 receiving salaries from £100 to £200 ; 224 with salaries from £200 to £300 ; 52 with salaries from £300 to £400 ; and sixteen receiving over £400. They found in Auckland that by discharging useless teachers and limiting the staff, a saving of £2,000 could be effected ; while in Otago a saving could be :uade of a much larger sum. Supposing that in the exigencies of the present system we made reductions, taking the most off those who wei*e getting most, and the least off those who were getting the least, they could save £37,000 without doing hurt to a single person, or interfering with the efficiency of a single school. (Cheers.) Twenty per cent, was not a great hardship off a salary of over £400, for we had all to suffer some reduction on account of the bad times. He would take 15 per cent, from salariesof £300 ; 12£ from £200 ; 10 per cent, from £150 ; and 5 per cent, off the balance. Then, if they saved the vote for buildings, they could save another £25,000 or £30,000. He asked them not to be misled by false issues. It was remarkable that Mr Reed, who supported the motion, was also the representative of a newspaper that supported denominational education. (Applause and dissent.) There were certain persons in Auckland who had offered to support New Testament day schools if they could get a capitation of £1 per head, and he urged all to vote in a decisive manner against the resolution. (Loud and prolonged applause.) Mr Farrell rose to second the amendment. There was, he said, no question on which the working classes could so well speak as upon education. He maintained that considerable retrenchment should be effected in our Civil Service and in higher education, before our present system ot primary education was touched. (Applause. ) They should give consent to no such proposal before every other means of retrenchment had been carried into effect. (Applause). He also stated that the small cost of £1 5s per head for children under seven years of age was owmg to the large number that could be taught in one class. Without the Fifth and Sixth Standards money spent on education would be little better than wasted. Dr. Wallis said he was decidedly more in favour of the amendment than of the motion. Education, he said, consisted of two distinct parts, primary and higher education. Primary education was necessary to the life of the people, and higher education was a luxury which taxpayers afforded the richer portion of the population. If retrenchment were really indispensable, he would prefer that it should begin in the secondary rather than in the primary schools, and that we should reduce extravagance in connection with our higher schools and university colleges rather than that we should do that which would tend to maim our present excellent system of primary education. While there was so much extravagance in every part of Government, he would prefer that retrenchment should be effected in these othei 10 or 12 departments of Government 1 rather than in the Education Department. He did nob think that our educational system was without fault ? but we, sftquld,

beware of doing anything that would interfere with it seriously. Mr Reed's proposal seemed to go too far. He was inclined to retrench one year at the beginning (dissent), but as the audience were so determined he would not ' touch it at all, rather than deal with it in the heroic manner proposed by Mr Reed. He denied the statement 4 that children received no benefit from schooling before the age of seven years, and also the statement that muscular development was interfered with by sending children to school at five years. The fact was that during the first three years the child's brain developed, and that very little change took place after the third year. Dr. Wallace quoted Professor Bain to the effect that nothing but observation of cases would avail us in deciding at what age a child should begin schooling. The concluding sentence of the quotation was, "The necessity or expediency of protracting the age of commencing till six or seven cannot be made out. There ought to be proof positive that in such belated instances the child advances with a rapidity that carries all before it." Mr J. M. McLachlan rose to express the views of the Financial Refoim Association, and was met with some opposition. One of the audience suggested that they didn't want to hear any suggestions from the " Skinflint Association." Mr McLachlan stated that the Association which he represented was of opinion that very great retrenchment could be effected by a reduction of salaries and office expenditure, and would hail with satisfaction any movement which, while not impairing efficiency, would bring about this result. Mr Neylon said it was the opinion of the Newmarket School Committee that 5 years was too early. He thought that the school age should be from 5 to 7 years, providing pupils had passed the sth Standard, ana that special concessions should be made to country schools. (Applause. ) Mr McManus supported the amendment. He mentioned that at Herikino the schools had been closed to Maori boys (•( • 'Shame"), and then went on to observe that the Financial Reform Association had been euchred that night as they had never been before. (Laughter.) Mr J. M. McLachlan rose to protest, but the meeting declined to hear him. Mr F. G. Ewington said that the decision of the public on this question would mark an epoch in the history of New Zealand. The education system was in danger, and it became them as wise men to look this difficulty in the face, and see where they were going to. It was specially necessary at the present time that they should have a good system of education, because the English people were engaged in an industrial warfare from which there was no discharge. Although there were objections to be made against our system, he contended that it was a good system. (Applause.) But we should have a system within our means, which we could pay for honestly. The present system was costing us over £509,000 a year, and expenses had gone on increasing at the average of £10,250 per annum. They had spent £85,000 a year on public school buildings, and the tax was now 17s 6d per head on every man, woruan, and child in New Zealand. (A voice : " And cheap at that.") That was £3 15s for every male taxpayer. The question was, " Could we afford to pay thib great sum?" We were spending at present four millions a year ; we had a deficiency last year and the previous year ; and they had to be made up by increased taxation, and he asked, could we pay over half a million a year for our system of education ? (A voice ; "Wemust," and uproar*.) If we could pay for ( it he said in the name of Heaven let us have it, but if we could not pay for it, let us look the matter full in the face and say we cannot afford it. (Applause and dissent. ) If we went on extravagantly we would injure our credit in the Old Country. His only reason for rising was to cay that if we did not, like wise men, take hold of the helm, the vessel would drift on the rocks ; if we didn't grapple this question till it settled itself it would settle us. (Applause and dissent.) Mr Cooper had pointed out that a saving of £37,000 could be effected by cutting down salaries, and Mr Neylon had made a wise suggestion in splitting thedifference between 7 and 5 years, by which a saving of £25,000 :aight be effected. If it was found necessary to stop at the Fourth Standard, we have the scholarships for the sons of poor parents. At this stage Dr. Laishley and Mr Otto faced the audience together, the latter loudly claiming his right to be heard. The Chairman ruled in favour of Dr. Laishley, and Mr Otto retired. Dr. Laishley said he had been asked to speak on the subject of the Fourth Standard and to move the resolution, "That in consideration of the financial position of the colony and the necessity for further retrenchment, free education should end with the Fourth Standard," and, as if the amendment were cairied, he would have no opportunity to move the resolution, he would speak to the amendment. He had recommended to the Government in ISBS that free education should stop at the Fourth Standard (Uproar, and cries of " Who told you ?") He made that recommendation for two reasons, because the financial interests of the colony required it, and, mainly, because he did not think that the State was in any way bound to go beyond the Fourth Standard even if they were bound to do that. (Dissent. ) He regarded the duties of the Government in this matter to so educate its subjects that they might be of benefit to the State. The Legislature of New Zealand had declared that there was no ohligation to educate beyond the Fourth Standard(hi&ses), and it had been placed on record in the 90th section of the Act that "Compulsory education shall cease at the Fourth Standard." (Uproar). He was unable to understand why any education in the Fifth and Sixth Standards was permitted by the State, and he denied that the Government of New Zealand had any right to expend State moneys in these standards. (Uproar). At this stage Mr W. J. Speight advanced from the body of the hall and mounted the platform amidst cheering. He appealed for a hearing for Dr. Laishley, and that gentleman proceeded. He maintained that the Fourth Standard satisfied all the requirements of a State education (dissent), and there should be only one exception by which poor boys who were brilliant should receive certain scholarships. (Laughter). Mr E. Bell here rose to move an amendment, but was ruled out of order. Mr W. J. Speight said chat it appeared as if there had been an attempt to prolong the meeting so that the audience would become tired out and not vote on the question. (Applause,) w ( Dr. Laishley ought, not to have been there at all, because he was the exponent of a set of men that did not' believe in the education system at ail — ("We' know that," and uproar)- of a set that were j ready to pounce upon its carcase and tqar it ' to pieces whenever they got a chance. He '; could not sit still and see the attempt that ' had been made to deceive them. (Cheers). The only true, leveller jn this country was our State system of education—it put' , the children of the rich' man and the poor, man together, and said '« You will be edu- lj cated side by side<" This system was a, ,

heritage to' New- Zealanders,, "and he 'most) devoutly gave expression to the thought that he was thankful to God that they carried an amendment the other night to postponeconsiderafcion of the question. ( Wehave to>ffchank you for it. ) Mr Cooper's was the proper amendment, because the Bible-in-schools people and others were saying " We will do it cheaper for you." Yes; they did it cheaper for us once, did they not? (Laughter and applause.) was because our denominations had made our education to stink, because they were not doing their duty by the children, that the State stepped in and said, " Stand aside. You have proved false to your trust ; we cannot prove false to ours." (Cheers.) There were some who ten years ago were with him on this question, but they had since fallen away. (A voice : "Reed," and laughter). No; he did not mean Reed ; Resd was a very good fellow — an excellent fellow. He would now say to the people, " Close up ; stand shoulder to shoulder (cheers), and let there be no more paltering with this thing. Either the education system has to be complete or we must do without it altogether. (Cheers.) Do not palter with any part of^ the amendment, but stop here till midnightif necessary and vote for it." (Loud and prolonged cheering. ) The Rev. J. S. Hill said he wanted the meeting seriously to consider one question, whether they were quite just in dealing with the Roman Catholics as they were now dealing with them on this matter of education. (Cries of "No," "Yes," and uproar.) There were a large number of the very poorest amongst us who conscientiously felt a difficulty in putting their children under a secular system of education, and he asked was this just to them (uproar, and a voice : " What are you paid for ?") He was certainly not paid by the person interrupting. He had not come there to say anything about religion (uproar), but he said that if they wanted to maintain the present system of education and keep it intact, they must be just to every man in the State — (Hear, hear) — and if they wanted to economise in this respect they could do so by getting assistance from those who were willing to educate the children. (Applause and dissent.) In England to day they gave help of this nature, but it did not exceed half the real cost. (A voice : "We are ahead of England," and another voice: " You are an enemy of the system.") But they had to deal with the practical difficulty. If they wanted to give the best possible education to everyone, they must go upon the mosb economical principle. They mu,«t do something to prevent the increasing burdens of cost upon the State, for otherwise the time must come when they must carry some such resolution as that proposed by Mr Reed, ( Uproar. ) The question was then submitted to the meeting. For the amendment a forest of hands went up all over the hall, and there Avere only about thirty hands against it. It was, therefore, declared carried amidst cheers. Three cheers for Mr Theo. Cooper were called for and given with enthusiasm,, and after passing a similar compliment to- the Chairman, the meeting terminated at 11 o'clock.