THE STATE SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1920, Page 6

THE STATE SCHOOLS.

KEY. FEAXKLIN'S statements REFUTED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Stratford, Dec. 17. Certain' statements about the Stat,e system of education, which were made by the Rev. Franklin, of Hawera, at the In'caking-up ceremony of St. Mary's Girls' -School, .Stratford, on Wednesday afternoon, were strongly criticised by i Mr. R. Masters, 11.1'., at the prize-giving reremony at the Stanley Road {School last night. Mr. Masters stated it had been said by Mr. Franklin that while the intellectual side of education waa well looked after in the State schools, tho moral and spiritual side was for some reason entirely neglected. He took that statement as a distinct reflection ou" tho State system of education, and also as a serious reflection on all parents ivlio sent their children to the State schools, the insinuation being that the moral side of the children's education was 'wholly neglected. He could not, as an advocate of State education, let the statement go unchallengjed. Further, it was a slur upon every | teacher in the State schools, inasmuefe las there was the suggestion that they ; were not morally-minded people, ani | that it was unsafe for parents to en- ; trust the moral well-being of children jto them. I "In my opinion," added Mr. Masters, i r, a statement ot rtlmt kind is unkind, i unfair and absolutely wrong. lam convinced that the moral side of education is as well looked after in the State schools as in others, and I Hjjfiintain that in this respect we have nothing to learn from private schools." tMr; ! Masters mentioned that the master of a ' State school who had put hundreds ! through the secondary department dur- ' ing the last seven years, had told him ' that he had never known one pupil to i tell him a lie. Surely this went to i prove that the honorable attitude in | life, one towards another, had been in- ! culcated into the children's minds. The ■ Rev. Franklin's statement was a wliole- ; sale indictment of parents in rclegatI ing the moral training of their children jto the teachers in the schools. He (Mr. | Masters) considered that it was the first iduty of the parents to attend to that ; fide of their children's education, and, j secondly, it was the duty of the school teacher to follow up that training. He would he very sorry to relegate his solemn duty in that respect to someone else, and he wanted to cast that slur right back. The teacher, of course, had a big responsibility, but- it was second only to that of the parents, and liis experience in education matters in the State schools had convinced him that there were very few teachers in the State schools of the Dominion who were not seized of their responsibility in regard to the moral training of the children under their care.