Conclusion

The importance of the work of the Nelson School Society is not in its limited success in inducing parents to send their children to school nor in the quality of the education it provided, but rather in the way it demonstrated the practicability of establishing a rudimentary school system by dint of concerted local effort and by the use of local resources. It showed that at least the main Protestant denominations could be persuaded to sink their sectarian differences in order to ensure the provision of elementary education for all children. It showed that this interdenominational approach could help overcome the difficult problem of providing schools for outlying communities in a scattered colonial settlement. It demonstrated that within a local community, including its rank and file, there was sufficient acceptance of the need for education for the task of establishing and maintaining schools to be entrusted to local committees, if their activities were supported and co-ordinated by a central organisation. In a negative sense, too. the limitations of the Society's achievement proved that a stable system of efficient public schools catering for all children could not be maintained without substantial public funding.

The rise of the Nelson School Society constitutes a remarkable example of what is now called community development. The activities of the Society were nothing less than a spontaneous, concerted effort by a body of people broadly representative of the whole Nelson community to provide elementary schooling for all its children by self-help methods. It may be objected that in the Society's operations so much of the creative energy and the financial support was supplied by Matthew Campbell, that the Society's achievement was an example of the force of personal leadership rather than of the virtues of community development. I would argue, however, that it is possible to overestimate Campbell's undoubtedly valuable contribution. One must take into account the sterling work of Wm. Stanton, the secretary over the period 1844–56, of A. G. Jenkins, of J. P. Robinson as well as of the faithful committee members McArtney and Gardner and the membership of a whole network of local committees. The Society's work may be fairly deemed an example of genuine community development. As for the role of such well educated local leaders as Fox. Domett and Dillon, these gentlemen, by taking part in the Society's proceedings and by commending its work in speeches page 25and in the press, encouraged the working members of the Society and enhanced its public image, but they did not provide the initiative and drive that launched the Society and kept it going. This was provided by Campbell and his coadjutors.

It is significant that in 1849 when the Education Committee of the Legislative Council of New Munster reported to the Council in favour of a public school system administered by local committees and supported by public funds three of the five members of that committee were persons who knew the Nelson School Society's work well. The Nelson example was beginning to exert its influence When the Nelson Provincial Council took over the Nelson School Society's schools in 1856 it built its school system upon the basis of the Society's achievement and the relative success of the Nelson provincial education system in due course had a further influence upon those who promoted the Education Act in 1877. When it came to deciding what were suitable components of a general school system for New Zealand, there is little doubt that the significant and unique experience of a local community such as Nelson in striving to solve its educational problems would have counted for more than imported doctrines and examples of school systems in England. Massachusetts or anywhere overseas.