EDUCATION CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 133, 7 June 1929, Page 9

EDUCATION CONTROL.

CASE FOR CHANGE.

FULLER LOCAL POWERS.

BETTER SYSTEM NEEDED.

(By PROFESSOR A. B. FITT.),

Possibly the Professor of Education, too, is entitled to make a few considered comments "from the educational side" upon suggestions toward more unified control of the different grades of schools recently issued by the New Zealand Educational Institute. I have no intention of assuming an attitude of controversy toward tlie remarks of my colleague, • Professor Anderson, _ but merely wish to indicate that the situation is a very complex one and will be best met by a broad, open mind in the whole matter. I am at least convinced that in this field different opinions (and considered opinions, might I say?) are held both here and abroad, and that, therefore, over-dogmatic and sweeping assertions may not help very much. Decentralisation. First, I would point out that I quite agree with Professor Anderson and the Aew Zealand Educational Institute regarding the need of breaking down centralising tendencies in our educational administration. Undoubtedly we need much more local initiative and control in this field, and our schooling systems (for we have no oae system) are mature enough to commence to look after themselves a little more than is at present the case. Does it, however, necessarily follow that a scheme to bring greater continuity into our schooling systems should be accompanied inevitably by further centralisation round the Education Department? It might well be done in quite a different way. For example, as a definite part of the scheme, the local education authorities might well be endowed with fuller powers and responsibilities. Further, the different grades of schooling under each educational authority might still be left for final administrative purposes to separate boards (for primary, secondary, etc.,) who could act under the general direction of the local authority. Everything depends upon the manner in which such a change is brought about. The end to be achieved does not, in such complex, human matters, indicate at all clearly or unequivocally the means which might be adopted to reach that end. Just a word regarding the need for some effort to reduce our schooling fragments, to something at any rate of a system. Historically the whole has grown up piecemeal—now this piece, now that —and under such conditions stocktaking and reorganisation are sooner or later inevitable. Our various post-primary efforts are certainly badly disjointed, and might well be impoved by some liberal and well-planned basis for co-ordination.

Regarding the kind of reorganisation, Professor Anderson says: "In practice the continuity for which they seek recognition amounts to a levelling down of educational methods to suit certain ideas begotten within the primary system." Frankly, I do not see this. Of course, that would be one way, and a bad way, of doing it. But no one seriously believes that our secondary school authorities are so spineless and powerless as to allow any such thing to happen. The whole could take place quite differently. Professor Anderson says that essentially "education is not continuous in any case." He bases his case mainly upon the suggestion that the development of the child as an "individual" is not very continuous, for he says that the child is "at the primary stage one person, at the secondary (or technical) another person, at the university another still." Now, these distinctions are rather oratorical exaggerations. I could point out, for example, that the primary child is two ormoe pesons in succession whilst passing through the primary stage, and similarly of the secondary child from about the age of 12 years onward. All that mean, however, and all that Professor Anderson means is that the child undergoes several changes in outlook and ability in the course of his growing up. No one will deny for long that in a great number of fundamental respects he is the same child. Stage by stage he is the same yet different. Liberal continuity can attend both to his samenesses and his differences. An Exaggerated Danger.

Regarding the differences, I quite agree that "at each of these stages the indiviudal should be received into a new community, with different methods and traditions"" This can all be attended to as the child leaves his primary school and goes to some form of post-primary school. No one has said that, in the suggested scheme, the child is going to be kept at a long-drawn-out primary school for all his schooling. New Zealand is too sane a country to think of such a thing.

In conclusion, I would point out that Professor Anderson and I agree almost entirely regarding procedures of "intelligence testing," "new examining," etc., but that these matters have little if anything to do with the#issue of continuity raised by the Educational Institute. This is a broad issue which might well be discussed in a broad way, unless of course we wish to perpetuate all our educational efforts at the stage they have reached in the year 1929.