REPORT CRITICISED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 260, 2 November 1932, Page 3

REPORT CRITICISED.

ECONOMY COMMISSION. CONTROL .OF, EDUCATION. CENTRALISATION PLAN. Strong criticism of the centralisation proposals of the National Economy Commission regarding education was made by .the chairman, Mr. T. U. Wells, in a report presented to the Auckland Education Board to-day.

"I am convinced that the proposals of the National Expenditure Commission for the abolition of education boards, and for the centralisation of practically all executive and administrative power in Wellington, threaten a most serious blow to the best interests of education in the Dominion," he said. "I think we should resist it to the utmost.

"The commission heard the views of none but Departmental officers," he continued, "and I submit that on a matter *o fundamental as this, the evidence of Departmental officers should be taken with some hesitation, for the Director, of Education would be more than human were he not to be influenced, unconsciously perhaps, by the knowledge that centralisation must mean increased authority and prestige for the head of the Department. I think that the commission's recommendation in favour of centralisation is due largely to the fact that the Director of Education is a most ardent advocate of that form of control. . . " •

Unfortunately, the present Director of Education had no personal knowledge of education outside New Zealand and Australia, the speaker added. He had allowed his imagination to be captured and his judgment to be affected by the highly centralised systems prevailing in each of the Australian States. Centralisation in Australia. The best educational opinion in Australia to-day was convinced that decentralisation was overdue. Mr. Wells quoted statements of educational authorities to support his views. It was this system, discredited in Australia, that was to be inflicted on New Zealand. Mr. Wells pointed out that the position of the Director of Education was permanent, and there was a great opportunity for a man of continuity of purpose to grasp at and to' retain power and responsibility. In that, the Director had been aided by the fact that there was no continuity of office for the Minister of Education.

Inaccurate Figures Used. The figures, presumably supplied by Departmental figures, were so inaccurate and consequently so misleading that comparisons obtained from them were without value. The cost of administration in the Auckland district,.for example, he said, was shown to be 3/9 per unit of average attendance. That was incorrect. It should have been 3/7.

"The commission," added the speaker, "states that the cost of administration (of Education Boards) has been put of proportion to the increase in school attendance, and has occurred notwithstanding substantial reduction in the duties of boards. It is stated that in the Auckland Education Board in 1915 there was a clerical staff of 11, which had increased by 1930 to 27—an increase of 145.5 per cent, while in the same time the number of schools had increased from 645 to 779, an increase of 20.8 per cent. As a matter of fact, the number on'the staff in this office in 1915 was not 11, but 18, and. the increase was consequently 50 per cent, not 145.5 per cent. During the same time the average attendance in our schools had grown from 44,877 to 63,092, an increase of over 40 per cent, while the money handled by the office had increased during these years from £325,421 in 1915 to £881,735 in 1930, an increase of 170 per cent. These figures give a very different result from that conveyed by, the inaccurate and misleading statement made by the commission. These are by no means the only instances of misstatement by the Department of Education,

Economies Suggested by Boards. "The Education Boards of the Dominion fully appreciate the need for saving public expenditure, and at the conference of boards held in Wellington last April, suggestions were made for effecting economies that would probably exceed those resulting from the centralisation proposals of the commission—suggestions, moreover, that should improve instead of' impairing the efficiency of the system., These proposals were as follows: —Decentralisation of the system; unification of control within districts, including building control; simplification of regulations; simplification and adjustments of salary scales foxteachers of primary, secondary and technical schools; transfer to education boards of control of native schools and abolition of native school inspectorate: simpler classification of teachers; reduction in Departmental travelling expenses; reduction- in compilation and publication of statistics; abolition of present system of fire inspection; and reorganisation of child welfare system.

"I believe that we already have far too much Departmental control in education, with the result that' wo are in danger of developing a system of uniform mediocrity and of- stifling the development in this country of . individual initiative and resourcefulness."