The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1874.

Press, Volume XXII, Issue 2682, 12 March 1874, Page 2

The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1874.

We noticed tho other day the dissatisfaction expressed by some of the district school committees with the position they hold with regard to the Board of Education. A very similar question has arisen in Victoria. Under the Victorian system the Minister, of Public Instruction is assisted by what are called Boards of Advice, elected in each district by the ratepayers. These Boards have no independent power. They are, as their name imports, Boards of Advice only. Their functions are prescribed in the Act, and are confined to keeping a general watch over the working of the schools and of collecting data and offering suggestions for the information of the Central Department. It is their business to recommend what use shall be made of the school buildings out of school hours ; to report on the condition, requirements, and management of the schools; to compare the attendance with the nominal roll of children in the district, and to report those parents who refuse or neglect to send their children to school; and to recommend for free instruction in the higher subjects any children who display unusual abilities. But the Boards are by no means contented with so restricted a sphere, and are crying out for more extended powers. They are doing their best to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister. One of them has taken the whimsical course of committing suicide, (by a resolution to suspend its meetings sine die,) thinking thereby, we suppose, to strike terror into his soul ; though we fear Mr Stephen will only be moved to a wish that the rest would follow its example. Others of a more practical turn are consulting together with a view to combined action. It is expected, that in the approaching session of the Assembly an attempt will be made to procure an amendment of the Education Act in the direction of raising the status and authority of the local Boards.

The metropolitan Press is opposed to the Boards. The "Age" calls them " shams," and twits Mr Stephen with having " created school boards which " he does not believe in, and has not " the moral courage to do away " with." The " Argus " charges them with neglecting to look after the attendance of the children, and declares that " after a twelvemonth's " experience it is becoming painfully " apparent that these boards of advice " are, in many localities, likely to " turn out boards of obstruction." But for our own part we think that, situated as they are, their demands are not unreasonable. The truth is that a partial amendment of the Education Act while passiug through, the Upper House has placed them in a false position. The Act, as introduced, provided that the Boards of Advice should be nominated by the Governor in Council ; and the duties assigned to them were made to correspond with that intention But, subsequently, to meet the views of the Legislative Council, the Go.ernment acceded to a proposal that the Boards should be elected, while the clause relating to their functions was left untouched. Hence has arisen the difficulty. Had no alteration been made there could have been no ground for complaint. A nominated Board would have been perfectly efficient for all the duties the Act imposed on it, and, being nominated, would have had no pre-

tence to the exercise of original authority. But an elected Board stands on different footing. Any elected body must represent and be responsible to those who elected it—what else is the object of election ? And thus the change in the constitution of the Boards involved a certain degree of independence of the central power, and is totally irreconcilable, as very brief experience has proved, with the theory that they were merely intended to make recommendations (which need not be acted on) to the Minister.

The debates on the subject will be interesting, and we shall be curious to see how the Education Department will extricate itself from its dilemma. There seems no alternative but to endow the Boards with the powers they seek, or to reduce them to the position which they were -originally meant to occupy. The latter course would be preferable; if indeed it would not be better still to abolish them outright. This however is scarcely possible ; and in all probability the principle of election, having been in force so far, will be continued. In that case the clause relative to the duties of the Boards must be reconsidered. The Assembly will thus encounter the question how to maintain the full Parliamentary responsibility of the Minister, while at the same time allowing adequate scope to the institutions for local administration. It is no easy problem. Perhaps in the attempt at a solution some suggestions may be offered by which Canterbury may profit.