THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13791, 21 July 1910, Page 6

THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION.

No part of the Government's policy, as indicated in tho Budget, will, we believe, meet with such opposition as tho proposnl to transfer tho functions of the existing Education Boards to the new Councils which arc to absorb a largo number of the local government bodies in each district. We are in full agreement with the Government in believing that the present multiplicity of local bodies means a waste of money and effort, and that the best interests of tho community will be served by a judicious process of amalgamating a largo number of small bodies into a smaller number of larger and more powerful bodies. But wo fail utterly to see how the incorporation of Education Boards into these new bodies is to benefit anybody. Wo havo not agreed always with the administration of Education Boards, but on the whole they have carried out their responsible duties satisfactorily. This has- certainly been the caso with the North Canterbury Board, which has had tho advantage from time to time of a number of able men, competent to guide with wisdom the educational affairs of tho district. The Board in later years would have done still better work if it had not been subjected to interference from Wellington. If the new Councils are to reduce to . any useful extent the present number of • smaller bodies, they will have to administer tho affairs of Inrg<? districts, which arc at present undertaken by Boards and Councils of various sorts. The Education Boards already cover largo d stricts—the jurisdiction of the North Canterbury Board, for instance, extends from Kaikoura to below Ashburton, and from Pigeon Bay to Benle-y. It is difficult, therefore, to understand how the Divisional Committees can be any fewer in number than tho present Education Boards whose duties they aro to perform J under the new scheme. The work \ of the Boards now requires the constant attention of the members and of an office, staff, and the new committees must, unless they neglect their duties, employ as much assistance and make as

J great demands uncn the time of their members. The work under the proposed arrancement can be done no more economically and no more efficiently. Wherein, then, lies the advantage of the change? From the public's point of view .it is invisible. The Government, however, see in it an opportunity to foist upon the people the system of local rating for education purposes, which, as we know, is favoured by tho present Minister for Education and which, as we have

lately seen, he lias already attempted to put into practice in respect of technical education. In his Budget speech the Prime Minister said that " the Government proposes to tranefer •' tho work of the building and mainu tenanco of schools, providing the li whole of the money for tho former " and a contribution for tho latter,

■' to ensure the decentralisation of " maintenance votes now annually

'■ pasted by Parliament. I propose to '■ provide a sum at the beginning of tho '•system of £2-30,000 per' annum. This " will require to be done upon a " proper basis. Those local authorities ■' who rate themselves to the extent of "Jd in the £ over, will neces-

" sarily receive more consideration ■' than those who rate under this " amount." A considerable proportion of the cost of tho maintenance of vhe schools, if this plan becomes law, will havo to be borne by tho ratepayers of each ichool district, and the more money that a district provides, the bigger will be the Government's contribution. Apart from the injustice of apportioning tho burden of education so unequally,- the scheme is opon to the fatal objection that the richer districts will receive more help from the Government than tho poorer ones, which must affect tho efficiency of the education system in the latter. Education is one of tho departments of Government, like defence, the police force, and the judicial system, which, should rightly be paid for by the whole community, and the only way of ensuring that this is done is for the Consolidated Fund to hear the whole cost. The Government's proposal to put part of tho cost on to the shoulders .of a section of the people is undemocratic, and is opposed to the b&st interests c f the State, because it ma red it possible for tho children in one part of the country to enjoy greater educational advantages than those in another. We look to Parliament to reject firmly this part of the scheme of local government reform, which otherwise has much to recommend it.