Rehabilitation Schools

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25932, 12 October 1949, Page 4

Rehabilitation Schools

Criticism of the Government's rehabilitation trade training scheme expressed at the Technical Education Association’s conference last week deserves a cooler and more informative reply than the one given by the Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr C. F. Skinner). Ho did J not assist his case by accusing one of the critics of sabotaging former servicemen’s attempts to establish themselves in a skilled trade. Delegates who criticised the scheme were not attacking the principle of providing trade training. Their concern was with the value of the training given at the schools, the need for continuing it. and the type of men now being trained. What they said, and the director of the Wellington Technical College (Mr R. G. Ridling) said later, suggests that schools are being maintained, i not for the original purpose of i rehabilitation, but mainly for training men who, as Mr Skinner himself says, wish to change their occu- : pations. As for the need for the schools, the Rehabilitation Board admits in its last annual report that there has been a tendency for applications to come forward more slowly; that it has had to advertise to attract the attention of former servicemen; and that classes have been deferred until the required number has come forward. No one, least of all the taxpayer who has to meet the cost of trade ■ training, would wish to handicap j the rehabilitation of former servicemen or prevent the building up of an efficient labour force for the building industry. But criticism of the training of rehabilitation carpenters made by a practising archi- , tect at the technical education conference raises the doubt whether the trade training courses are as valuable to the building industry as Mr Skinner claims. The master builders who have to employ men from trade training schools appar- ! ently share this doubt. Their ! annual conference six months ago. ! after hearing the “ serious reports ” I of delegates, asked the Government |to call immediately a meeting of interested parties to discuss the future of trade training schools. | The subject was discussed in com- 1 ‘ rnittee, but in open meeting a re- • turned serviceman delegate, Mr C. i Love, described the retention of the I schools as nothing but a sjieer waste i of money, and said that the training lof returned soldiers was being ; worked to death, not only in car- ! pentry, but in many other ways, i The master builders’ request, and | the views expressed at last week’s I conference, raise questions about l the whole system of rehabilitation ! trade training, which Mr Skinner ' should not lightly brush aside.