UNIFIED SCHOOL CONTROL

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26633, 19 January 1952, Page 2

UNIFIED SCHOOL CONTROL

AUCKLAND BOARD’S MOVE POST-PRIMARY BODIES AFFECTED Unification of control of primary and post-primary schools will be^®J? e ' be subject of general debate and consideration by the Government through a move of the Auckland Education Board The board has decided to assert‘its claim to be fully responsible for the management of public schools, including post-primary schools, in its area It will take immediate . steps to assume control of new post-primary schools, including those planned for Papakura, Huntly. Henderson, Penrose and Roskill. Mr S. J. Irwin, chairman of the Canterbury Education Board, said, as recently as last December, that his board had no wish to assume control of post-primary schools, that its composition was unsuitable, and that he thought no single board could manage such wide interests. Any such change would be resisted in Christchurch, judging by the adamant stand of the Post-Primary Schools’ Board of Governors and its affiliated Boards of Managers of individual schools against placing even office administration under the Canterbury Education Board. The Auckland board’s post-primary committee reported that the board’s right of control over post-primary schools was in accordance with clause 54 (1) of the Education Act. This says that the board shall take such steps as it thanks fit to ascertain the requirements of any district in respect of primary, secondary or technical education and may take the necessary steps in accordance with the act for the establishment of schools and classes. The committee also recommended the board to press for the unification of control of all schools of pre-uni-versity status, with the exception of those already set up under special acts and under control of boards of governors. With these exceptions it was further recommended that the board should be the controlling authority of all post-primary schools within the education district, with the local management of each school being the responsibility of the school council or committee of management elected largely by parents of the pupils. Another recommendation was that the board should press for legal status for committees of management, to-“ gether with their right to vote in elections of Education Board members in line with regulations under section 10 (2) of the Education Amendment Act. This section says that where the immediate control of a technical school is retained by a controlling authority it may, with the approval of the Minister, delegate such powers over the school as it thinks fit to the committee of the school districts in which the technical school is situated, or to a special committee elected or appointed in a prescribed manner. Association’s Objection The New Zealand Secondary School Boards’ Association sirongiy opposes changes in the control of post-primary schools as suggested. The actingpresident (Mr (J. Conibear) said no logical reasons for the proposed changes had been given, and it could only be assumed the motive was a "lust for power.” It was most significant the Auckland board was the only authority publicly seeking this control.

“X have previously given many reasons why this would be a retrograde step, introducing an undesirable and remote system of control,” said Mr Conibear. “These reasons have been publicly supported by the principals of post-primary schools throughout the country.” He doubted if the board had consulted or considered the opinion of principals and teachers under its control.

“It appears that irrespective of others opinions the board is determined to attempt to force its views on the Minister of Education (Mr R. M. Algie). Surely if there is any reason for a change in control it can best be achieved by pooling the views of all those qualified to speak on postprimary schools.”

. The recent assurances by the Minister, that there would be do change iq control without first consulting all interested parties, had been accepted by the association. Should not a similar attitude be expected from the board?

The board was fast becoming a pressure group, he said. It was overlooking tnat it was only one of many governing authorities, most of whom were very definitely opposed to the boards intentions. He noped the Minister would be in a position to ! nake a statement on the future control of the schools when the association held its conference in May.

Rights Under Act Questioned J egal , cla ‘ ms , o( the Auckland board have already been challenged by Miss J. T. Hetherington, acting-chair-man of the Auckland Grammar School Board. The statement that this authority is vested in the Education Board by virtue of section 54 (1) of the Education Act overlooks that this section refers to public schools only as defined in section 2 of the act, where specific reference is made to district hign schools, which gives the board some measure of authority in secondary and technical education,” she said. “Sec.muJ 8 ’ moreover, permissive only. The board . . . may take the necessary steps. . . J'he control of secondary schools is la ‘ d down in section 88 of the act. h he ¥ lnls u ter is empowered to =^ b ln h s , chools . and sections 89 and 90 which lay down the constitu--223 ‘ boa rds of such schools,” said Miss Hetherington. “By their constitution secondary schools cannot be ?r, ntro l le< L by a ? education board. ContMnyßAa^eXatement by the Education Board, these provisions are still in existence, as is clearly stated in section 90 of the act is n ?i m . y responsibility to comment on the legal position of techni?hLZ cl }£° ls ’ except t 0 ®ay that even assumption that education hoards alone may have authority over 109 h 2f C ?L edU f a i tlOn moorrect. Section tr<unL th i? ys down that the con£on mg authority for technical schools may be an education board a secondary school board or a college. In fact two technical schoffis hv"lnth n °n^ edge i“ ave been controlled board2 th ?hA tle q h° th i er th A an education boards—the School of Art in Christv2rlu b ’ by Canterbury UniN»rth y T Co ?® ge i <? nd the Palmerston North Technical School, controlled bv Board” mei n N ° rth High Sch ools