EXPENDITURE ON SCHOOLS

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27633, 14 April 1955, Page 5

EXPENDITURE ON SCHOOLS

COMMITTEE GRANTS DISCUSSED

merit of amassing CREDITS QUERIED

A committee that had a substantial credit in its accounts at the end of a year was not doing its duty to J the children, said the secretary (Mr A. Greenwood) at a meeting of the Canterbury School Committees’ Association last evening. Mr L. S. Young said that the . “inadequate grant” for incidental expenses which the Education Board made to schools would be a handicap for new committees which would be formed this month.

It looks very bad when they read the minutes of previous meetings, and they see a deficiency in one account,” he said. “Could not a grant be made to schools where necessary? It makes the new committee start under a handica P« and is tough on new members.” Mr Greenwood said that an increase of 10 per cent, had just been made. A committee that has a substantial balance at the end of the year is not doing its duty by the children.” he said When there is a credit of £45,000 from incidental grants all over the country in a year, the Minister of Education is entitled to say that no more money is required for incidential expenditure.” “Grants Not Big Enough” “School committees do not have half enough money,” said Mr R. J. Cooper. “The incidental grant is not big enough.” “Most of the city schools are ‘in the red.’” said the chairman (Mr R. K. Milne). “Where the big credits occur are in the country schools where they have not the same difficulties as the city . . . (laughter). “A credit balance should not be shown.” Mr Milne said. “Tlie money is to be used for the children at school, and not for children who might be at school in five years.” “What Mr Cooper says is correct,” said Mr Greenwood. “I am not decrying getting more incidental grants.” “All these country schools have got plenty of money.” said Mr E. F. Wild. “Why not reduce their grants?” “If Mr Wild was a member of any

[governing body, would he be game to reduce grants?” asked Mr Greenwood.

“Too right I would, if they were not using it,” replied Mr Wild. Mr Wild then moved “that the association recommend to the Education Board that where a school has not spent the year’s incidental account, the next year’s grant be reduced by the amount in credit?’

The motion was seconded by Mr Cooper. “For years, committees have been screaming out for grants, and credits are being shown in the No. 1 (incidental) accounts,” Mr Wild said. “If Canterbury wants more money, it will have to be ‘in the red’ to get it, instead of being £3OOO or £5OOO in credit. There is only one way to get more money—that is to be ‘in the red.’ ” Motion Opposed

“I am against this motion.” said Mr M. G. Proctor. “It is wrong in 'principle, and would be abhorrent in practice.”

Mr Proctor quoted the case of one committee which believed it was starting the year with a credit, but when a few accounts rendered came in, its credit was whittled away, and it actually started the year with a debit. If the motion was carried, it would encourage spendthrift practices, and would nojt encourage committees to use the money available as they thought best, he said.

Mr Greenwood suggested that, when the board had more money, bigger increases in incidental grants should be made to committees “m the red” than to those in credit. When the motion was put, it was lost on a show of hands.