The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1957. Education Administration

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28371, 2 September 1957, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1957. Education Administration

Centralisation has threatened the New Zealand education system ever since the Education Department was created 80 years ago for the laudable purpose of ensuring that every child should have, as nearly as possible, equal opportunity for primary education. At one stage district education boards seemed little more, than an expensive, redundant system for duplicating some of the department’s work. Against this history the report of the Director of Education (Mr C. E. Beeby) on the decentralisation of administration of primary schools is particularly welcome. It would be welcome if it did no more than record that representatives of the department had met representatives of the boards to consider how the department could yield some of the powers it has acquired, even without agreement. ■ In fact the joint Committee was unanimous in recommending procedures to give the boards greater , authority. And, as Mr Beeby points out, this continues a trend begiin quietly a few years ago, with board representation on the committees that appoint teachers, greater board responsibility for the planning and construction of buildings, and wider general powers for boards. These in themselves were considerable advances, the full implications of which have not yet become apparent. One of the most significant reforms now planned will give the senior inspector in each district (who is both the department’s representative and the board’s professional adviser) much greater freedom to make his own decisions. This again transfers power from the central authority to the local authority. Less progress has been made in raising the status, of school

committees; but more detailed study may show how they may make a bigger contribution to education. Their importance as the electorate of the -boards should not, in the meantime, be overlooked. Indeed, the* one criticism that could be made of Mr Beeby’s report is that he under-estimates the value of this part of the democratic process. His contention that the Minister of Education, because he is a member of Parliament, has greater direct responsibility than board members is debatable. The whole argument against centralisation is that local action against injustice or inefficiency is useless against the holder of a national office.

Strangely enough, while devolution proceeds in primary education, centralisation is growing in the post-primary schools. This is not because the department wants it so. Mr Bepby says, and the evidence supports him, that the department prefers a strong local administration like the Christchurch Post-primary Schools. Council, which can undertake its own planning, to a multiplicity of small boards with neither the resources nor the desire to perform more than the simplest administrative tasks. Mr Beeby’s advocacy of the Christchurch system will be endorsed by those who have had experience of it. A characteristic of all local government in New Zealand is the curious preference of taxpayers for central taxation (over which they have little control) to local taxation (which they can control). This has contributed to the weakening of local authorities in more fields than education. As Mr Beeby suggests; the report of the joint committee on primary school administration could be useful in a Wider field;