School Finance OVATION FOR' YOUNG MOTHER

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28984, 27 August 1959, Page 10

School Finance OVATION FOR' YOUNG MOTHER

A young mother this month stood before about 50 school committeemen, spoke passionately of her belief that the education vote should be higher, and won prolonged applause for her speech. She is Mrs Rae, a former teacher, a university graduate, and now a member of the Christchurch East School Committee.

Mrs Rae’s remarks arose from: irrears of maintenance at her >wn school; but she had a general. heme: that the education vote a ( lead lags far behind increased! •osts and increased numbers; that; naintenance and equipment; ’rants lag far behind salary in-n-eases; that lumping inter- j nediate school moneys with i jrimary school funds confuses •eal values; and that headmasters should be given great freedom in I ourchasing for their schools instead of going through the jug-1 gling processes of school com- j mittee. education board, and! Education Department. Here are some of her views:— Having had the feeling since my impecunious training college days—intensified now by committee problems—that there was no: enough money going into education, I decided on some research into the education vote in the Budget. And I emerged with the conclusion that even on the department’s own figures a substantial increase is necessary. Even within our country it is difficult to make comparisons involving our total Budget over a period. Our social services have mushroomed tremendously which throws the relative percentages ot all other groups out. In the 1959 estimates, education gets about 11 per cent., social security nearly 33 1-3 per cent, and the only other giants near education are debt services, payments under special acts ot Legislature, and the railways. Living and Learning But even on these figures there is 33 1-3 per cent, to keep up the standard of living and only 11 per cent, to learn how to cope with it. This might well be at the bottom of many of our social and economic problems today. There is a clearer picture if the comparison is based on the education vote only over a specified period. I have taken out comparative figures for 1939. 1949 and 1959. using the £1 in 1939 as a base Price index figures to enable me to do this were obtained from the department of economics of the University of Canterbury (100.135,218>. The vote worked out: — One average attendance (including intermediate) at 1939 £l4 18s 9d a primary school child. 1949 £l4 16s. 1959 £l6 Bs. On total school rolls 1939 £l2 18s. 1949 £l2 8s Bd. 1959 £l5 Is lOd. And that represents 20 years

progress—£l 9s 3d on average attendance. In actual number of pounds the primary school grant has multiplied five times. The general or head office vote has gone up 63 times. Let me state here that this is not all bureaucracy—it is indicative also of the increased scope of education. How much progress is there in this small increase in value considering the great development in educational theory, practice, materials and equipment available? I think there is very little if any. Most of the increase has been taken up in teacher salaries. Also the intermediate schools are included in the grant and receive more in relation to the primary schools. There are many more intermediates today than in 1939. Of the £11.179.980 which went on primary schools in 1958-59. i £9,300.000 was spent on salaries. | Of the total education vote’s £2.000,000 odd rise in 1957-58. over 75 per cent, was salaries. Of the total vote's £2.000.000 odd rise last ' year over one quarter was for [ textbooks and most of the rest : salaries. Teachers' Salaries I do not say that the teachers do not need improving salaries; but I do say that alone is not sufficient ! to make good education. The I theory of good educational prac- [ tice taught in teachers’ colleges is too often not possible in our ■ schools particularly with size of ' classes too big and lack of apparatus. If only the administrative i and general expenses of schools and materials are left in the priI mary school grant a mere £4 8s is 1 available a child. This is spread I pretty thinly over a wide variety ; of costs in the running of a school. To take one part—the tools ol I modern teaching, apparatus for all i subjects, and reference books I (teachers’ and children’s) need [ continuous replacement to be valuable. They not only date but I wear out if fully used. And all

the day-to-day costs are included in this figure. If a study is made of all the (proposed schemes of committees on education, one can only wonder at the Government estimaition of a £2.000,000 increase aj 'year in the total vote. | I think it is important that the I needs and expansion of the prim[ary schools—full and contributing—should not be lost sight of while this other necessary development is going on. And ■for this purpose I think it would Ibe a valuable aid if the intermediate school grants were separated from the full and contributting primary schools totals. The intermediate school, according to ' this year’s Education Department report, has reached a permanent status in our system and its different, more specialised, and II more expensive character deserves ' 1 this special consideration. ' j I Political Problems There are of course, difficulties Jin raising the Education vote.* It ’ is good politics to raise budgets for tangible results, roads. , bridges, hydro-electric schemes j etc. And it is difficult to see re- [ suits in education so quickly. The , Parkyn report on education says i there has been little change in the standard reached over the last 30 years in arithmetic and • spelling, though reading and alr lied subjects show improve--1 ment. Surely this shows some serious defect considering the ! great advances in education theory, which moreover have > been proved in other countries. > The present system of finance r is not possible to run efficiently. , because (1) the department does > not know the immediate needs I of all the schools: (2) the people who do know the immediate , needs, the headmasters, staff and ' committees have no direct access I to sufficient money. It should be 1 possible for these people to get ’ what they need without resort I to complicated manoeuvres. If I the committees must supplement 3 their income by regular contributions from parents, then the ' Government should announce f that and, further, make it legal s for committees to levy. Then there is the immediate danger . education will again develop class distinctions. The wealthier disII trict can afford better equipment. i The real danger lies in the universities (about £2OO a student I short) where raising of fees, as I has been suggested, would pre- ' elude all of less rich classes and , all but the most intelligent on I scholarship. s I Subsidies

[ i It is true that the department [will subsidise equipment; but the ; parents must raise sufficient to ■ qualify for it in the first place. ' This could make its availability ‘; remote for some schools. Educa- • tion should not have to depend -’ion old bottles, rags and bring-[and-buy. It is important that liparents should feel they have a -Ipart to play in the system but i right now I question whether . they know how much it does de- - pend on them. It is difficult to > get people to serve on school s committees. Too much of it is cheeseparing frustration. The > necessity committees have to j get as much of their tradesmen’s j [, work done as free as possible i , leads to a condition where gener-j [ osity is taken advantage of. It [ j is perhaps a good thing for ama- i ! teur clubs to pool their resources .’ in good fellowship, to impose on [. friends to get wiring, plumbing i s and equipment for nothing. But [ r I think education should demand i L ‘ a more efficient approach. It is ‘[very difficult for a committee to; r [ budget for anything extra when I its income disappears in day to; I day expenditure. | We. the committees, are at the foot of the administrative ladder o and through* our headmasters we t should be able effectively to give t them the money necessary for e running the whole school, with- .. out all the juggling of accounts , s that goes on now. It must be r most discouraging for teachers unable, through sheer lack of .. financial support, to teach to their full ability and knowledge. Too * many teachers feel that the coms mittee is something to be engaged in combat. Too many s committees eye the board in the ° same way. Perhaps it goes on y right up to the Ministers of Eduk cation and Finance. The educa•fjtion system should be a unit. U I would like to see the system :s inverted. The department should d cede some, at least, of its initiative e to the headmasters. Bureaucracy it should be the tool not the master II [of education.