Textbook Grants Questioned

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30411, 9 April 1964, Page 1

Textbook Grants Questioned

What is a textbook? What does the Education Department intend to cover in grants for additional book purchases? And what is the justification for different rates of grants for different types of schools?

The Canterbury School Committees’ Association wants answers to these questions and, wheh they are received, it will discuss the whole question of whether book supplies in schools are adequate. After earlier inquiries, the secretary (Mr R. W. Taylor) reported that the textbook grant—for schools’ own purchases, not the books provided to schools —was based by the Education Department on 3s lOd a year for each pupil. The department left education boards to determine the distribution of block grants. The Canterbury board allocated 6s 5d a head to intermediate schools; 3s lOd to full primary (primers to form II) schools; and 3s Oid to contributing (primers to standard 4) schools. Mr Taylor said the differentiation was on the thesis that the upper classes required more expensive books in greater numbers.

It seemed that the scheme was under review because the department might provide more free textbooks to meet new syllabus needs, said Mr Taylor. > “Why should there be a difference of 9Jd a head between primary and contributing schools which both suffer at the expense of intermediate schools” asked Mr D. Young (Kendall). “It’s not fair. Taxpayers contribute for equality in education. If the department allows 3s lOd for every child, every school should get 3s lOd.” “The difference you quote is only 9d,” said Mr Taylor. “Ninepence for each of 500 pupils,” retorted Mr Young. “As intermediate schools increase, the proportion will get worse.”

Headmasters of all types of school said the grant was inadequate, said Mrs M. Rae (Christchurch East). She would agree that upper school books cost more, but infants went through theirs more rapidly because they were lightly made and the chilren did not always know how to care for them. A stronger case for some equality could be made on the grounds that junior pupils really needed more books, Mrs Rae said. Her school’s infant mistress was invited to recommend supplementary infant readers. The cost

would have been £6O. Half would have come from subsidy, but even then the committee had to halve the order. Remedial Needs “Most schools require remedial books, but can’t finance them,” said Mrs Rae. “So the pupils will pass out of the schools without proper remedial work and the postprimary schools will complain that we are not doing our job. “Worst of all,” said Mrs Rae, “the teaching profession says it is not consulted on required books or finance for them.” “Heads are being consulted now,” said Mr Taylor. “About time, too,” said Mrs Rae. Mr J. S. Whiten (Fendalton) said all these comments would cause alarm. The association should get full information on what books the department provided, what extra material was covered by the book grant, and what more might be needed. What was meant by a textbook grant? Mr H. Atkinson (Waimairi) agreed. He said different scales could be justified only if the volume and value of books required in junior classes were in fact lower. According to information given him, the book grant

was originally intended to cover dictionaries, atlases and similar references, said Mr Taylor. The present grant was to cover replacements. But schools were obviously buying more widely. The association rejected a motion by Mr Young protesting about the different awards of funds, but unanimously supported a full inquiry. Mr R. K. Milne said the association was not so much concerned about the differences as about all schools receiving sufficient for their needs.