State Aid Opposed By Secondary Schools

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32252, 21 March 1970, Page 46

State Aid Opposed By Secondary Schools

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 20. The Secondary School Boards’ Association was opposed to State aid to private schools, its secretary (Mr L. J. Mochan) told the Cabinet committee hearing in Wellington today.

“This association affirms its strong support for our national system of education and calls on.the Government to provide the necessary resources in staff and finance to make it adequate.

“In our view, this cannot be done efficiently without co-ordinated planning and consolidation, where necessary, to provide equality of educational opportunity, especially in country areas.” said the association’s submissions. “The State schools urgently need more and better teachers and equipment, improved staffing ratios, more generalpurposes money for the running of schools, greater use of ancillary assistance in schools. “Many of the older schools are in urgent need of replacement. “More money given to independent schools will further delay the implementation of these improvements to State schools. “History records that the; denominational connection; with education has produced effects held to be socially 1 harmful in dividing citizen from citizen." The School Boards’ Association also queried the evidence! that independent schools’! needed extra money, said Mr Mochan.

Balance Sheets “Have the balance sheets been produced for public scrutiny?” he asked. Mr R. T. Feist, presenting submissions on behalf of the public questions committee of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, said the church was in favour of the type of assistance at present being received by private schools. “At the same time we are opposed to any State grants to private schools for buildings and salaries, as calculated to jeopardise the State system of education,” he said. “The church's main concern is to avoid a dual system of education or to approve pay ments of a capital kind that could cause division or fragmentation within our educational system. Argument On Principle “We do not agree with those who would argue on principle that the State should give no assistance of any kind to independent schools,” said Mr Feist. Independent schools could fulfil their real purpose only when they remained independent in the fullest sense, including financing, the committee was told today by the

; Loyal Orange Institution, . through Mr I. W. Stewart. The . institution said that if the I independent schools could not • achieve this they must lose /freedom to the extent that they must rely on public funds. . Ultimately, it was clairped, • those private schools that became in the major part financed by the public purse should gradually integrate . with the State system. ; Public Welfare I ’The submissions insisted • ithat education supported by ■ public funds should be free ■ of sectarian teaching. i The taxpayer was levied for the public welfare and could . not reasonably be expected to support sectional beliefs which divided the •"immunity. No group or sectional interest should be able to opt . out of its duty of contributing to public funds nor: should a sectional interest’s contribution to the common pool of taxation entitle it to special consideration in support of its own ends. “The State provides from] public funds a comprehensive; system of education of a high ■standard. This is open to all j[ irrespective of colour, creed,

[or wealth.” said the. submis- 1 I sions. The institution supported | the parents’ right of choice of either State or special education but insisted that choice of the latter carried i responsibility for paving for i, iL ~ It saw the modified Nelson! “ system in State schools as! /reasonable and adequate fori / religious teaching, jl The submissions held that ( . further transport help could ; lead only to further frag-l mentation of the State /system in rural areas. It was admitted that some . denominational schools had. /financial difficulties, but the 'solution lay not in propping' up a tottering edifice but in I ~ complete reconstruction. If a school could not sup- ’ port itself the State should be asked to take it over and , pay reasonable compensation. i Public Funds 1. “It is very apparent that /some independent schools . have deliberately expanded to the utmost, irrespective of Lability to maintain and run l them,” said the submission. If further aid from public funds were given, it should si be subject to firm depart-; i mental control or standards; /so that all aided independent -(schools maintained class! sizes, equipment and teachijing standards at levels re-’ squired by the State, i' “The use of public funds! I;must not permit such schools] , i to become elite institutions.”