The Press SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1970. A Blow To School Building Plans

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32352, 18 July 1970, Page 12

The Press SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1970. A Blow To School Building Plans

The Government has served notice on education boards that they must reduce the rate of their new building work—a decision which boards and the public will find hard to understand at a time when the boards are trying, in accordance with Government policy, to improve the ratio of staff to pupils. It is true that the Education Department has asked for the preparation of building programmes that will provide, in stages, the classrooms needed to achieve a one-to-35 staff ratio by 1975. But if the proposed allocation of funds for school building in the Canterbury Education Board’s district fairly represents the restraints that are to be placed on the programmes of all boards, it seems that the new staffing policy will be in jeopardy from the outset. In principle, a five-year programme should help to ensure that funds are allocated in the fairest and most orderly manner; and education boards can reasonably be required to review from time to time the priorities they have set for buildings. But if the acknowledged deficiencies in school accommodation are to be made good the boards must have both sufficient finance and reasonable freedom to spend it where it is most urgently needed. If the Canterbury Education Board has not misinterpreted the Ministerial directive on the allocation of funds it is apparent that urgent building work proposed for completion within and after the end of the present financial year will be seriously delayed. Most of this year’s allocation of funds was committed to works before the year began; the unspent portion of the 1970-71 allocation looks ridiculously small at $265,000. The board had hoped that it would still have nearly $700,000 for projects in the 1970-71 programme. The Government has also imposed a limit on the value of work that may be approved—but not necessarily paid for—this year, the limit is far below what the board regards as necessary to start the most urgent buildings. Not only this year’s building programme is thus restricted; work that may be planned in anticipation of next year’s allocation of funds has also been reduced severely. The cuts are all the more damaging because of the continuing increase in building costs. Mr Taiboys is undoubtedly conscious of other pressures on the education vote of $212 million and particularly of the demand for higher salaries for teachers. Every major item in the education estimates before Parliament shows an increase; and the total vote will probably be overspent, as it was last year. Higher salaries and an increased ratio of teachers are expected to produce better results in the schools; taxpaying parents—not to mention the pupils themselves—will be looking for the benefits that have been promised not only by the Government but by the teaching profession. It would be a pity to lose the benefit of this expenditure by a failure to produce in good time the necessary classrooms.