Education Bill draws criticism

Press, 9 March 1982, Page 9

Education Bill draws criticism

Parliamentary reprter •The new district educational councils planed in a Government bill wiuld only add another tier an not pass real authority from the Education Departmei to regions, Nelson organisations haje told a Parliamentary sflect committee. I Representative of the Nelson Educatiq Board and Secondary Schols Council said that thf Education. Amendment Bil (No. 3) did not take the step of passing greyer financial authority to rgions. The bill set! up councils to co-ordinate tie work of different educaional bodies in regions and' provides that they may .eplace existing controlling authorities. If the bil/ was intended to give districs greater say in education Administration, it really plated more power in the hands if the Minister and the Department, but not in the lay aiministrators in the district, siid Mr H. F. Smith. They suggested the bill be deferredtor further consultation. so hat it would make a clear satement on what authorities the department would be prepared to delegate to a District Education Counci

✓ The bill provided the council with no greater powers than already existed for controlling authorities in the district. Mr Smith told the committee that efforts to find out what financial . allocations had been given the Regional Office met with no success. The job of the Department was to supervise and audit, said, the chairman of the Education Board, Mr J. C. Bird. “But instead it is getting involved in great detail in administration, and is choking on it.” Money from head office came tagged and in “hundreds” of separate accounts; money given for capital works could not be used for maintenance. ,- Regional authorities should have the power to transfer funds from under-used accounts to essential works, he said. “We will accept a 3 per cent cut,” said Mr Smith, “but let us decide in what areas.” There was almost no action under the proposed legislation that would not be subject to Ministerial deci- ' sion. There was “a real possibil- . ity” that education controlling authorities could be

. gathered up into a District ; Education Council against ■ their wishes. > The Minister need consult with only one controlling authority in a district before t he set up a council. There ; was no room for objection to [ the gazetted notice, which could put out. of existence ; education boards and secondary school's councils, unless > it stipulated otherwise. The delegation was asked . if it really believed that the I Minister would not consult ; with all interested parties, even if a bill did not specific- : ally require it. They said that any prudent administrator ; should take the worst pos--1 sible interpretation from a r proposed law. 1 It appeared mandatory in j the bill that a district council i have a primary and secondary sector. If education boards and secondary school councils were to continue in r existence their functions i, would be confused with that t of the sectors, and offices and services would be dupli- :- cated. r_ e The objects of a council i- might be defeated if an education board or secondary 1- school’s council refused to 1- relinquish its powers to the ie District Council.