UNIVERSITY OF NEW ZEALAND

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 130, 26 February 1925, Page 10

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ZEALAND

THE INCREASED COST OF EDUCATION SENATE DISCUSSES ACCREDITING SYSTEM FACTORS RESPONSIBLE At the resumed annual meeting yesterday °f the Senate of the University of New Zealand under the presidency of the Chancellor (Professor Slacmillan Brown), Mr. Caughley moved: “That a sub-committee consisting of Professor T. A. Hunter, Mr. F. H. Bakewell,

and the mover bo appointed to meet the various associations, or authorities interested in the matriculation examination in order to arrive, if possible, at an agreement concerning some form of accrediting in lieu of the matriculation examination for pupils -at approved schools."

He submitted tho motion, he said, because it was desired to bring some form of accrediting into effect, and to meet these bodies in order to find out whether there was not a system which, being satisfactory to them, could ba presented to the Senate for adoption. Professor Algie opposed the motion. He considered if the Senate sent a de- ‘ putation to met these associations it should also consist of men who could present a case against, the accrediting system. Sir Robert Stout said this was another- attempt to place the control of the University under a Government Department, anfl perhaps another step towards the abolition of the University itself. He asked if a questionnaire could not be sent to these associations instead of appointing a sub-committee to meet these bodies. Mr. W. P. Morrell shared to some extent the fears expressed by Sir Robert Stout and wished to gee the University maintaining a veiy substantial measure of control in this matter. A system could lie established so that control would not fall unduly into the hands of a Government Department, and he thought a committee should meet these bodies, which should becomposed of men in favour of the accrediting system, but who would approach it from different standpoints. Professor Wall moved »and the Hon. J. Hanan seconded, that the question be referred to Lie Entrance Examinations Committee.

Mr. Caughley .opposed tho amendment, as that, he said, would mean a delay of another year. They should fix the accrediting system at once with all the proper safeguards. Upon -being put to the vote tho motion was referred to the Entrance Examinations Committee by 13 votes to 11. Mr. Caughley further moved: “That a prescription of general experimental science be substituted for the subjects of physical science and natural science in the matriculation examination.” After debate, the motion was defeated. Partial Accrediting. Mr. Caughley submitted: “That the subject of home science and agriculture be dealt with by accrediting -instead of by ordinary examination." The Hon. J. Hanan seconded, but asked the Department of Education if it was carried that more inspectors be appointed. , Mr. Morrell said- he was in favour of accrediting but opposed to partial accrediting such as had been suggested by Mr, Hanan. Professor Inglis spoke against the motion. i Professor Hunter said he was in favour of the accrediting principle and would support the present motion in order to get as much of the principle that he could. Sir Robert Stout asked who was to do the accrediting. In 1899 the administrative cost of the Education Department in Wellington was £2700; now it was <£34,629. The increase had been more than a 1000 per cent. It was suggested that the accrediting system should be carried out by the head of the school, conferring with the itspector, and that more inspectors be appointed. Under this system the Government inspector would decide what students should attend the University, which was passing over the work of the University to a Government inspector. We were going in for centralisation in every movement, and this was'an attempt in this direction, insofar as education was concerned. When he was Minister of Education his staff was composed of six or seven persons, but now the staff had swollen beyond recognition and the cost in administration amounted to £34,000, as compared with £2OOO when he was Minister. Increase in expenditure had not only taken place in t' o Education Department, but in every Government Department. The present motion was an attempt to get more administration cast upon the Education Department. He asked was not the University able to conduct an examination without the aid of a Government inspector? “An Unfair Criticism.” Mr. de la Mare said it was hope-

lessly unfair for Sir Robert Stout to speak about the cost of education in the way he had done. Sir Robert

Stout had spoken of the cpst of education in 1899 as compared with to-day, but he had said nothing of the changes in the cost of money, and nothing about the fact, which was well known, that everywhere in the country new schools were wanted, that the existing schools were overcrowded, and that the Education Department had to make up for years and years of neglect. So many things had to be taken into account that any suggestion such as Sir Robert Stout liad made was entirely unfair and should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Sir Robert' StoutDo you, mean that tho figures I gave are untrue? Mr. de la Mare: No, but they should not be allowed to stand -by themselves. He admitted there was a big tendency for the Government to often step in, but nothing could be done in the present case. If they trusted people to teach they must trust them to some extent in the work of exaininIDg. Dr. Cameron felt Mr.. Caughley should postpone the question until next year, Mr. Caughley, replying, said the, advisability of increasing thg number of secondary school inspectors was already under consideration. This was due to the fact that the number of secondary school students had increased enormously. To say that the general standard of education should not be that of a secondary school education -was to say that the world should advance and the community should remain ■where they were. The Government had had to incur the entire cost of the erection of secondary school buildings, which were very expensive buildings, 1 and they had to spend about £35,000 for a school for 400 pupils. Such a sum was not expended upon a school in the time. Sir Robert Stout’s figures were correct, but they were not correct in the inference he drew from them. The inference was that the expenditure was not justified, As Good Years Ago. Sir Robert Stout: I did not say that at all. I say that our schools were just as good fifty years ago as they are to-day. Mr. Caughley: Then the only inference is that the money is being wasted. Proceeding, he said Sir Robert Stout had overlooked the fact that in ’ the time he had been speaking of there was no adult technical instruction, which was now given in almost every town in New Zealand. This had to be organised and administered, and it was a most difficult and intricate subject to administer. To-day the work of the Department could not be carried out with a smaller staff than was at present engaged. The explanation

of the increase in the total administrative cost of education during the last ten years was due to two important facts, first that our school population had increased 50 per cent, and second, that the purchasing power of money had fallen 50 per cent. Upon being put to the vote, Mr, Caughley’s motion was defeated by 14 votes to 10.