Educational Organisation

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 290, 3 September 1931, Page 11

Educational Organisation

Sir, —Mr. Atmore, in replying to representations from the Nelson College Board of Governors, is reported to have stated that “unification of controlling authorities and amalgamation of schools were most progressive steps.” I would like to challenge him to produce a single educationist of standing or other authority on educational organisation or administration to support his proposition. I do not know of anyone who would soberly suggest that advancement in any sphere, whether of social, business or other enterprise, is to be achieved by anything but increased specialisation. Yet the proposal to amalgamate schools is essentially opposed to specialisation of management and supervision. I have had the misfortune to be as-, sociated—not of my own choice —withan “amalgamated school in this country where a single headmaster was supposed to be responsible for the oversight of twenty-seven different subjects or. distinct branches of subjects. I estimate that if Wellintgon College and Wellington Technical School were combined, the fortunate (?) candidate for the principa.sliip would have the supervision of not fewer than thirty-six subjects. Now it would seem fairly obvious that a good case might be made out for combining schools with different functions jf the proposal were to conduct the combined institution with an autonomous head for each department —in the case of the combined Wellington schools, say. four joint principals, each responsible for the- oversight of nine subjects. I am' sure that there is not a secondary school headmaster in this country who could honestly say that he; feels he could do justice to the management of a broader curriculum than he at present supervises. . But what advantage is there really m any scheme of amalgamation. I believe there is a notion abroad th-at i, would eliminate the “class distinction that candidly does exist among the schools. My own opinion, based on experience both as a pupil and as a master is that it would increase it to harmful proportions. lam convinced that the “class” enmity between day boys and boarders within the individual post-prim-ary schools is a vastly more serious thing than the harmless snobbery existing between separate types of schools. To combine the elements between which such feeiing alreadv exists in dormant state would. I believe, immensely accentuate the antagonism between “side” and “side or “department” and “department in the same school, and not at all improbably engender more acute disadvantages than we are faced with at present. In prosecuting amalgamation of post-prim-ary schools are we not tbtrefore seeking a reform which proves, likely to give rise to not inconsiderable dangers without conferring a single advantage that anyone can bring forward? And in anv ‘case, in how many of the reforms recently made or proposed for the immediate future are wo following the best traditions in British education? —1 | am, etc.. FESTINA LENTE. Wellington, September 1.