Cost of Education

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 167, 11 April 1932, Page 11

Cost of Education

Sir, —Admirable as are the reforming proposals of the Dominion executive of the N.Z.E.I. and the resolutions of its Wellington branch, all of them moneysavers, the general public feel that though the employees of the service can find some vulnerable spots which escaped the economy experts, these spots, though needing an eraser, will not yield the estimated savings. Unfortunately, this weakness is in all the applied economy stunts, otherwise why such a statement on the eve of a new financial year as a’ possible shortage of 2} millions? Two points aired in your columns should be examined—one, by “Natural Law” on the reduction of the inspectorate, the other set out by “Justice,” indicating anomalies among the highly* salaried officers who, although equal in attainment and similar in fitness, a mere nomenclature separates by 50 per cent, and they in the same service. The general public reflect their impatience of the economies which by obliterating low cost services, often good money circulating mediums, fail to get home ou the expenditure which leaves us in such a hole as 24 millions below estimate. Sir, the suggestions in your valuable columns go to show that it cannot lie expected that those in the “Service” should drive such a battering rain at the “Head” of a “Body” which presumably directs its own progress, as would relieve the overweight at the top. If past Governments have added unnecessarily to the emoluments and high-ly-paid appointments, excessive for a sparsely-populated small country, the public is in the mood for adjustments to be made thereto. It. needs no expensive man fro>i England to direct, or expensive board of men to engineer the simple ideas of others. If a museieised man or a “Party” of 40 instead of 80 men might be found ready to put this amount of ordinaryplain business into tbe political machine something could be done with less hardship than is now felt by present methods. Meantime, is “Natural Law” aware that on the primary inspectors is the grave responsibility of grading the primary teachers and that some -difficultymight be found in reorganising with equal impartiality such a duty? Perhaps a further suggestion may be available from some other welcome pen?—l am. etc., YSIR. Wellington, April 4.