“ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 114, 7 February 1935, Page 8

“ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”

“Order out of Chaos” is the caption of a pamphlet issued by the Executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute submitting arguments, for reform in the administration of the education system. It is a lengthy document, containing a great deal of detail matter whichiit would/be to the advantage of those interested in education to assimilate. The main issue, however, as set out in a summary in another column to-day, is whether central control of the system should be vested in the department, as at present, or in a National Board independent of political control, as was strongly recommended by the National Expenditure Commission.

' It is.no reflection on the sincere and persistent efforts of the New Zealand Educational Institute over many years to achieve one of the principal aims of its policy, a national non-political board, to suggest that a reform of this kind calls for the consideration and opinions of all representative educational bodies concerned. The Institute emphasises that what is ivanted is a “directive,” not a consultative body, and with due-' regard to the comprehensive nature of such a board’s responsibilities, has submitted a tentative all-embracing basis of representation.’ But what the public would like to know is what the University, the secondary school teachers (grammar and technical), the district boards, and the school committees think. Had their views and recommendations been incorporated in this pamphlet its conclusions and recommendations would have carried greater weight. The proposed National Board, it is suggested, would be charged with educational policy as well -as administration, for its ostensible purpose as viewed by the Institute would be to give unity, coherence and logical sequence to the various branches of education as well ds ridding the administrative side of its expensive and cumbersome anomalies. It is natural for the Institute to seek, through a National Board, the removal of administrative anomalies which bear irksomely upon the work of teaching. But the public wants much more than that. It wants, if possible, a system' of teaching that will give an entirely new orientation to character and citizenship. If this democracy is to survive it must be taught how to think intelligently and clearly, to value service before material gain, and to make civic responsibility a personal obligation of a real and aqtive kind. A system obsessed from the bottom to the top by the examination fetish cannot possibly produce these results. Nor could a National Board succeed in this respect unless its members were animated by the aims above stated. All that would'happen would be that control of a system which has been frequently condemned by visiting educationists would be transferred from one set of shoulders to another with no guarantee that there would be a change of policy and method as regards syllabuses and teaching. What is wanted is- a commission or conference representative of all branches of education, trade, industry and finance, sociology and hygiene, assisted by experts appointed’ with special reference to their knowledge of educational development and methods overseas, to pronounce upon the requirements of sound citizenship and how these are to be met. The conditions of modern life are undergoing tremendous changes. Old ideas and traditions are going by the board. What the future may have in store it is difficult to prophesy, but this at least is certain: that a new technique in citizenship will be needed to cope successfully with the problems ahead, and that must be provided by a system of education shorn drastically of weaknesses and futilities long overdue for the limbo. By all means let us have a National Board, but let us also be certain that it has the right inspiration. That, it may be seriously asserted, must come from without.