UNIFIED CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 196, 16 May 1936, Page 4

UNIFIED CONTROL

New Zealand’s Education System TEACHERS’ APPROVAL Recommendations regarding unification of control of all the Dominion’s educational services, including universities, were criticised at the New Zealand Educational Institute’s conference at Wellington yesterday. The recommendations, which came from the special report of the full executive which considered educational reorganisation, were:— (a) That the N.Z.E.I. is of the opinion that there should be unification of control of pre-primary. primary, secondary. technical and university education in New Zealand. (b) That the unification of the services will produce transition difficulties for a considerable period and that the Minister be asked to set up machinery to deal with ' those difficulties. (c) That a national board control the administration of education in New Zealand. (d) That district boards be set up which, subject to the approval of the national board, shall establish, maintain and control all schools within the’r respective districts, “all” including primary, intermediate, post-primary, special, Native and industrial schools. Mr. Max Riske, M.A., of Wellington, a member of the executive, strongly appealed for the deletion of the word “university” from clause (a). At the very least they should let the universities be free from any type of national control. “If anything can save academic freedom it is that our 'universities stand free from any type of -national control,” said Mr. Riske. “They must be self-controlled entities protecting our elementary rights of freedom in thought and speech.” They had previous experience of other national boards —the Railways Board. Transport Board, and others—and they had gone by the board, said Mr. J. E. Shimmin, of Poverty Bay. Such a board would consider not thoughts of the young but of the hereafter. He pleaded with tiie conference to throw the recommendation overboard. The whole thing was dangerous, and the organisation and administration should be left where it was. He could not conceive the present Government, which had perceived the power of vested interests, instituting a national board of education. Miss F. J. Taylor, 8.A., of Auckland, moved that “university” be deleted from clause (a). It would be a tragedy if the universities in New Zealand were placed under a national board. The freedom of the universities was spoken of, said the president, Mr. F. L. Combs, M.A. He thought on the other hand of the detachment and aloofness of the universities and their moribund attitude to many social problems. The amendment to clause (a) deleting the word “university” was carried on a division. Clause (b) was carried. A national board had been the institute’s policy for 20 years, said Mr. D. C. Pryor, of Palmerston North, speaking to clause (c). It had received the recommendation of every committee set up to study education in New Zealand with the exception of the Atmore Report. At one time it was almost brought into force, but a new Government came in and they had to start all over again. This was one of the strongest reasons in favour of a national board. It was dangerous to suggest a change in policy because a Government unfavourable to boards was in power. Miss M. E. Magill, of Wellington, said the idea of a national board arose from a fear as to what was being done to the education system. That fear did not now exist, but if it again arose and they wished a national board, how much weight would their representations carry if they rejected the proposal of a national board to-day and then, at a later date, asked for it again? A motion providing machinery to deal with transition difficulties was agreed to without discussion, and the recommendation that a national board should be set up was carried on a division by 45 votes to 24.