OUR SCHOOLS AND THEIR INSPECTORS.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 21, 25 July 1898, Page 4

OUR SCHOOLS AND THEIR INSPECTORS.

« The fact that no less than fifty School Committees have petitioned Parliament in favour of putting School Inspectors directly under the Education Department shows that there is a somewhat widespread dissatisfaction with the present system. Nothing ii more difficult in treating such -. subjects as primary education and charitable aid than to draw correctly the dividing line between local and central control. In the matter of public education the difficulty is increased by the threefold nature of the controlling authorities — Committees, Boards, and .Department. It is well known how much trouble is frequently caused by the strained relations existing between Boards and Committees. Their respective functions require clearer definition, and the interests of education would be considered by some small amendments in the Education Act with that end in view. The relations between the central Department and the local bodies have not produced this constant friction, but the reason lies probably in the fact that the Department has little part in the actual administration of the system. The public education of the colony is kept in a fixed mould by the Department, but its general control is almost wholly decentralised. Each Board has its own independent staff of officers, even the Inspectors serving the local authority and not the national. This decentralisation, even when carried to such extent, cannot be Avholly condemned. It encourages local interest in matters educational, and prevents the scheme of instruction from being too stereotyped throughout the country. Inspectors become identified with the districts under their supervision, and take au actual pride in producing the best results they can. This is good in its way, and encourages a healthy district competition. In spite, however, of the advantages of a local inspectorate, it has drawbacks which call for the careful consideration of Parliament whenever educational reform comes before it. As it is, Inspectors sometimes become ;v little too attached to their own districts on the one hand, or find it difficult to effect a move from others being too wedded to theirs. The work of good men — men of exceptional ability as organisers — is limited to a district instead of being put at the service of the colony. It seems as a general priuciple that valuable public officers, with the work that Inspectors have to perform, should be the servants of the colony rather than of a locality. The schools would reap an advantage from interchanges, and the inspectoral service would probably gain in force and usefulness by the more national range of its members' vision. The Boards might themselves have made some arrangement for periodical interchanges, but for some reason or other they have almost all entrenched themselyes within a fence of isolation. This isolation would be broken down to a very large extent if the Inspectors came and went under instructions from the central authority. Centralisation is generally to be deplored, but the anarchic tendencies of excessive localisation are equally objectionable. Without attempting to increase any of the other powers o£ the Department, it would be quite possible to make the Inspectors directly amenable to it instead of to the Boards, and there is reason to believe that the children would gain from the diversity of personnel in their examiners. If we were starting anew a system of public instruction we should scarcely put officers like Inspectors under local bodies, but there is always a risk about disturbing existing systems unless there is a decided improvement to be obtained.