THE COST OF EDUCATION

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 68, 21 March 1931, Page 8

THE COST OF EDUCATION

(To tho Editor.) Sir,—At a lime like the present ib is ;m imperative duly of every man to try ami throw some light vii the all-important Question, how to reduce expenditure. I assert that education is now overdone, and that a hii^e reduction can and should be made in its cost. The fart is that during the last twenty years the political influence o! I lie teaching profession lias enormously increased, resulting m lar^e salary increases, so that teachers _ arc among the best-paid ollicials of the State. Another fact is (hat the whole system lias been captured by so-called experts, wliu have dri\en successive Ministers at a furious pace. And here is the result (\ear Book, 1030): In 1914 the education expenditure per head of mean population v,as 23s Id; in 1027, .i.is 3d; 1925. 52s 4il; 1929, 53s 3d. There are the facts. Let anyone east their memories back to 10U (the year the Great War started) and ask themselves the question, Is our system of education over 30s better per head—or £2,184.000 per year in the aggregate— than it was seventeen years ago.' .Mark, Sir, it is not a question cf totals. Ihcy are bound to rise as the nation grows, it is a question of per capita, and the figures quoted are those of the Government Statistician. I now pive Hie salaries in primary schools: Heads of schools, males £444, females £374; assistant teachers, males £300. females £233: sole teachers, males £27G. females £241. Compared with some' other State Departments, these salaries of teachers (of whom 2243 were males and 4098 females in 1028) will stand heavy pruntii','. Xot only so, but from tho time when a boy or frill starts training as a teacher they receive both salary and emoluments as well as free tuition! | The Education Department in IU2S-20 spent £106.221 on the training of teachers. T now refer to the secondary schools, which cost £413,151 from " the public purse, independent of revenue from endowments. Practically the whole of the 15,000 scholars who attend the State secondary schools receive free education. No sane man would object to the son or daughter of the labourer or artisan receiving free secondary education on passing a qualifying examination, but why should the son of a wealthy lawyer or merchant, who is destined to follow in his father s footsteps, be given free education? There is room for a vast saving here. The cost of technical instruction has gone up by leaps and bounds. For 1928-29 it was £224,274—an increase of £30,000 in four These are only a few salient points, but enough to show that the axe can be laid at the roots of the secondary, technical, and training systems, and a heavy pruning of the primarj', sufficient to save at ■ least a million a year. Ko doubt it is very iine for publicists to point to the figures and say to the world. "We spend 53s per head on education!' But the questions now forcing themselves on us are: Can we afford it? and, Is it worth it?-I am, etc., TnE FACTS ,_