EDUCATION SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 98, 27 April 1932, Page 11

EDUCATION SYSTEM

COMMISSION'S REPORT

CONFERENCE OF BOARDS

COUNTER-PEOPOSALS

Replies to statements made in the report of the National Expenditure Commission on educational matters, and proposals for the reconstruction, of the Dominion's educational system, are embodied in thc t; report of the recent conference of primary education boards, which was released for publication today. The report is summarised as follows:— :

Administrative Costs Comparison.— (a)) Comparison of New Zealand with Australian States: The report' shows conclusively . that the comparison on which the National. Economy Commission relies is valueless, as the items chargeable against the respective Education Votes are not .reasonably identical. Some services charged to the "Education Vote in, New Zealand are in Australia charged to other Votes. Only States, favouring the Commission's arguments: are cited; others showing higher _ costs • are omitted, (b) Comparison of board costs with Department's Native schools costs: Again no common basis of comparison.is shown. It is evident that several items charged against the boards are not taken to account in estimating Native school costs; This comparison is also value-

Commission's' Recommendation that Boards be Abolished and a completely Centralised System Established on'the Model of Australian States.—The association shows that i (a) Australia is tending towards decentralisation, (b) Australian educationists express.teen appreciation of the Now Zealand system of local .control. ■■ From the Work "Education in Australia" is quoted—"A centralised system demands in its director no inconsiderable combination of administrative ability, technical knowledge, power of inspiration-prompt deciswn, and. strength of . personality. Under a: weak director a centralised system would soon be in a very! sorry plight mdeea./' The associatio/affirS that the abolition of local control would be a retrograde step. High Cost of Education.—The Commission affirms this is due to the present complicated system 'of control Answer: The director's policy is direct rw^? £ f 1877 co^emplated no huge Central Department duplicating the statutory functions 6t educatioVboards, Sir Charles Bowen in introducing the the Central Department will not be very Snh&i r' sTf* ty and.a derk will f™l *,?*£ the *°r* some time to come." The boards have had no in•h^r duties ta U y, both in tLir statutory be d s Sd mder. aSPeetS;,ThCSesllo^

.School Committees and the Commis sioa's Hastily Formed: Opinion that here should be No Loss of Efficient through Abolition of . Boards is Contrasted, witn Opinions of/Tried Educa-tionists-Valuable as the services committees are, Sir Charles Bowen says:--" The Central Office with -the absolute power of the purse would very soon reduce the committees to mere nonentities without the intervention of the boards." The success of {the school committee system is due to the committee being, m direct communication with an authority on the spot. Centralisation would undermine local interest and support.. • -.' .. ■ . ,'.-.. *V Commission's Estimate of a Saving of £50,000 by Centralisation.—No ietails are furnished. A request to the director for details failed to elicit more than a rough estimate without detail. The amount is* evidently little more than a guess, quite unreliable. The fact is that the detailed administrative work of boards involving expenditure of three and a quarter millions of money must'be done', and the association definitely affirms that the Departments of Education and Public Works and the Treasury, together could not do it more economically than the boards. ■ ' .

The. Association Becommends Decentralisation 'of Control as a Means of Economy.—The past consideration of reorganisation has been studied with a view to centralisation and abolition of boar-ds. The opposite viewpoint is now presented—decentralisation of control. The Department has built within itself an unnecessary and wasteful system of duplication" of board functions, and has become largely a checking institution.

Proposals for —(1) Proposed* heads of Department:—'(a) a secretary who would be a trained administrator to control the.business side, (b) A director of educational policy with duties confined to the professional side.' (2): Proposed powers of Department outlined. (3) Proposed powers of boards outlined. (4) Inspectorate ■ —transfer to board control. (5) Proposed method of annual grants for general administration and for special- purposes outlined. (6) Improved audit and check: Specially skilled education auditors would undertake audit, thus safeguarding the State and rendering unnecessary departmental audit. • The cost should not exceed that of the present audit. (7)' Simplified grading of teacher's in broad groups'and a new-sal-ary scale to cover all types of teachers. ' Unification of Control.—Unification will effect further economy, and promote efficiency.. An alternative scheme is presented.1. ■

Native Schools.—The transfer of control to education boards and the; abolition of the Native- school inspectorate. School Buildings.—Control and execution of all primary, secondary, and technical school building works by education' board staffs.

Child Welfare.—-Attention is. drawn to the large increase in annual cost and the question is asked whether, boneficial as tKe work is, the whole of this cost, £132,000 in 1931, is a just chaTge on the Education. {Vote.' Economies in Administration.— "We are strongly of opinion that not only could, large economies be effected by a wise scheme of decentralisation, and establishment of effective local control, but that the savings thus effected would, considerably exceed those resulting; from adoption of the plan of centralising proposed by the Department, and that the former plan would certainly be attended with greater satisfaction to the people of this, country. Such a plan of reconstruction would include the following:' (a) Decentralisation of the system; (b) unification- of control within districts —including building control; (o) simplification, of regulations; : (d) simplification and adjustments of salary scales for teachers of primary, secondary, and technical schools; (e)'transfer to Education Boards of control *of Native schools and abolition of Native school inspectorate;•(f) simpler classification of teachers; (g) reduction in Departmental travelling expenses;, (h) reduction in compilation and publication of statistics; (i) abolition of present system of fire inspection; (j) reorganisation of child welfare systeini;