COST OF EDUCATION

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 99, 28 April 1932, Page 13

COST OF EDUCATION

ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE '

"WORTHLESS COMPARISON"

The paragraphs in the National Expenditure Commission's report dealing •with the administrative cost of the educational system in New Zealand are replied to in the report of the Education Boards' Association. The Commission reported as follows: "We have considered in detail 'the administrative cost of the educational." system in. New Zealand as compared with the cost in the Australian States, and are of the opinion that the system at present in operation in the Dominion is unduly expensive. . . . Under the board system in operation, the administrative cost per pupil is 9s 2d, while the cost per pupil in Native schools maintained, and administered- by the Education Department is only 3s 6d per pupil.' In the Australian States thV%ost per pupil is as follows: New South "Wales, 5s 4d; Victoria, 4s; Queensland;4s Id." ■•V From the above, figures, states the association's report, the inference'is that the cost of education board administration is 9s 2d per pupil, whereas; in fact, this figure includes the cost of administering not only the education (primary) boards; ' but also'the; high school boards, the technicarboards, and the Department. The actual cost of education (primary) board administration in 1930 was' 4s rßd per "pupil in average, attendance. The cost of schools administration-^-Ss 6d per pupil —is calculated on the roll, whereas that for boards is calculated on' the average attendance. ' ' ."■ '

. It is obvious that, with the short time at its disposal, the Commission was not able to make serious investigation into all proposals, and consequently had to depend upon the recommendations of the Director of Education, or reports of previous Commissions. The^ proposal to abolish boards and centralise control in Wellington is quite :faniiliar, and it is well known1 that the Director is definitely in favour of a completely centralised Department. ... './"""""'

In spite of the fact that both Parliament and people have ; decisively expressed themselves as opposed to bureaucratic control of education, the Director uses the present ■economic condition of the country as a means to gain his object and', secure complete control. ..." ..".■■

(Note. In 1927: ,the. Department estimated that a saving of £&LJOOO could be made. In 1930 the estimated savings were loosely referred to as approximately £60,000,, while those in the present proposals, are £50,000. The descending scale of savings is a little difficult to understand.).. ;' --: "•■••■ ' In an endeavour to prove the case, a comparison is instituted between, the costs, of administration'in New Zealand and those in various Australian States.

. . . One naturally wonders yrixy the Department has not given the figures for all the Australian. States. " The reason for this is obvious, for when, one refers to the Parliamentary reports for the remaining States, the cost per pupil of administration for South : Australia works out at lls Id per . head ■ for primary education only, that for Western Australia 8s 8d per head exclusive of buildings; and that, for Tasniania 6s per head, exclusive of, technical instruction and buildings.. To make a comparison of any value, the items of administration . must be reasonably identical. If not the whole fabric cf the argument upon .which; they are based falls to pieces. Has the Department taken the necessary steps to prove definitely that identical services are compared in Australia and New Zealand?

In view of the above facts, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the costs of administration, of the Australian States are much higher than those quoted in the Commission's"report. The Department may be in possession of some further information and be able to_ explain the discrepancy, but until this is done the comparisons given are worthless and the.. Commission has evidently been misled.

An important factor" in cost of administration in the Eastern States is the huge population found in the metropolitan areas compared with New Zealand. •»'.... . "