EDUCATIONAL REORGANISATION

Evening Star, Issue 20666, 13 December 1930, Page 26

EDUCATIONAL REORGANISATION

INSTITUTE'S LETTER TO MINISTER The New Zealand Educational Institute has forwarded the following letter, addressed by it to the Minister of Education, dated December 9:— “ The report on educational reorganisation brought down by the Parliamentary Committee made certain recommendations, which have met with -wide (though not universal) acceptance, and which are still under discussion and appraisement. The committee, in the report,_ asserts that some of its recommendations, particularly in regard to administration, are in opposition to proposals that had been put forward by the department. Information gathered from various parts of the dominion through the Press has led the executive to express to you its anxiety concerning the probable result of certain recent activities of the department. It has been given out to the public through the Press that the department is considering the introduction of certain recorfmendations of the committee, where this can he done -without the passing of legislation. It may be permitted to recall here that tho chief recommendations of tho committee were the recognition of the 11 plus pupils’ exploratory period and a system of unified control. What the department appears to be contemplating is the passing over _of the 11 plus pupils to the divided post-primary schools as at present existing, and it is to draw attention to the evils that must necessarily follow such action that this letter is written. The evils may be enumerated as follows ESTABLISHING A REJECTED PROPOSAL. “It is clear that if the department’s present proposals- are carried out it will, in effect, be tantamount to putting into operation the scheme that the Parliamentary Committee rejected. The Director of Education had proposed a completely centralised scheme on the Australian model. The committee rejected this in favour of a scheme based upon local control of local affairs. The keynote of the committee s proposals was unity of control under a single local authority. The proposals that the department _ now appears to be nutting forward disregard unity of control and threaten a seno.isrc.nforcement of tho position of the existing divided authorities by adding to their sphere tho pupils. of the 11 T ,ln S neriud This would be. so great an addition to the vested interests of the bodies entrenched within- thc&e divisions that the estabhshmen o unity would be seriously prejudiced, and as the divided bodies at present

existing have few remaining powers, since practically all authority has been taken from them by the department, the proposals now under review mean in effect nothing but an extension of the powers, already almost autocratic, of the department. This development was foreseen by the committee. Concerning it, the committee said: — With such a system of divided control tho committee thought ■ the articulation of the two stages of education, as well as the continual adjustment of difficulties arising from the joint occupancy of the 31 plus to 15 period would devolve upon the central department, and this 'necessity it was anxious to obviate. “ It is obvious that the apparent policy of the department is inconsistent with the intentions of the committee, since it disregards unity of control and will reduce the opportunity for classification of the 11 plus pupils and adjustment of staffs. One other feature which has alarmed tho executive is the fact that communications, perhaps instructions, have been sent to boards under seal of confidence,'with the result that decisions appear to have been reached on a very important public question without public discussion or information. It is therefore very important that no further steps in the direction contemplated by the department should be taken nntil the form that reorganisation is to take shall have been decided. SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. “ Tho serious consequences of persistence in the present course of tho department are not difficult to foresee. Tho first that comes into view is, ns has been pointed out in this letter, the final establishment beyond hope of reversal of the department’s policy of centralised control and tho extinction of any hope of a restoration of local control, even though tho form and semblance of local control may bo retained* The second is the too-carly division of pupils at the 11-plus period by the mere names secondary and technical, or, as .proposed at Gisborne, by sex. This means tho sacrificing of tho chief benefits to bo anticipated from the exploratory period—viz., the classification of pumls according to discovered aptitudes, tho provision of parallel courses, and the efficient mobilisation of teaching power in any given area. The worst evils of tho present system arise from the drafting of pupils iiito schools not suited to their needs and the evils will bo perpetuated and multiplied if this drafting is done regardless of individual needs and aptitudes at the age of 11-plus instead of, as at present, at about fourteen. It cannot be doubted that, consciously or unconsciously, a Inns will be imparted to those young pupils according to the school, academic cr technical, to which they may have been drafted. It is only natural"that the junior ranks of a school will ho inclined towards the regions of study that predominate in