ECONOMY CAMPAIGN

Evening Star, Issue 21078, 15 April 1932, Page 2

ECONOMY CAMPAIGN

EDUCATION UNDER PRUNING KNIFE ABOLITION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARDS OPPOSED BY WELLINGTON CONFERENCE “ That this conference is of opinion that tho abolition of all secondary boards and tho centralisation of administration in tho department in Wellington would not bo in the best interests of secondary education in New Zealand,” was one of the resolutions adopted at the conference of secondary schools’ boards hold in Wellington this week to discuss certain of tho proposed education economies, including tho abolition of tho boards themselves.

Tho following motions wore carried: — .1. “In view of the economic conditions of tho time, tho conference recognises the necessity for a substantial reduction in education expenditure.” 2. “ That this conference approves as a temporary measure the reduction of capitation for incidental expenses of secondary schools from £2 to _£l 15s per head, provided provision is made for meeting the cases of smaller schools, and that junior high schools attached bo not affected by this resolution.” 3. “ The conference agrees with the proposals of a moro rigid selection of freo-place holders, and holds that the only satisfactory way of effecting this, and of securing for secondary education the pupils really qualified to benefit by it, is tho method of a stricter examination at the close of tho primary school period.” 4. “ That senior free places should not terminate earlier than at present—that is, at tho end of the term in which tho pupil roaches the age of 19 years.”

[The conference expresses tho view that the proposal to curtail the period of tenure of free places by two years and to lower the maximum age to 17 is a serious and far-reaching one. It would, do an injury to secondary education in the dominion, from which it might never recover. It is a direct reversal of what is widely held to be the true evolution of tho New Zealand secondary school system—the encouragement of adolescent pupils to extend their period of secondary education till they had exhausted all tho possibilities there available. The last Royal Commission on university education (under Sir Harry Reichel and Mr Tate) agreed that tho secondary school, by its nature and its organisation, was fitted for a much more extended task in the educational scheme. And its recommendations included one which advocated a lengthening of tho stay of pupils at theso schools. The policy now proposed would lower tho standard of university education, throwing into it material for which secondary facilities would have to bo provided to a greater extent oven that at present. And this lowering of the university standard would have repercussions right throughout the whole education system. Already the most uneconomic feature in university organisation is the overlapping that exists between the two systems. In America, where conditions in many details of education are strikingly similar to our own, it is recognised that the superiority of English and Scottish university education is based mainly on the higher development of the secondary schools.] 5. “ The conference offers no objection to the dicontinuance of special allowances to heads of departments and certain female assistants in secondary schools.”

6. “ That this conference is of opinion that the abolition of all secondary boards and the centralisation of administration in the department in Wellington would not bo in tho best interests of secondary education in New Zealand, for the following reasons:—

(i) Such a policy would not be in harmony with the spirit of British institutions, and would be opposed to the sentiment of the people of this dominion.

(ii) .It would seriously impair the individuality anti the traditions which have grown up round tho secondary schools, and its effect would be _to standardise secondary education in New Zealand.

(iiij This conference is of opinion that greater economies might be effected in the cost of educational administration by giving secondary school boards a greater measure of administrative control.

(iv) Tbo delays which would inevitably occur in an over-burdened centralised administration would greatly impede the efficiency of schools, especially of those situated at a distance from the centre. This is particularly true in the case of school hostels, whore centralised control would bo practically impossible (v) Such centralisation would deprive the dominion of the knowledge and initiative of experienced men and women vlio compose the membership of secondary boards. The local and

expert knowledge of these members listed in the service of those members enlisted in the service of education at great personal sacrifkm of time and money, is of material assistance towards economic administration in many directions.

(vi) The importance of expert local management from tho point of view of economy is specially evident in tho administration of endowments.

(vii) Centralisation of control would weaken the local interest in secondary schools and l would eliminate the generous support now given by ex-pupils’ associations and similar bodies, whose pride in their school would not survive its incorporation as a mere unit in a largo and heterogenous system. (viii) In any case abolition of all secondary boards would bo in the nature of an experiment, and as in all such cases, many nnforseen expenses would probably arise, and much disorganisation would be inevitable.

7. While this conference is opposed to tho unification of primary, secondary, and technical boards into one composite board controlling all three systems, it is of opinion that less objection could be taken to tho amalgamation of the two post-primary branches in those districts where such amalgamation could bo effected with efficiency and economy. The following is taken from a statement supplied to the Minister by the conference in elaboration of its views regarding the proposal to abolish the boards:— The conference realises the difficult position in which the Government is placed, and the necessity for the reduction in tho expenditure on education. But the major question of the existence of tho boards causes serious concern. Onco abolished, the boards will never be restored, and the undeniable advantages to education which the present system has introduced will be irrevocably lost.

IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL CONTROL,

In tl>e striking advance made by English democratic education during the past century the reform which is regarded by competent authorities as the most fundamental and most epoch making was the creation of local boards by the Education Act of 1870. Successive Political Reform Acts had gradually widened the scope of political franchise, and the necessity for a concomitant widening of elementary education was so evident that each political reform was accompanied or closely followed by a corresponding advance in education. But up to > 1867 English ideas on popular education were groping in the dark, and had not gone beyond the making of financial grants to elementary schools. In the Education Act of 1870 the British Parliament provided for popularly elected' school boards “under whose sympathetic guidance popular education began its thrilling advance towards equality of educational opportunity.” Each board, of the pressing need for new facilities for popular education, developed the popular secondary schools as opportunity offered. For the great English “ public schools ” were jet closed to the people as a whole. But this development of secondary education was so irregular and so haphazard that Lord Bryce’s Commission *in 1894. after studying the question, stated that the pressing problem for solution was “How could the sporadically created and unorganised ' secondary education of England be organised into an efficient and satisfactory system? ” The result was the creation in 1899 oi the British Board of Education, headed by a' president with a seat in Cabinet. In the Education Act of 1902, which followed, the newly-created Board of Education laid down its policy—described by an English educational writer as follows;—“It wisely declined to work towards a centralised system of education. It chose rather to employ subsidies and influence ns its agency of progress, bringing all schools under the control of local authorities, and in so doing placing in bodies familiar with local needs and local conditions the power and means to develop the secondary education for the people.” It is on this system of local control, based on British traditions and fortified by British experience, that the New Zealand system is modelled. It has proved its efficiency both there and here. Its total abolition should therefore be a matter of grave consideration. ABOLITION OF BOARDS. A most important aspect which deserves consideration in arriving at a decision upon the question of the abolition of boards is that it would deprive the numerous men and women who compose them of the opportunity lor ser-vice-which the boards offer. And it would deprive the Government of the scrutiny they exercise over local expenditure and of their knowledge and initiative. The Atmore Committee spoke in the highest terms of the value of the services rendered in the past by the members of boards, and tnere can bo no doubt that they have played an effective part in the development of the education service of the dominion. One of the most important developments in our education system (the technical schools) originated not in the Education Department, but in the minds of Dunedin citizens, and it was from the Otago High Schools’ Board that came the proposal that caused the department to introduce domestic training into the girls’ secondary schools of the dominion. No doubt many other improvements made in the education system, from time to time, have emanatde from the boards themselves, and would probably have .been delayed but for their initiative. TJio department has apparently now come to the conclusion that the boards have outlived their usefulness, but surely it must concede that the time which the hundreds of members throughout the dominion devote regularly to the consideration of the matters which come before them are of some value to the State, both financially and otherwise. Or is it of opinion that their efforts are entirely wasted? Abolition of high school boards may bo effected in two ways; Either by absorption in a board controlling pfimary, technical, and secondary education, or by the removal of all control to Wellington. The former course was advocated by the Atmore Committee’s report. I bis conference is of opinion that for each section of education the local control should be vested in a separate board. In a community more highly developed than New Zealand it might be possible to find men and women whose interests, knowledge, and experience could embrace all three branches. But this is difficult in New Zealand. There are people who contend that the Government should confine its attention practically to t rimary education; and similar opinions will bo found in ‘ Hansard.’ There are others whose support is given wholly to technical education, and who regard academic education as a waste of time. Even in England, where the general educational outlook lias a wider compass, there is a strong consensus of opinion in favour of the tripartite division of educational control —founded as it is on the difference in aim, scope, and methods of the various types, and on significant difference between the three sets of institutions concerned. • . .

In the opinion of the conference, it is eminently desirable, in the interests of the various branches of ctir education system and of the system as a whole, that as many men and wopicu as possible should have a part in the administration of the system, -’or this reason,

apart from others, the conference considers that centralised control would not be satisfactory. The conference is also of the opinion that no unified system of board control would be so satisfactory as one which allows men and women whose interests lie more particularly in certain branches of education to devote themselves to those particular branches. At the present time the education boards attract those who are more particularly interested in primary education, and similarly the secondary and technical school boards, those whose interests lie in the secondary and technical schools. Presumably, under unified control these different interests would all have representation. But would the members all. be interested in the work of the unified board in its various aspects? No doubt the board would divide itself into committees which would deal with those different aspects. ' But it is more than probable that the members would have little interest in matters lying outside their own committees, and there would bo no guarantee that the .recommendations of the committees would receive the support of the board as a whole. There is a real danger that in a composite board the interests of any one typo would be subordinate to the interests of the other. These methods would not tend to such efficient administration as is possible, and is obtained, under the system of control by boards who are required to deal only with their own particular phase of the system, and not with any in which they ar c not specially interested. Hie conference realises that in some districts, particularly in the case of smaller schools, amalgamation of the two post-primary branches would not be attended with all the disadvantages outlined herein. But it is firmly opposed to the submergence of these in the larger and ■ less closely-related primary system.

EFFECT OF CENTRALISATION. What would be the effect of centralisation on the secondary schools? It will be generally agreed that these schools, while providing the courses required to enable pupils to prepare for the public examinations, should be free to develop as far as possible on their own lines. Nothing should be done to cause them to lose 'their admittedly valuable individuality and corporate spirit which are of ■ great importance, and have been fostered by the present governing bodies. _ There will be little doubt in the minds of most people that centralisation would result in our schools being all developed on similar lines. That is not desirable in the case of the secondary schools. Presumably the school councils which the Economy Commission proposes to establish on the abolition of the postprimary school boards as a means of maintaining local interest in secondary and technical schools would have the powers that the Atmore Committee proposed to assign to them. They would have the control of the school hostels, but, apart from that, they would have little real power. There would be a separate council for each school, and the principal would be ex-officio secretary. The addition of these secretarial duties to the present manifold duties of principals would diminish the time available for their teaching duties, and would certainly bo accompanied for demands for increased clerical assistance in the schools. The principals already complain about the amount of clerical work they are called upon to do, and the additional assistance required by them under the proposed new arrangements would nullify to some extent the savings it is desired to make. More-, over, this conference is satisfied that a great majority of the members of boards would not be prepared to make the sacrifice of time and money involved by serving on the school councils, with their limited powers and, less important duties, and that it’ would be a real,loss to the community: to deprive it of their imagination and enthusiasm and that “ unselfish devotion ” which the Atmoro Committee admitted has been of such great value in the past. And it could hardly be esicctcd that the members of the proposed school councils would give to their duties as much time or such close attention as is given by the members of the more responsible boards. It may be pointed out that members of the present governing bodies, of secondary schools undertake the regular visitation of the schools and hostels, and so become familiar with matters, involving expenditure. Tho conference asserts that the personal oversight of tho members and their investigation of requests for expenditure is of real financial benefit to the State, and that tho abolition of boards would in consequence represent a real loss to it.

Under a centralised system the work of tho department would bo substantially increased, to what extent the officers of the department probably do not at present realise. Delay in tho answering of correspondence and lack of prompt decisions are usually associated with' Government departments, and it is probable that tho multiplicity of matters that would come before it for decision, and the amount of correspondence to be dealt with, would not conduce to more favourable conditions in this respect in the case of the Education Department. Even under present circumstances every board can quote cases in which there have been irritating delays in its dealing with important matters. Whatever the immediate financial result of centralisation would be, it is very doubtful whether there would be any saving ultimately. It is clear, hovewer, that there would have to be an immediate substantial increase in the departments staff. Boards could not be abolished and their work carried on by the department without additional assistance. If that could be done then the department has been and still is considerably overstaffed. DECENTRALISATION SUGGESTED. A practical suggestion which tho conference desires to make is that, rather than adopt a centralising policy, a policv of decentralisation should now bo followed and at least some of the powers that have been gradually taken from tho various boards be restored to them. This would reduce tho work of tho central department, and in consequence the duplication of which it complains. It would also enable tho department to effect economies in its own administration . SUGGESTED SAVING BY ABOLITION OF BOARDS. The Economy Commission estimates that tho abolition of all boards—secondary, primary, and technical—would effect a saving of £50,000 per annum, and the conference understands tha.t the proportion of this which the department considers would bo saved by the abolition of the secondary _ school boards is £6,000. The commission attributes the “ abnormally high cost ” of administration to the “ complicated system of control at present in existence,” under which “ practically the whole of the expenditure . . . passes first of all through the Education Department and then through the boards.” Tho system of control at present in operation was created by the department, and much of it is unnecessary. The department has for many years desired the abolition of all local hoards and has been gathering into its hands many of the powers formerly enjoyed

by them. That has been the cause of much, if not all, of tho duplication of work of which complaint is now. made.

Even if the boards were abolished,and branch departmental offices (which would be necessary) opened in various centres, it is unlikely that the department would give its local officers any, wide administrative or financial powers and it is probable that there would be no reduction in the number of matters requiring correspondence with, and the approval of the central departmefit. It is difficult to see,, therefore, that tho abolition of the boards and the transfer of their duties, to the department would effect much saving, if any. This board is satisfied that the transfer would not be accompanied by increased efficiency in administration, but rather tho reverse.

The boards have necessarily kept within the limits of the grants made by the department for the administration of the schools and other incidental expenses, but tho grants have in many cases been augmented by locally derived revenue. Apart from reductions made and to be made in these grants in respect of the salaries of office staff?, janitors, etc., the department has within the last rear made a reduction of 10s (ten shillings) per pupil, and has now decided on a further reduction of five shillings (ss), making a total cut in. the grant of equal to 30 per cent. These reductions will tend, considerably to reduced expenditure by theboards, the 30 per cent, reduction alone representing no less a mm than £15,000. It is difficult to see how tho department, can hope to make any further saving in this expenditure. But even if an additioiial £6,000 (tho department’s estimate) could be saved by the proposed radical changes in the administration of the secondary schools, the conference affirms its profound belief that this would not justify the loss of tradition, individuality, esprit de corps, and local pride and support, which would inevitably follow the abolition of the local boards of governors. A financial consideration which must' give tho Government pause in deciding on tho abolition of the secondary school boards arises out of f ; boards’ administration of their endowments. It is common knowledge that_ the land boards are having great difficulty in collecting rents at the present time. It has been ascertained, that in one land district the proportion of rents collected by the Land Board during the financial year ended March 31, 1932, was approximately 40 per cent., and land hoards generally are having great difficulty in collecting their rents. So must every person or authority charged with a similar duty. But in tho district quoted above tne secondary schoool board collected nearly 80 per cent, of its rents during its last financial year, and it will be found generally that these boards have collected a much higher proportion of them rents than has been collected by;the land boards. Tho importance of this to the Government lies in the fact that grants to the boards for teachers’ salaries, which are paid outiof the. Consolidated Fund, are reduced by the amount of the net income from endowments. It is a reasonable assumption that if the secqndary schools’ endowments were ■administered by the land boards a much smaller proportion of the rents would' be collected during times of severe financial depression. The benefit, to the department through having the. rents collected by the school boards must, under present circumstances, amount to 'some thousands of pounds per annum. Centralisation of the control of , the schools would necessarily mean transferring the administration of" the endowments to tho Lands Department, and the benefit referred to above would; ha lost. There can bo no doubt that if the commission’s proposal to abolish hoafds were carried out the officers of tho department > would for a time strain evety nerve to keep down expenditure, and so justify their recommendation to the commission. But what prospect is there of any permanent saving in the total administrative cost? And if there is.no such prospect, is it desirable to make such a revolutionary change, a step which cannot be retraced? Is is more than' probable that, as the years pass and the economic conditions return to normal 1 , departmental expenditure would tend to increase-again,-The cost of the administration of the department increased rapidly for many years up to the year 1930, and it can be stated confidently, that in normal times it is tho tendency of all Government departments once established to increase their expenditure. The conference believes that any saving which might he apparent in the first year or so after the abolition of hoards would not ho so apparent in later years, and would eventually disappear altogether.