EDUCATION POLICY

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1931, Page 6

EDUCATION POLICY

| PROPOSALS OF GOVERNMENT I SOMETHING BETTER EXPECTED. I — WELLINGTON April 27 | “The Members of the Recess Education committee certainly thought that something better than these proposals would bp contained in any legislation that was brought before the House after the very favourable consideration giv'n last session to the recommendations that were brought down by that Committee. “said Mr G. C. Black, ;M. P. who was a member of that Committee, when dealing with the pro-i posals of the Government in that connection contained in the Finance Bill No. 2. “In view of the proposals of the Recess Education Committee onp would have expected that legislative recognition would have been given ro recom mendation No. 1 of the (’ommittce. That recommendation was that the termination of the primary school course should be at 11 plus or after passing standard four. The other recommendations respecting all phases 'other than the University side were based on recommendation No. 1 and ( without a recongition of the principle contained in that recommendation we are getting nowhere and can hop l ’ | for no success in regard to any reform lof our education system. As one who has strongly supported the principles often enunciat*‘d by ’the Minister of Education. Ithink that for the proper development of the .system it is a pity that the Government has not. seen fit to give effect to the proposals that he has so eagerly •proclaimed and which were supported iby the Recess Education Committee.” After quoting the opinions of 1 a<l|ing educationalists regarding unification of control Mr Black went on tu deal with the proposal in Clause 37 ot the Bill, which reads “The GovernoiGeneral may, by order in Council, direct that any secondary schools or any technical schools whether established under the principal Act or any other I Act, shall from a date to be named (in the Order be combined in the manner prescribed in the Order and shall for the purposes of control be placed under a single governing body as hereinafter set out. That proposed amendment doos not recognise unification of control. There is no mention of pub|lie schools, i.e. Primary schools as de|fined in the Act. It is a recognition of one thing only,, and that is Government by Order-in-jCouneil. There is no gainsaying the, [fact that on more than one occasion ' many members of this House have I stated both in this chamber and out ] side of it their views regarding subjection (2) of section 15 of the Edu-1 cation Amendment Act, 1919, which' reads that “No regulation under thisi section shall be invalid which deals | with any matter provided for in the I jprincipal Act.” There is much de-1 .tail one could give, but time will not* jpermit. Suffice it to mention the I (views of a leading educational authority. If Lord Hewart, Lord Chief! .Justice of England, has been at a loss] 'for material for his recent book New Despotism,” he could have ’found it in overwhelming abundance in the history of New Zealand educa- j I tion system. There i* a fruitful field] of study for some research student in the history of the development of | Orders in council as a means of gov- . eminent in this country.” The speaker went on to point out that the proposal was not educationally sound inciting I the opinions of Dr James Hight. Rec-j tor of Canterbury College. He also j pointed out that it was a proposition j that should also have commended itself f to the Government on grounds of econ- j omy. Mr Black also dealt with the | proposal whereby authority is to be given the Minister to close schools in areas affected by earthquakes, etc., and stated, that it was to a degree a recog- L nition of further centralisation. “We know that for years past there has • been a concentrated attack o u the 1 secondary schools of New Zealand,”' he said. ’ ’and that the battle has been 1 partly won by the Department. That j is recognised by the passing of the Education Amendment Act of 1920. * Sub-clause (2) of 32 gives the Central () Department authority i D respect of the ( t staff in all secondary schools in New • r Zealand, an authority it has not up to ( the present enjoyed although for a time it has coveted that privilege. How , does that compare with the recommend- \ ation of the Recess Committee in re-

I | spect to the appointment of teachers? I The recommendation of the committee was in the direction of making these appointments by an authority outside the Education Department, and it indicated in respect of centralisation that the Committee was against departmental control; but this Bill re'cognises the right of”the Director of Education to say that a particular teacher is capable of filling a certain position under a secondary school Board or i technical school Board, and the onus is On the particular Board to accept such teacher. Ruch a proposal is fair neither to the teacher nor to those interested as controlling authorities.” Mr Black also dealt with the matter of the appointment of married women teachers and indicated that there was little in the Bill which he found favourable.