THE ABOLITION OF EDUCATION BOARDS

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3614, 15 September 1927, Page 8

THE ABOLITION OF EDUCATION BOARDS

Taking School Control From Hands of People

The suggested abolition of Education Boards was brought before the Palmerston North School Committees’ Association last ■ evening, when an address upon the question was given by Mr W. R. Blrnlo, who, for many years, was a member of the Wanganui Education Board. •’For many years past," stated Mr. Eirnie, “the rumours of abolition of Education Boards has'been insistent and the recurrence of the rumour this year has been received by those interested as ’kite-flying’—more or less attempts on the part of the central authority to gauge public feeling on the matter. Owing to statements in the House, the alarm felt by the general public, by members of Boards, by committees and by teachers, has been voiced In no uncertain manner, and strong exception has been taken to any attempt that would lead to further centralisation of education control. To those of us who have had experience on Education Boards, the constant encroachment of central authority and the whittling down of the Boards’ powers, are known matters of Departmental policy and appear to us to be full of menace to a continuance ofcontrol of the schools by the people. It certainly has been made clear to us that the Department's aim is centralisation of power in its own hands. Boards Build Schools Cheaper. “To lead to an understanding of the position it is well to make a clear statement of the work the Boards do and to consider the claims of the abolitionists that a vast saving could be effected were that work transferred to the Department. Let us take building works first. The Boards attend to the erection of new buildings and maintenance, and it can here be stated that the Board controlling this district can do the work at less cost and more expeditiously that the Public Works Department to whom doubtless this work would be transferred w.ere the Boards abolished. The building work is a very important part of the work of the Boards, in spite of the fact that the Education Department places many restrictions in the way. * The Position Of Teachers. “Then there is the appointment of teachers. Although it is true that the Boards are tied by the grading list, they have a greater responsibility than is realised. Th e appointments are tabulated and the recommendations’ presented in such a way that members have little to do hut to pass them, feeling secure in the knowledge that the officials have made all necessary enquiries before making their recommendations. But the members arc required to shoulder the responsibility for Ihe appointments. Based on the applications which are received by this District Board (Wanganui) in a year it is estimated that over 25,000 applications for positions are deal)- with annually by the Education Boards. Again basing our figures on the experience of the Wanganui Board there are some 4.000 applications for leave of absence passing through OnBoard's office annually. Many of these are of an urgent nature, and must be dealf with Immediately they are received. Arrangements for relieving teachers, of whom there are sovera' hundreds employed require prompt handling. It is to be feared that neither the appointments, leave of absences, nor relieving teachers could be dealt with expeditiously by the Department. It cannot moreover be stressed too much that the Boards are at present the employers of the teachers. and the wresting of this prerogative from them by (ho Department, would resfilt in the teacher becoming a civil servant —a Departmental officer —divorced from immediate contact and control of the people who employ him. The enthusiasm of the members

of the teaching profession for their work is a direct result of tho fact that they have so far escaped the official taint. Opposition to centralisation is, it may safely be said, solid In the profession. The Personal Touch. “The checking and audit of tho accounts of some 2500 committees is' done by the Boards,’’ continued the speaker. “The correspondence that passes through a Board office is very considerable. Letter® on all subjects ar e received from committees, teachers, and parents. How would a central office deal with this work ? Callers at the offices are numerous, and help to kce,p alive the personal equation in interest in educational matters. The distribution of school furniture, equipment, supplies, handwork materials, etc., is a considerable work of the Boards. Tho control of manual training classes requires careful attention; the appointment of probationers is not unimportant: the calculation and payment of teachers* salaries, and committees’ grants require much time care and skill; the dealing of claims for subsidies is a work that grows year by year: tho administration of grants for board and conveyance of children involves much correspondence; and the chocking of teachers returns of all kinds and the preparation of statistics for the Department require careful attention. Pertinent Questions. “The above gives some idea of the work of the Board. They are not doing unnecessary work, and if they were abolished the work would still require to bo done. If this is so it is pertinent to ask how the saving mentioned so freely is to be effected. Presuming that district offices wore established which would carry out a portion of the work and tho remainder attended to by the Central Department. This would mean the abolition of committees as well, a matter —judging from the discussion' in the House yesterday—which seems to have been in the heads of the Department officials. Where would the savings bo effected ? Is it seriously to b e contended that decentralisation of this type under central control will result in reduced expenditure ? At present we have many committees keenly interested in their schools, who arc in touch with Board members and officials to whom the Education Department is a department of State run on bureaucratic lines. The committees raise money in a variety of ways from the public and largely contribute to the environment of their schools and to the creation of facilities which the Department avoid taking responsibility for. “Presuming that the intention was to extend tho powers and duties of the committees, in how far Can they take over the work being done by the Boards ? Can they take over the appointment of teachers, the giving of leave of absence, attending to relieving teachers, and to the other matters detailed by me ? Will they bo expected to do this for nothing so that the Department can show a saving ? Question of Costs. “Now as to the possible saving. The total Education Boards’ administra. tion costs £48,000. How can this be taken over by the Department, committees, or branches of the Department and a saving of £IOO,OOO effected ? It is well to mention henthat the administration cost of the Education Department’s office at the present time is £37,000. After serious consideration, it will be admitted that there is really little possibility of extending the powers of committees and that the proposal, is simply intended to enlist their sympathy to the proposal for abolition of the Boards. Local rating has been suggested and was favoured by me, but when the following facts are considered it is difficult to see how it can be brought into operation in a country like New Zealand where the population is so scattered. Of 2580 schools in operation at the end of 1925, 2080 had an attendance of loss than SI, and of these 1829 had an attendance of 50 or less. The settlers in the country cannot afford to rate themselves for roads in many cases, and it is hardly

to be expected that they could rate themselves to any serious extent for education. Local rating could be applied to cities and towns, but cer " tainly not in the country districts where ten-twelfths of the schools are situated. Under those circumstances were a central control in operation a falling off in local interest would be experienced. I think it is time the committees themselves were combining and speaking with some authority. After all tho Boards are the mouthpieces of the committees and are directly appointed by them. With the abolition of the Boards the committees’ representation is just so far weakened. Wanted —A Settled Policy. “In its desire to absorb power the Department, it is to be feared, is not functioning as it should. Wo look upon it as an expert body, who by expert direction, help to make education effective. They have recently called in the best brains from Australia and England to assist in the work and a great deal of the advice given them is likely to remain in the pigeon holes of the Department. We want such bodies as the Council of Education, the Technical School Board t» function and be effective. We still await the new syllabus. We wait sug-, gestions of real extension of junior secondary work adapted to the system already existing,, and a wellequipped teaching profession made use of to its fullest capacity. We wish the Department to go into the matter with the Teachers’ Institute and come back with a practical proposal for getting rid of the inefficient teacher ■—a facility which at present does not exist. We wish the Department to have some settled policy, and. not come to us with appointments of assistant directors one year with tho express purpose of looking after secondary school interests and appoint a successor to him with no such bias. “If it is thought that tho expense ratio of the Boards is high, call a conference of Boards and Department and come to some working basis relative to office expense, etc. Relative to the work done it may be found that Departmental executives are underpaid—thaj * s f° r the Minister to adjust. If it can be proved that some Boards are too expensive they must be forced to put their houses in order, and the same applies to the Department. But while curbs should be placed on possible extravagance of Boards there should also be restraints upon the tendency of Central Authority to abolish what it cannot absorb. No one can credit for a moment that bureaucratic control of education can bo done less expensively than the present system backed up by gratuitous work of Board members and members of committees. Centralisation would abolish more than the Boards —it would effectively gag the layman and eliminate his interest in educational matters and the control thereof, its repercussion on the teaching profession would be bad and in the last analysis the children would suffer. Resolution of Protest, “Do you think we would get the same sympathetic hearing from a paid servant of the Department as from members of Education Boards who are not paid for their services?” asked Mr C. H. Whitehead. Mr Birnie: No, I do not. Mr Oliver: I think we should pass a resolution on the subject and send it to Mr Nash. Mr Whitehead moved a vote of thanks to tho speaker, which was carried by acclamation. The chairman (Mr W. B. Cameron) commented that if anything, tho Department could allocate more work to Education Boards than it was doing. Mr C. H. Whitehead; If we allow this to go through, it will be disastrous. We will have no power whatever. Thq Department’s sympathy Is only with its purse.” He moved; “That this Association views with great alarm the suggested abolition of Education Boards.” The chairman: If we lose the Board we will only have a shadow’' left. He seconded the motion, which was car- ■ ried unanimously. The attention of Messrs J. A. Nash and J. Linklater. M.’sP., is to bo directed to the Association’s views on the matter.