Education Boards' Abolition

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3615, 16 September 1927, Page 6

Education Boards ' Abolition

Several statements made by the Minister of Education, the Hon. R. A. Wright, in connection with legislation affecting the powers at present exercised by education boards, together with the reception accorded the amendment moved in the House a few days ago by Mr. H. Atmore, have led to persistent rumours that the Government had , in mind the reduction of powers, if not the abolition, of Education Boards. Mr. Atmore’s amendment was obviously an attempt to draw denial or confirmation from the Minister, an attempt that completely failed. Mr. Wright refused to commit himself any further than to say that,“it did not follow, even if Education Boards were abolished, that school committees would be abolished as well.” Nor was ha in favour of centralisation to the extent of the Department taking control of the whole system.

Needless to say such a non-committal statement far from satisfied those who fear centralisation of the control of education in the capital city. In an endeavour to define the actual position as far as this is possible, the '‘New Zealand Herald, acting appaicntly upon inside information, brings the facts (as it sees them) under the following headings: (1), there has been held in the precincts of the House a meeting, of some official importance, to, consider theiabolition of the boards; (2), nothing in this direction can be done without legislation; (3), there is likely to be legislation affect-ing-the boards’ powers; (4), this may take the form of reducing their powers and enlarging those of school committees ; (5), officers of the Education Department have been giving attention to some such change ; (6), at the present time the Government has no intention of abolishing the boards ; (7), it has no fully-considered opinion on the question ; (8), all parlies will be given opportunity of expressing their views before legislation is brought down, (9), Mr. Wright himself is opposed to a policy of centralisation in Wellington; and (10), there has been no “kite-flying" by him or by the Government concerning the question.

This represents probably a fair summing-up of the present position, but even the Auckland paper is not so confident regarding possible future happenings. It admits in fact that Mr. Wright’s statements leave the position much as it was, and though it is reassuring, up to a point, to have hisiplain avowal of personal dislike of centralisation, it is far from clear as to how far this safeguards the present statutory rights of boards and committees. The “ Hcral/l ” goes even so far as to sound a warning that it behoves all who are aware of the need to keep the administration of education iin vital touch with the people ,to be on the alert against proposals aiming at bureaucratic control.

We may feel inclined to discount some of Auckland’s objections to a control which would be centralised in Wellington. But this very objection will be found and voiced in every district where the work of education boards is understood and appreciated. It is the ttVich, the local interest that contributes so largely to the success of the present system. This may not be appreciated by the Department, but it is certainly felt by the country. We are in entire agreement with Mr. W. R. Birnie —who has had a long and successful connection with Education Board work—when he says that centralisation would abolish more than the boards. It would effectively gag the layman and eliminate his interest in educational mattex’s and the control thereof. Nor must it be thought that this objection would be overcome by ci'eating Departmental district offices to take the place of the boards.

The only x'eason put forward so far in justification of a change in the present system is the question of economy. While it has been claimed that a saving of £IOO,OOO could be made by an overhaul of administrative methods. Mi - . Bii'nic showed that the administrative cost of the whole of the New Zealand boards was only £48,000. It is moreover impossible to conceive how any economy can bo effected simply by enlarging the powers of committees at the expense of the boards.

In spite of the Minister of Education’s semi-assurances, we think that there is still need for vigilance against any movement that might prejudice the status and power of the boards. In this connection we fail to understand the definite statement made in House by the member for Palmerston, Mr. J. A. Nash, “ that he is in favour of the abolition of boards." It would be interesting to have the x-easons on which Mr Nash bases such an opinion as we are inclined to think that it is not shared by the bulk of his constituents.