EDUCATION BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 2 April 1938, Page 6

EDUCATION BILL

AMENDMENT NOT FAVOURED CRITIC ISM BY SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARDS INDIVIDUALITY WILL BF. KILLED |Hy Tplfumph —ITe» A«wiati«nl WELLINGTON. Ist April. With only one or two exceptions, all secondary school boards in New Zealand were represented at a conference held to-day in the Wellington East Girls' College to consider the Education Amendment Bill, introduced into Parliament recently. Mr L McKenzie, chai-man of the Wellington Colleges Board of Governors, presided. The Bill was criticised from various angles, but in the main fault was found with it because of its proposed centralisation in education administration, and it was considered that this would not be advantageous to the schools. The conference decided that it would not pass judgment on the Bill, as a body, until after hearing the Minister of Education (the Hon. P Frazer) later in the day. Mr McKenzie said that the Bill practically took away the control of the boards and made them glorified school committees In.the past, college board. 1 had been live institutions, and the class of men who had represented the boards had been a tower of strength behind the principals. Under the Bill, the boards would be replaced by councils which would be appointed by the Education Department. It was certain that every board would go. and the present boards would be embodied in boards which were more than provinclally wide, and in the work of which individual interest would be overlooked. Major boards had had large endowments which had been managed more economically than they would have been managed had the Education Department controlled them The only charge against the endowments practically was the salary of a part-time secretary. He did not think that any boards had asked for the change, which had evidently come from the Education Department. The Bill was much more serious for technical colleges, the advisory boards ol which would cease to function. LOCAL INTEREST Mr W. C. Colee (Canterbury College) said that on the ground that unity of control was desirable for the sake of securing continuity in the education of the child, his council approved of unity of control, provided that the newly-constituted bodief should have powers of such a nature that centralisation was definitely diminished, and local control increased and local interest stimuli ted. Mr J. Stanton (Auckland) said thal in the present system there was nc such glaring defect as to call for the sweeping change propcsed. Board* could do better work if their powers were increased. Mr W. R. Brugh (Otago) said that he had facts to show that the costs would be greater under unification If that were so what good result? would accrue? The councils would not be composed of the same kind of men as composed the present boards In a few years’ time the councils would be relegated to the insignificant positions that primary school committees at present occupied. THE SCHOOL SPIRIT Mr F. Milner (Waitaki) said the Bill would do a big disservice to secondary education in New Zealand Under the present system New Zealand secondary schools had acquired a st indard that was the envy of other countries The Bill would play into the hands of private schools. After having made three trips abroad. he was of the opinion that one could be proud of New Zealand schools. The boards desired more power, to draw up curricula, for instance: they needed more freedom The merger would kill individuality. “We want each school in New Zealand to develop its own spirit, but this Bill was going to prevent that.’’ he said. Mr W. Thomas (Timaru) said that it had been stated that the Bill would give greater administrative efficiency, but that was only a small part of | educational efficiency. | Mr E. C. Smith (Gore) said that his school could do better work as the board w ? as constituted now than if the school were administered by a board situated 40 miles away. There would be a lack of interest in school work if the appointment of teachers were taken away from the boards. DESIRED BY N.Z.E.I ? Mr M. H Oram (Palmerston North), dealing with the reasons for the Bill, said that in the past the system of education had been in watertight compartments What was desired was to obtain as much unification and coordination as possible, so that the eduj cational system would be continuous | from the kindergarten to the university. With proper safeguards, every reform of the Minister's could be brought about within the existing organisation He thought the Bill was instigated largely the New Zealand Educational Institute, which desired classification and salaries to be placed on a much better basis Mr W H Jackson (Wairarapa) referred to the centralisation and departmentalism of the Bill, of which his board did not approve Mr W M. Stewart (Grc.vmouth), as representing a small school, opposed the Bill. SERVICES OF BOARDS Mrs Knox Gilmer (Wellington) said she was sure that the Minister did not want to get rid of the boards, but he wanted to know on what grounds and conditions board members would give their services. Mr H. E Edgley (Napier) said that if the work of the councils became heavy, the question of payment for members would have to be considered Further discussion was postponed