MINISTER’S CRITICISM

Northland Age, Volume II, Issue 34, 27 August 1930, Page 6

MINISTER’S CRITICISM

AUCKLAND EDUCATION BOARD The following communication and report has been received by Capt. Rushworth, as a result ot his personal representations regarding the Report of the Recess Education Committee. Office of Minister of Education, Wellington, 15th August, 1930.

Dear Sir, With reference to your, personal representations, and to the letter-telegram addressed to you by the Secretary of the School Committee having regard to the Report of the Recess Education Committee, I have pleasure in enclosing herewith for your information, copy of a letter I have sent to a similar communication forwarded to me by the Chairman of another School Committee.

Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) Harry Atmore H. M. Rushworth Esq., M.P., Parliament Buildings,

Wellington. Office of Minister of Education, Wellington, N.Z., 14th August 1930.

Dear Sir,

I have to acknowledge receipt ot your letter of the nth instant, conveying a resolution passed by your Committee having reference to the Report of the Recess Education Committee.

In reply 1 have to say that your communication appears to be the result of a circular letter which the Auckland Education Board has apparently sent to every school committee in its district, and in which, I regret to say, the Board has grossly misrepresented the facts.

With regard to the appointment of teachers, the Board states that “all appointment will be made by a National Appointment Committee at Wellington.” Whilst it is true that the proposal of the Committee is that appointments should be entrusted to a National Appointment Committee the Board has not taken the trouble to inform the school committees that it will be a body comprising representatives of the Teachers and the Department with an independent Chairman. Further, that it will mobilise and direct to the best national advantage the nation’s teaching resources, with disinterested regard to the legitimate needs of all schools —country as well as city —on an efficiency basis, and that where deemed desirable it will consult local committees. It is worthy of note that the proposal has the strong support of the New Zealand Educational Institute, which body represents over six thousand teachers in the Dominion,

The Board’s statement “that the erection, maintenance and repair of school buildings and teachers’ residences is to be undertaken by the Public Works Department, instead of through Education Boards as at present” is absolutely contrary to the fact. The truth is that in its endeavour to bolster up a weak case, the Board has taken the evidence of one of the witnesses, which was embonied in the Report, and made it appear as a recommendation of the Committee.

There is nothing derogratory to the Education Boards in the Committee’s proposal in connection with the payment of teachers. Unfortunately the Auckland Board has not deemed it necesary to point out that the payments have to be made according to fixed scales and that the existing practice involves the duplication of clerical staffs, which is not warranted andcannot be justified.

The Government has to pay the salaries and there is no reason why payment should not be made direct to the teachers.

The foregoing remarks are, to a certain extent, applicable to the distribution ot capitation allowances and subsidies. Here, too, there is duplication and not infrequently friction and delay, and a continuation of the present practice cannot be defended. Where payments have to be made according to fixed scales, prescribed by statute or regulation, and operating uniformly throughout the Dominion, the Committee is of the opinion that such payments should be made direct from the Department to the recipients, and should not pass through the Board’s accounts at all.

With reference to the alleged “centralisation of educational administration in Wellington”, 1 desire to say that the Board’s remarks are not justified and have no foundation. As a matter of fact, the Committee has stated in the Report that it is strongly opposed to the suggestion made during my predecessor’s term of office that the existing Education Boards should be abolished in favour of a completely centralised department. A careful study of the proposals will show that they provide for de-centrali-sation to a great degree, and I have no hesitation in stating that

when the recommendations of the Committee are thoroughly understood by school committeemen and women, and the parents generally, they will not be content to allow the actions of those who feel they have a vested interest in positions which they

held for many years to stand in the way progress in the educational development of fheir children. It cannot be denied that there is a great waste in expenditure upon administration in New Zealand, compared with other countries, and surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the money voted by Parliament for the education of the girls and boys shall be expended for that purpose and not wasted in expensive overlapping which is so much in evidence to day. _ln conclusion, I should like Committees, and especially those in the Auckland District, to peruse the very fine leading article contained in the “New Zealand Herald” under date 29th July last in which the Chairman of the Auckland Education Board is severely taken to task for his hostile attitude towards the Report. Yours faithfully, Harry Atmore, « Minister of Education.