DIVISION OF EDUCATION DISTRICT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14809, 12 October 1911, Page 4

DIVISION OF EDUCATION DISTRICT.

Sir,— had intended to leave the discussion on the division of the education district. until after the elections, when the members who will eventually have to deal with the matter would be more at. liberty to deal with the pros and cons of it. I notice that Mr. Parr (Mayor of Auckland), Mr. - Garland (chairman of -the Education Board), and Mr. Campbell (president of the Education Institute) arc all against me in this matter, but there are two sides to every question, and although I am only a poor back-block settler. I hope you will allow me to liavo the courage of my opinion, and to state it.

The 13 education ' districts were defined some 36.years ago. and, though population has come North, and away from the west coast of the South Island, nothing has been done -with regard to doing away with the smaller districts, or of dividing the larger ones, with the result that to-day the Auckland district is 34 times as large as the Westland district. The number of children in attendance in the various education districts is as follows: —Auckland, : 39,588; North Canterbury, 20,985 Ota go, 20,244 Wellington, 17,648; Wanganui, 14,269; Southland. 10,408: Hawke's Bay, 10,290; Taranaki, 6021; Nelson, 5834; South Canterbury, 5684; Marlborough. 2244 ; - Grey, 1958 Westland, 1151. I think that, the Marlborough, Grey, and Westland districts should be absorbed by Nelson, and that the Auckland district should be divided at Mercer. There would then be 11 education districts instead of 13. The North Auckland

district would still be the largest in New Zealand with 26.392 children, and the South Auckland district would be sixth on the list with 13,196 children. The proposed South Auckland district consists of the counties of Raglan,' Waikato. Thames, Coromandel, Ohinemuri, Piako, Matamata. Ohura, Waiomo, Waipa, Awakino, Kawhia, West Taupo, East Taupo, r T&uranga, Rotorua, Whakatane, and Opotiki. This is a very large district, indeed, and is at present represented ;by some seven members _of Parliament, who complain that their district* are too large. Mr. Edcecumbe and r» myself are the only two members of the Board Jiving in this district at present, and it is impossible for us to do justice to the whole of it. as well as attend to our other public and private business. I. may mention that, though I live on the railway lift it takes me four days once a fortnight to attend the board meetings in Auckland. If we had a South Auckland Board with its members coming from such districts as Opotiki, Tauranga, Waihi, Thames, Cambridge, Hamilton, Raglan. Te Kuiti, and TaumarumSi," it would be a wonderful improvement on the present stale. of affairs. - ■ .

As to the grading of teachers, I think it is an advantage • to have the . district divided into two, as then the inspectors would have a better chance of seeing every teacher in their own district at work. At present, with . eight inspectors and 1000 teachers, it i 3 impossible for the whole of the inspectors to see the whole of the teachers at work, and the result is that different spts ol inspectors differ-

—. ' I "*■" 1 «' V" - • . ; v:;*s*?; enfc. teachers' places on one list—a . defect which can only be' remedied by dividing the education district. , " ' As to the chance of promotion being less for s a teacher in the South Auckland district, I would like to point out, of the 335 teachers in the- South - Auckland district there are •21 receiving £250 and upwards and a free house, or. £35 a year. In the North Auckland district,* * out of the 666 teachers only 35 are receiving £250 and upwards, with house or rent,. So that the chance of a teacher receiving a salary of £285 and upwards is greater in South Auckland than in North Auckland.' * As to the division making weaker boards and staffs, I do not think for one instant that such would be.the case. North Canterbury and Otago are each only half the size of Auckland,'! yet the boards and staffs m these smaller districts are just .as efficient as they\ are in Auckland, and the cost per pupil ■ about' the same. A3 to the cost of the change, it would riot be very much. There is already a technical school, a high school, and largo public school in Hamilton, which could be turned into a training college. As only two-thirds of the present staff would be required at Auckland, smaller offices would be required for them, and I am quite sure that one-third of the rent at present paid would provide interest, etc., on board offices at Hamilton. The Government is now proceeding to spend £6000 on Government offices at Hamilton, and an education office could bo a portion of them. A students' college has been built at- the Government farm at Hamilton, and the course for teachers being trained at Hamilton could include lectures and practical education at the Government farm. E. C. Banks. Matamata. . ,