COST OF EDUCATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20954, 18 August 1931, Page 12

COST OF EDUCATION.

THE CALL FOR ECONOMY.

VIEWS OF CORRESPONDENTS.

"ASKING FOR EVERYTHING." The following letters on the subject of economy in education have come to hand:— " S.T." writes: The articles and letters on the above aro very nruch to tho point. It is high time that teachers realised that a cut is due in the education vote as in everything else. Many teachers, in fact, can by 110 means hold themselves up as examples of economy when it comes to spending Government money on school requisites. Little care or thought is taken in endeavouring to carry on with a minimum of needs in tho schools. The almost common talk among teachers of asking for everything they can from boards and committees should bo condemned. In this tho two latter bodies are often just as much to blame. When one realises that every head teacher, provided • with a residence, pays no rates or insurance on it, has electricity installed free of cost, besides tanks, baths, stoves, etc., as well as papering, painting, repairs to windows, drains and fences, it will be seen how much these same headmasters are saved each year. Other teachers are paid married allowance or house allowance in addition to their ordinary salaries. Teachers, then, as a body have little cause for complaint, though they may often wonder deeply on tho ponderous workings of education boards, bodies which, as at present constituted, could well be done without. The sooner tho appointment of teachers and their payments come direct from Wellington the better, in place of the cumbrous " double-entry, doublestaffing methods now prevailing, with added expense to tho taxpayer and the resultant yearly inflation of the education vote. LUXURY EDUCATION. TOO MUCH FOR THE TAXPAYER. " Another Winkle" writes: I find myself in cordial agreement with " Bip Van Winkle," while recognising, with " Simple Simon," that far too many country teachers have impossible tasks set them. The plain fact of the case is that New Zealand, being a bread and butter country (with biead too dear on account of a wheat piotection duty, and butter too cheap on account of the competition of an open market), can only afford a bread and butter education for her children. But here, in Zealand, we have for years been doing with our system of education what we have been doing, individually and collectively, in many other matters. We have been insisting on being supplied with the luxurifis of life at the expense of those who deal in the necessities. It will be generally admitted that a good primal y school education is a necessity, whereas a universal secondary school education (under any past or present conditions in this country) is not. It is a luxury that can only be excused on the grounds that the necessities have been adequately supplied, and the money is there to buy it without running into debt. It this country had gone along these lines, we would not now have " Simple Simons by the dozen in the country districts, and bull clings like tlie new Ot ahull u .Technical School and others in or near the towns. PLEA FOB COUNTRY SCHOOLS. THE DRIFT TO THE TOWNS. Mr. C. J. Ogle writesln the Hon. H. At mote's speech, reported in last Thuisday's Herald, he stated that he proposed in the near future to substitute a system of correspondence for many of the smallei rural schools. I admit that the correspondence system is splendid for children living in isolated districts, who are unable to attend school, but surely Air. Atmoro must realise that its success depends upon the children receiving assist- ; ance at home. This means that the mothers, who usually already have rather more work than they can manage, are to be expected to superintend the education of their children, in order that ; the Government may reduce the cost of : education. We hear a lot of talk about stopping the drift of the country people to the towns, but it is not point; to be managed by such means as the Minister of Education proposes to adopt. Can this be the same man who recommended a further consolidation of schools paiticularly in rural districts ? MONEY NOT AVAILABLE. COST MUST COME DOWN. "W" writes: —I have read the letters and reports of speeches in reference to the cost of education. I did not have a great deal of faith in our system at any time and now I have none. The teachers and departmental heads are very annoyed at the proposal to limit expenditure, and say it must not be done. They then proceed to advertise education and its great advantages. Apparently their so-ca. c.< learning, has blinded them to ordinary economic facts. The value of our products sold overseas and on which we depend for our income has fallen below 1914 values. Our income has fallen 20 million pounds in the last two years, so we have not the money to support an organisation which is three times its 1914 cost. If they will refer to the Herai.d record of exports in the August 10 issue they may realise times have changed and they will then know what business men have known for the last two years. EFFICIENCY DIMINISHED. EXPENDITURE EXTRA VAG ANT. "Taxpayer" writes: —lt is useless for deputations of schoolmasters to approach the Minister of Education with appeals to continue a -system of 'extravagant expenditure, which it is clear that the conn try can no longer afford. The fact that as the cost of education lias increased its efficiency has diminished is too apparent to be contradicted. The trend of our educational.system has been during recent, years to attempt to conceal the facts that less knowledge is being imparted and more public money wasted by the simple expedient of dodging examination tests.