EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20235, 21 October 1927, Page 6

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION. CONTROL OF TRAINING COLLEGES. OTAGO BOARD’S CRITICISM. The methods of administration employed by the Education Department and its policy of centralisation were severely criticised at the meeting of the Otago Education Board yesterday, when the department’s proposal to take over the control of training colleges was discussed. A statement to be forwarded to the Minister of Education was considered in committee, and a decision was arrived at in open board, members suggesting that a commission of inquiry should be set up to examine the department’s methods of administration. Mr D. T Fleming said he was exceedingly surprised at the department’s policy of centralisation. It seemed to him to be a wrong policy. The department, for some unknown reason, was charging the board with maladministration of its funds. Even if that were the case, there had been a decided laxity of control on the part of the department. The policy of centralisation was going too far, and the department should now consider the question of decentralisation. Other Government departments had been decentralised with good results He had examined the department’s estimates for this year with those of 10 years ago, and he was staggered when he saw its staffing and methods of administration. The time had come, he thought when the boards and the public should insist on a commission of inquiry into the administration of the department and its staffing Certainly, no business man would adopt the methods it was using. He moved—“ That it be left to the chairman to reply to the Minister in terms of the committee’s memorandum.” “ The proposals now submitted to the board are going to destroy the efficiency of the training colleges,” said Mr J Mitchell, in seconding the motion. The board’s experience choired that questions arose that required immediate determination Those matters might be trivial, but they might have a considerable influence on the control of the college. Such matters could not be dealt with as quickly or as efficiently by the department. He held that too much power was placed in the hands of officers and inspectors, though he would always consider their advice, While the department was desirous of promoting the best interests of education, it lacked experience of the business aspect of control. “The business side of education should be placed more directly in the hands of the boards,’’ said Mr Mitchell, “ and it is very proper that we should have in the proper form an inquiry into the powers of the boards and the effect of the loss of those powers.” The Chairman (Mr J. Wallace) said that the board had , never definitely stated that it objected to the abolition of the hoards. It had decided when the rumour was discussed that until it knew what the department intended to put in its place it would say nothing. If it could bo replaced by something that would benefit the cause of education nobody would be more pleased that the members of the Otago Education Board. After seeing the proposals of the department he was satis tied that the abolition of the boards would be a retrograde stop, and no benefit would bo (mined by making any change in the administration of the boards. It bad been stated that the powers of school committees were to be increased, but on examining the department's proposals he could find nothing that would give committees more power than they previously had. The proper policy for the board to adopt was to attack the department’s administration. If the department gave the board a grant of, say, £50,000 a year, the board could administer the fund and save

money. He was quite satisfied that the board could buy properties and erect schools much cheaper than the department could. His experience of the department in such matters was that it had to pay a “ mighty lot ’ of interest. “ This board once had a credit balance of £20,000 or £30,000, but the department scooped the lot,” he said. The department had been good to Otago, but he objected to its system of administration. The board had never sent an application to the department which it did not honestly think should be granted, and it had often taken the responsibility of refusing requests. “ We should take the stand that footballers take—that offence is the best defence,’’ the chairman concluded, “ and carry the war into the enemy’s camp.” The motion was carried.