CRITICAL VIEWS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19585, 17 March 1938, Page 15

CRITICAL VIEWS

NEW EDUCATION PLAN EFFICIENCY IMPAIRED LOOSING LOCAL BONDS “LEVELLING.UP COSTS”

“Until an opportunity has been given for the board to study the new Education Bill in detail, it will not be possible to gauge the full effect of what the Government proposes. It is evident, however, that no effort has been made to remove features of earlier general proposals which, at the time they were first raised in discussion, gave much offence to those who for years have given time and study to the advancement of education in the Dominion,’’ stated Mr. L. T. Burnard*, chairman of the Gisborne High School' Board of Governors, discussing to-day the outline of the new Education Bill’s features telegraphed from Wellington. From the point of view of control of secondary schools, the projected abolition of existing governing bodies, and the transfer of their assets in trust to new education boards, is regarded as a retrograde step, said Mr. Burnard.

“Especially in the case of a district such as Gisborne, the feeling of loyalty of people to the school that has been raised in their own locality produces many results which could not be obtained under any form of centralised authority. If secondary school governing bodies were to be reduced to the status of the ordinary primary-school committee, and robbed of practically all authority, there would be no incentive to continue a work which everyone would admit had been valuable in the past. District Interest in School

“Residents of Poverty Bay ancl the East Coast send their sons and daughters to the Gisborne High School mainly because it offers them secondary education, but the fact that it is the district’s own school, with a history entwined with the history of Poverty Bay over the past 50 years, gives the institution a place in their esteem which would never be given to a school managed from a distance,” Mr. Burnard continued. “If there had been no local governing body connected with the school, and enjoying a substantial measure of independent authority, it would never have been possible to build it up to its present strength and usefulness in the community.” Financial control of the assets ol district schools would be vested in boards with headquarters in the main centres, and ruled in their turn by a central authority, to which all matteis of policy would be referred, he pomted out. It was fair to ask whethei there was any occasion to criticise tne management of a secondary school such as the Gisborne High School, oi whether, by centralising financial authority, economies could be enacted.

Danger of Proposed Transfer

The record of the Gisborne High School Board of Governors lie was glad to be able to say, had been the subject of commendation from the higher authorities of the Education

Department. It was natural to ask why any change from so satisfactory a system of control should be necessary. The real danger in this proposed transfer of control, Mr. Burnard held, was that while ostensibly designed to bring the management of all schools into line with the better-managed institutions, it would really have the effect of levelling-up costs to the average of the less efficient. Keen local scrutiny of educational expenditure, especially in the secondary school field, had always been a feature of good school management. With authority removed elsewhere, and the individual assets and possibilities of a school such as the Gisborne High School thrown into a pool, the incentive to keen local scrutiny of outlay, he felt, would be abolished. The basis of the present legislation to re-mould the system of education in New Zealand was the Atmore Committee Report, submitted to Parliament in 1930, Mr. Burnard explained. His board had been in correspondence with the Minister of Education and officers of his department, on the subject of certain recommendations in the report, and had been asked to submit comments on those clauses.

Atmore Committee Report

Particular reference had been made in this correspondence to the following recommendations of the Atmore Committee:—

(7) That unification of control of the existing primary, secondary and technical education in New Zeaalnd is desirable.

' (8)) That the existing post-primary school boards be continued as school councils for their respective schools, except that where a single board has controlled more than one school a separate school council shall be set up for each school.

(9) Thai the present divisions ol the inspectorate be abolished, and a single inspectorate be organised consisting of specialist inspectors, the inspectorial stall within each board district to inspect all grades and types of school within each board district, and to include one woman inspector.

(10) That the powers and duties of the national department under the proposed scheme of reorganisation shall include the control of native schools: child welfare branch; distribution of capital allowances, special grants, and subsidies; payment of teachers, teachers’ superannuation fund; power to make regulations (1) requiring boards to share services and officers where, in the Minister’s opinion such a course is desirable in the interests of eflibiency or economy, and (2) to ensure that earmarked grants are applied to authorised purposes only; appointment of nominated members of boards; syllabus of instruction, school certificates, inspection of schools, classification of teachers, and appointment of teachers. (19) That outside the four centres the district education board be the controlling authorities for all forms of post-secondary as well as secondary education, including higher technical classes and the training of apprentices; that the system of vocational guidance already initiated be extended and developed; and that the organisation of vocational guidance work

within each educational district be entrusted to the district education boards.

The Gisborne High School Board oi Governors had not been able to express approval of any of these several re-

commendations, all of which bore upon the sphere in which the governors could claim to have some experience. Nothing that had occurred in the meantime had altered his own views on the matter, Mr. Burnard stated in conclusion.

PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTROL

SYSTEM UNCHANGED Discussing the Education Amendment Bill from the primary school point of view, Mr. D. J. Duncan, president of tiro Poverty Bay Primary Schools Association, stated that the proposals did not indicate any- change in the present system of control. Each school would still have its council or committee, which would be under the jurisdiction of an education board.

He maintained that under the present conditions —and there was no notification of any change—the Hawke’s Bay Education Board had too large a district to look after, as it controlled schools from East Cape to Southern Hawke’s Bay. Mr. Duncan thought that the raising of the school leaving age would result in most pupils who ordinarily completed their education at Std. VI going on to high schools. As far as the question of religious instruction was concerned, the Primary Schools Asociation had adopted a neutral position, but he was not in favour of such instruction in day schools. He considered it to be a task for religious organisations. He was not acquainted with the nature of the restrictions against the employment of married women teachers, but he knew that at present a number of married women were occupying temporary positions owing to the shortage of teachers.