The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1923. CENTRALISED CONTROL.

Southland Times, Issue 19125, 18 December 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1923. CENTRALISED CONTROL.

Unfortunately when criticism is levelled at the centralisation of control in education there is a tendency to make the condemnation too sweeping, because undoubtedly the advocates of centralisation have so powerful arguments on their side. When questions concerning the finances are under review the Government is particularly interested and can argue with some force that there must be some check on the expenditure of the local boards, but it is wellknown that this power to restrain the local authorities often develops into irritating interference and exasperating obstruction. In two places, Nelson and Christchurch, the effects of centralised control in connection with secondary schools have been roundly condemned. Mr H. D. Acland, of the Canterbury College Board of Governors, which controls the Christchurch Boys’ High School, objects to a departmental embargo on the use of money voted for incidentals for prizes, and most people will sympathise with him if this practice has the sanction of custom. Prize-givings are a recognised part of the school year, and not even the claims of economy can justify a system which asks a scholar -or his parent to buy the book he is to receive as a reward for excellence. In primary schools this system has been enforced, but it cannot, therefore, be excused. The centralisation of school design is also open to grave objections, though on the score of economy strong, arguments may be put forward. One has only to look at some of the recent productions to- realise how dangerous it is to give to the Department in Wellington the design of our secondary schools. To have these buildings turned out as from a machine, all bearing the brand of Departmental economies, is deplorable. Secondary schools are not mere brick walls and windows. The Minister of Education and his chief officers will assure the public that a building does not make a school, and we presume that, having satisfied themselves of the unimportance of the building, they cease to worry about its appearance. In this country we too often overlook the aesthetic side. Government Departments, local authorities and private people seem unable to appreciate the value of architectural beauty, and as a result we have an ever-growing collection of public buildings which do nothing more than remind us how ugly utilitarianism can be and to give our visitors the impression that we are a people devoid of aesthetic sensibilities. Our schools and universities, the centres of education, should not be made members of this miserable army because the influence they exert on the coming men and women must tend to intensify rather than cure the architectural ills from which we now suffer. If the design for these buildings is to be purely a Departmental matter, there is small hope of rescue unless there is a radical change in the State’s policy. Centralisation in this matter is almost as dangerous in secondary education as the influences which are tending to diminish the authority of the principles of these institutions.