TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. FRIDAY, 19th JUNE, 1936. EDUCATION “RUNNINNG SHOES.”

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 52, Issue 3771, 19 June 1936, Page 6

TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. FRIDAY, 19th JUNE, 1936. EDUCATION “RUNNINNG SHOES.”

POLITICAL forecasts have contained a hint of a revival of the famous Atmore Report as a basis for reorganisation of New Zealand’s education system, and it seems probable that after the mid-winter recess Parliament will be asked to devote time and thought to the consideration of this important subject. The prospect is most alluring because, in its day, the Atmore Report claimed the spotlight on the political stage. Although in itself and in its recommendations it was practical and politic, it attacked established custom and threatened the breakdown of a vested interest which long years of establishment had created. Little wonder that it was so vigorously attacked. Unfortunately the Government was too strongly divided to stand its ground against the inspired opposition which developed in and out of Parliament. In short, the Report established the high cost of administering the education

system of New Zealand, and it traced both extravagance and inefficiency to the cumulative effects of overlapping and over-staffing. Its aim was the abolition of the Boards and the centralisation of control in the Department’s office under the direct jurisdiction of the Ministry, thus securing a fuller degree of public accountability than prevails. Its defect—if fault it was—traced to its outspoken exposure of the wasteful duplication and extravagance. It told the truth, and the truth was disliked by people who cherished only the ideals of traditional establishment and who fell ready victim to the suggestion that there might be dangers in centralisation. In a fearless way the Report disclosed that the Boards were removed from Ministerial jurisdiction—that, in other words, the Minister’s only duty was to foot the bill for whatever the Boards budgeted for in administration. The result was alarming. Even in the smallest Board districts secretaries and architects received higher salaries than the Departments’ officers were paid, and the absurdity was still greater when recognition was givdn to the respective degrees of responsibility. Cost, however, was not the only factor. The public is perhaps more vitally concerned in the purpose or effectiveness of State organisation. Duplication and overlapping are decided brakes on administration. The Atmore Report raised the vital question where the Boards function ended and the Department’s responsibility began. It was as though in Government service there was a modem application of the ancient truism about Satan’s influence over idle hands. With no actual purpose to be performed, officials perforce must assume a duty, and the effect is to create official system. How tree this is can be seen if we recall twenty-five years of negotiation for the educational needs of this district. The building of the local Technical School was delayed for years with a locallyraised fund held idle in trust until the tangle between Board and Department had been unravelled. Similarly, while Board and Department sought an understanding, every church hall in Te Awamutu was used as an improvised school; children were crowded into treacherous marquees in the depth of winter while high officials sat smugly behind official desks. Not until- a famous “ collect” telegram from infuriated parents reached an indignant Minister was action prompted. The negotiations for the High School were almost equally tedious; and now to-day there are disquieting rumours about the Intermediate School, and it seems that a report and recommendation which supposedly were in the Department’s hands many weeks ago are still serenely reposing in the Board’s pigeon-holes. It can be said that every stage in the servicing of the education needs of Te Awamutu during the past twenty.five years has been attended with indignation meetings. Why official system should be so tedious is difficult to understand. And in the final explanation offered to appease indignation the farcical revelation has been made of a Department which blamed the Board and a Board which condemned the Department.

Will the present Ministry secure at long last a recognition that Education Boards are unnecessary top-ham-per in the administrative system 1 Already the Government has worthily ridded itself of many Boards of questionable worth, and has spared the taxpayer the cost and hindrances that arise in systems of duplicated control. Education Boards will, it is sure, cling tenaciously to the privileges that long years of establishment have created for them, and no doubt School Committees will be piously asked to believe that dangers exist in a policy of centralisation. Mr Semple, in his allotted sphere, has ignored all this pious pleading. His Boards have gone, and with them has gone the humbugging system that served only to create routine to clog the administrative machinery. Will Mr Fraser have the courage and the strength to deal similarly with the

Education Boards ? Will he be prepared to place responsibility where it rightfully belongs without maintaining Boards that are, if nothing else, buffers between Ministry and public. Mr Semple has stood his ground—has accepted his full measure of responsibility. Mr Fraser is now entering the testing ground. If he is hesitant, if he perpetuates the follies of a system that has proved costly and inefficient, if he is bested by the Boards at this testing, both Mr Fraser and the education system will suffer.