EDUCATIONAL CHANGES

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1930, Page 9

EDUCATIONAL CHANGES

NO LEGISLATIVE ACTION YET EXPLANATION BY THE MINISTER. . ATTENTION DRAWN TO ANOMALIES By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. i No steps have yet been taken to • frame legislation to give effect to any ; recommendations in the recess educa- . tion commibtee’s report which was pre- ' sented to Parliament ,last session, ac- ■ cording to a statement by the Minister of Education, the Hon. H. Atmore, in an interview before he left for the south to-day. Although every consid- ; eration was being given the report as ; it might affect the reorganisation of the ■ educational system of the Dominion, ! said Mr. Atmore, his attitude at the mo- ' m«(nt was that it was before the coun- > try for appraisal and he preferred to • wait until its import had been made clear before steps were taken to put i into effect the widespread' changes ad- > VQcated. : . Ttye Minister said it was his intention to explain the report ,in various parts of the country before any action was taken. He had already addressed .numerous meetings and the report had been given a very good reception by teachers, members of school committees, boards and members of the public generally. The report had already been outlined to the Wellington district school committees and it was hoped to arrange a similar gathering at Auckland in the near future, when Mr. J. A. Young and Mr. P. .Fraser, members of the recess committee, would probably be present. \ Attention was drawn to the opposition of some boards to the proposed alteration in control and to the fears expressed that their powers would be curtailed if the committee’s report were enforced. . The Minister said the'fears of the boards had no foundation. There would certainly be fewer boards but they would have extended powers, Mr. Atmore said it was clear there was no intention to destroy local control. The policy of completely centralising the administration had not been' approved. The boards had appealed to local sentiment in stating that their powers were to be taken from them.In a recent circular letter sent out by the chairman of the Auckland Education Board to the school committees of the Auckland province the statement was made that as far as administration was concerned the committee’s proposals, stripped of camouflage, meant the loss of local control and centralisation in Wellington. That this w’.s net intended was clearly shown in the report. Under the committee’s proposals board members would hold' more 'dignified positions than they did at present. The Minister said that among other things the question of anomalies in the existing system of control would, receive dose attention. At present an inspector of schools received a lower , salary than was paid to the principal of a single school.. .For. instance, .the principal of a single technical or secondary school received £920 a year while stall inspectors who inspected and reported upon his school received only £665 a year. Even the chief inspectors in charge of a staff of inspectors received lower salaries than the principals referred to. In addition there . was a notable disparity between the salaries of departmental and board officers. The secretary of the department received £715 a year in comparison with the following salaries Raid by bqards for a similar position: Auckland £BO6, Wellington £BOO, Canterbury £72'5, Otago £625, Wanganui £790, Nelson £7OO. The department’s architect received a salary of £665 a year, other boards paying their architects as follows: Canterbury £6'75, Hawke’s Bay £715, Auckland £77'5. COMMITTEE’S REPORT CRITICISED, CASE FOR. SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Dunedin, Nov. 20, A statement by the Otago High Schools Board on the recess education committee report expresses the opinion that before any considerable changes are made in the system a commission of qualified persons, including,:the Director of Education, shordd-be sent abroad to observe and report cm educational methods and developments in other countries. ( The statement. suggests that a committee of nonexperts, with little firsthand knowledge <sf the systems of other countries, cannot give the best advice. Lengthy criticism is made of the ‘‘general deprecatory tone in which the committee discusses the work and influence of the secondary schools;” The board is .compelled to conclude that the qqjnmittee derived from witnesses an ‘ erroneous conception of the spirit, aims and methods' of secondary, education. The board describes' the proposal for the creation of a unified inspectorate for all schools as one that could not be entertained by any body of persons conversant with the facts. There are many other criticisms, and in general the board holds that all the. anomalies and difficulties, including the co-ordination of the w r ork of the various types of schools, can be effected without interfering with the present methods of control.