EDUCATION IN VICTORIA

Taranaki Daily News, 29 January 1931, Page 8

EDUCATION IN VICTORIA

UNIFICATION OF CONTROL. BENEFITS EMPHASISED. Education in Victoria has been under centralised control for several years, but many of the evils which opponents of the change said would follow the introduction of the system have not materialised, according to Professor L.. J, Wrigley, who holds the Chair of Education at Melbourne University. He admits, however, that there are. still definitely two sides to the question. Professor Wrigley made this comment when discussing this phase of education with a reporter of the Christchurch Press. He had not studied in detail the recommendations of the Select Committee on Education in New Zealand, he said, but was told that they contained proposals for the unification of control. This was, h© pointed mit, the main difference between education in New Zealand and that in Victoria. There they had no bodies corresponding to our Education Boards. The teachers were graded, appointed, and paid by the State. Appointments were made on the recommendation of the Committee of Classification for the different divisions, which was composed of a Government official, a representative of the teachers, and a, barrister, representing the public. For the various schools there were set up Advisory Councils, which did much to sustain local interest, ‘but which had no jurisdiction so far as the school or the teachers were concerned. The most they could do was to make representations. These corresponded approximately to school committees in New Zealand, besides which there were parents’ committees and. other such bodies. One of the cries against centralisation had been that it would rob education of local interest, but this had. not been the case. Local enthusiasm was still the rule, as testified to by the financial aid .which was forthcoming. Again, the teacher was free from the caprice of local preferences which sometimes arose. It was also claimed that the system had been responsible for giving equal facilities for education to the city child and the backblocks child alike. Under the old system this could never have been done in Victoria, but, apparently, this factor would not be of such significance in New Zealand, where the State paid the teacher if it did not actually appoint him. / One big defect levelled at central control was that it brought uniformity; as to how much truth there was in that assertion he was not in © position to say. The proposals of the Atmore report, as they affected the child, were, so far as he had been able to study them, ifi keeping with ths general trend of education. Victoria had seen the necessity for beginning post-primary education earlier, and he had been one or a committee which had, drawn up recommendations which, in broad outline, were on lines similar to those he had seen in the Dominion report. These had not been put into practice in Victoria because of the financial stringency. Speaking of the qualifications of teachers, Professor Wrigley made it clear that although seniority was an important factor in appointment it was by no means the only one; indeed, therehad been some dissatisfaction because young and promising teachers had been pushed forward. Any teacher entering a secondary school must have a University degree and a diploma in education.

They had also tried to avert the disadvantages resulting from the constant transfer of teachers by insisting that they must serve in the position from two to five years according to their grading. Moreover, any person who entered the service in Victoria, whatever his qualifications and experience, must start in the lowest grade. There were no married women teachers in the Victorian service except a few who were the wives of disabled returned soldiers —and, of course, widows. At present there was an over-supply of teachers in the State.