EDUCATION ECONOMIES

Taranaki Daily News, 27 April 1932, Page 9

EDUCATION ECONOMIES

PROPOSALS OF THE BOARD COMMISSION’S REPORT ASSAILED. DIRECTOR SYSTEM CRITICISED. An emphatic reply to the affirmation of the Economy Commission that the high cost of education in New Zealand is due to the present complicated system of control is contained in the recommendations of the conference of education boards held recently at Wellington. The conference in its report to the Minister asserts that the. director’s policy is directly responsible for lavish expenditure, and recommends an entirely different form of departmental control. “The boards have had no increase In the rate of their grant for administration since 1914,” states the report. “The department's annual administration costs have increased from £13,036 in 1915 to £42,284 in 1930, an increase of 224 per cent. It has been more intent on usurping local powers than on studying well ordered economy. During the same period |ho increase in board administrative costs has been 58 per cent. The commission appears not to have been fully informed of the duties o£ boards. The assumption that salary payments form the bulk of the work of boards is ridiculously contrary to fact. “In 1927, when the present Director of Education came into office, a scheme of completely centralised control was placed confidentially before a committee of the Government then in office. The proposals, however, leaked out, and such a storm of protest against centralisation was raised from one end of New Zealand to the other that the proposals were immediately abandoned. Again in 1930, after the Reccss Education Committee had taken evidence throughout New Zealand, the director placed his proposals before that committee. The committee was “strongly opposed to any such system of bureaucratic control and recommended instead unified control —one board for each defined Education district.’ RESTRICTED POWERS. “The powers of the proposed boards were so restricted, however, that it was felt that they were in effect dummy boards and that it would only be a matter of a very short time before they too would be abolished. Again there was a storm of protest from all over New Zealand with the result that no action was taken by Parliament. In neither case were boards consulted nor were they given an opportunity to refute the department’s figures. “In spite of the fact that both Parliament and people had decisively expressed themselves as opposed to bureaucratic control of education, the Director usee the present economic condition of the country as a means to gain his object and secure complete control. (Note. In 1927 the department estimated that a saving of £Bl,OOO could be made. In l? 30 the estimated savings were loosely referred to as approximately £60,000, while those in the present proposals are £50,000. descending scale of savings is a little difficult to understand). “The commission states that ‘the present system . . . is one of the most cumbrous and costly that could be devised.’ Up to a certain point this is correct, but this is due to the fact that' the department has, within itself, built up an unnecessary and wasteful system of duplication and overlapping of the statutory functions of boards. The department sought always the substance of real authority and endeavoured to leave the boards only the shadow. “The department has gradually introduced a system of administration which requires practically every function of a local board to be subservient to its authority. For example, it requires from the boards an excessive number of detailed returns, showing particulars of practically every activity and of all expenditure, resulting in voluminous correspondence on most trivial matters of detail and causing unnecessary work and unwarrantable delay. The department has, in fact, developed mainly into a checking institution. There should be no need for the central department to assume responsibility for, and control of, matters which are entirely of local concern.” ECONOMIES SUGGESTED. As an alternative to the commission’s proposals the conference of boards states that it considers that very considerable economies could be effected without impairing the efficiency of the system by: (a) Decentralisation of the system; (b) unification of control within districts—including building control; (c) simplication of regulations; (d) simplication and adjustments of salary scales for teachers of primary, secondary and technical schools; (e) transfer to education boards of control of Native schools and abolition of Native school inspectorate; (f) simpler classification of teachers; (g) reduction in departmental travelling expenses; (h) reduction in compilation and publication of statistics; (i) abolition of present system of fire inspection; (j) re-organisation of child welfare system. PROPOSALS FOR RECONSTRUCTION. In the limited time at our disposal it is impossible to present a complete scheme of reconstruction, but as a basis we submit the following suggestions:— 1. That the principal officers of the department should be —(a) an administrator to control the business side; (b) a director of the educational policy of the Dominin whose duties would be confined to the professional side. 2. That the functions of the department should include—(a) preparation of legislation and regulations; (b) classification and grading of teachers; (c) control of examinations; (d) determination of school staffs and teachers’ salary scales; (e) prescription of syllabus of instruction; (f) control of child welfare branch; (g) preparation of estimates of expenditure for submission to Parliament. 3. That the powers and duties of boards should include—(a) the establishment, maintenance, and control of public primary, secondary, technical, and Native schools; (b) the appointment of their own officers and teaching staffs; *(c) control of the inspectorate; (d) conveyance and board of pupils; (e) the establishment of school districts; (f) the establishment of school libraries; (g) the control of teachers training colleges; (h) the administration of funds provided by Parliament and all other funds that may become the property of the boards. *(We are definitely of opinion that in the best interests of the schools the inspectorate should, under the new scheme of control, be replaced under the boards. While there are difficulties in the way of placing the secondary and technical inspectors we are satisfied that these can be surmounted. The simplification of the grading scheme now recommended would facili tate this). . 1 In order to eliminate all redundant checking in the department which arises out of the present system of requiring boards to furnish numerous complicated application and claim forms, this simple method of dealing with the education vote is suggested;—To pay to each board by way of annual grant its proportionate share of the education vote in respect of maintenance of buildings, school committees’ incidentals. materials and equipment for manual training, conveyance and board of children, subsidies on voluntary contributions and general administration. Under this method

the boards would have freedom of-control, but the State would be safeguarded through special education auditors attached to the Audit Office. , In connection with, teachers salaries boards would claim totals of moneys re quired each month from tne department, for remittances, as at present, to various branches of the banks, but the forwarding of teachers’ pay lists to the department for checking would be discontinued, thus rendering unnecessary also the keeping by the department of duplicate record cards for each teacher., " Grants for buildings and Bites require special consideration. These may be subdivided: — (a) New school buildings and teachers’ residences, or additions' rendered necessary by increased attendance or by consolidation schemes resulting in definite economies.

(b) Urgent rebuilding. (c) New sites or additions to existing sites. (d) Remodelling. Applications for grants tinder these" heads should be forwarded to the department for approval. By so vesting the boards with full responsibility in respect of education in their own districts there would be an increase in efficiency, economy and public satisfaction. There would be a welcome encouragement in educational rivalry as between the various education districts in direct contrast to the departmental system which is governed entirely by considerations of precedent and uniformity. The Dominion scheme in respect of teachers’ grading and salaries would stand. In this connection we recommend the grading of teachers in broad groups instead of the present numerical order, and a new salary scale to cover all types of teachers, the scale to be based on the principle of the payment of the teacher iustead of the payment of the position. Under any system of administration a system of check and audit will bo necessary, but a far more simple and less expensive system can be devised than that in operation at present. Primary education boards’ balance-sheets contain particulars of nineteen, separate accounts —most boards have one or two others for special purposes in their respective districts. For all but two of these (rebuilding, new buildings) the revenue receivable by each board is controlled by Act or regulation. The Audit Office now makes a very thorough examination of all financial transactions, but this' audit would have to be extended so as to embrace a check of the rates paid to teachers, sick leave computations, details, of cost of new works, etc. In 1930 the amount paid by all boards in audit fees was £ll4O, to which must be added the cost of the department’s inspecting accountant. Two specially trained auditors ■ would fulfil requirements for the whole Dominion — one for the North Island and one for the South. The total cost of these two officers should not exceed that, of the present audit and should render the department’s checking staff unnecessary. UNIFICATION OF CONTROL. When the system of local control was devised in 1877, neither secondary nor technical education had developed to anything like the present dimensions. The few high schools which -.existed were practically private institutions o-overned by boards having the fullest powers of control. There-was no technical education as we now understand it. The introduction of the free place system brought with it the establishment of" many high schools and technical schools, each under a separate Board of Control. The conference recognises, therefore, that too many local educational bodies have been, established, and that efficiency and economy in administration would result by a unification of control of all the three branches of education by a re-constituted board, representative of interests, for each education district. The principle of unification has been recognised and put into operation recently in the amalgamation of the high schools and technical schools at Nelson, New Plymouth and Napier. The conference therefore recommends the formation of sueh re-constituted boaids. With the time at our disposal, it is impossible to suggest what the constitution of each local board might be. This is, however, a matter which, it is recommended, could, under the Minister s direction, be referred to the existing local boards to devise a representative constitution. Failing local agreement, it should be left to the Minister to draw a constitution for each district. We have not the detailed data showing the actual administrative cost of each local post-primary board. It is obvious, however, that unification would result in a substantial saving. The number of boards . would be reduced from 52 to 9, at the same time the cost of the extra clerical work nccessary in the Education Board offices would be very considerably less than the cost under the present system. The newly constituted boards would retain local interest to the full. Although the technical school boards and high school boards would lose their identities as such, the post-primary interest would have direct representations on the unified boards. We are strongly of the opinion that this reform is a very necessary one, and that it wouid lead to substantial savings without loss of efficiency. As an alternative, we recommend a system under which the constitution of secondary and technical school boards in the nine education board centres would remain as at present, but that all clerical work for those boards would be done in the education boards’ offices. NATIVE SCHOOLS. X We are of opinion that the administration of Native schools could be economically and efficiently carried out by the boards. At the end of 1930 the number on the roll of the 138 Native village schools was 7070, including 850 European children. There is unnecessary overlapping of duties in the inspection of the Native schools and there is no good reason why special inspectors should be employed. Considerable economy could be effected in salaries and travelling expenses by placing the work of inspection under the inspectors of primary schools. A further economy could be effected if the erection and maintenance of Native school buildings were carried out by the building staffs of the boards. At the end of 1930 there were 817.2 Native children attending the public primary schools, a number greater than the number in attendance at Native schools, and no difficulty has been experienced by the education boards and inspectors in dealing with these children. ARCHITECTURAL STAFFS. 1 In view of the certainty that funds available for the erection of new buildings, replacement of old - buildings and additions will be very. limited for some time "to come we realise' that very substantial economies must be practised in the boards’ architectural branches, and under this head it is firmly believed that it will be possible to effect a saving of at least £12,000 during the coming year. The education boards are already taking the necessary action in this matter. As a further measure of economy, we recommend that the whole of the buildSng works in connection with primary,

secondary, technical and Native schoolsbe carried out by ; the building staffs of„ the ed/ication boards. We draw attention to the huge.-in-crease in the cost of the child welfare branch of the department which, according to the commission’s report, has increased from £22,355 in 1914 to £132,000 in 1931. It is not generally realised that such a. large proportion of the education vote is expended-on-this social service. It is questionable whether the cost of this service should be borne by the Education. vote. ■