EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18620, 16 July 1930, Page 8

EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.

TWO-THIRDS REDUCTION PROPOSED. DISTRICT COUNCILS RECOMMENDED. In the report of the Select Committee on Education, presented to the House of Representatives yesterday, the following unanimous recommendation was made for a reduction in the number of local controlling authorities, and for unification of control of all branches of education. The report recommended: — “That this Committee is of the opinion that unification of control of the existing primary, secondary, and technical education in New Zealand is desirable. “That the existing post-primary school boards should be continue u as school councils for their respective schools, except that where a single board has controlled more than one school, a separate school council shall be set up for each school. “That the present divisions of the inspectorate be abolished, and a single inspectorate be organised, consisting of specialist inspectors, the inspectoral staff within each board district t oinspect ail grades and types of schools within the district, and to include one woman inspector.”

The Committee suggests the abolition, as independent entities, of the 54 authorities now controlling locally primary, technical and secondary education, and that eighteen district education boards be substituted. While not prepared to detail the constitution of the new boards, the Committee, as a basis for discussion, suggests that each board should consist of five classes of members—representatives elected by popular vote, local governing bodies, school committees and councils, the teachers, and representatives of agricultural and pastoral associations, employers’ and employees’ associations, recommended by those bodies for appointment by the Governor-General in Council.

The report deals with the functions of local as distinct from central or national authority, and the sphere of the latter is clearly defined. The New Zealand system of educational organisation was originally organised as a federal one, the Committee says, and it desires to see it continue as such. It adds: “There has been in the past a distinct tendency for the central department to assume a paramountcy over the local boards in all matters. The Committee believes that the proposals m'ade in this report will have the effect of arresting that development, and of restoring to the local authorities within appropriate and responsible spheres genuine freedom to manage their own affairs, but care must be taken to assure that in local as well as in central administration, a broad national and not a narrow sectional outlook will inform the whole system. It is the definite desire of the Committee to develop rather than diminish the authority of the local boards within their appropriate sphere. The Committee felt that there is a very real danger in having our education districts too large. Where, as in the case with the Auckland Education Board, the local authority has control of approximately one-third of the school population of the Dominion, and passes through its books one-third of the annual vote for elementary education, the Committee felt that it was impossible to maintain that genuine local control exists.”

It is proposed that the senior inspector of the district shall be termed Superintendent of Education, and that he shall be the secretary of the district board, which should have its offices in a school building. The Committee declares: “That duplication has now reached a point where the administrative cost of the New Zealand education system is practically twice as much per pupil as that of the neighbouring States of Victoria and New South Wales, the subjoined comparative figures conclusively prove. It is clear that, on the whole, there is no marked disparity either way between the education services of the Australian States and our own, or between ’ the salaries paid to the teachers on either side of the Tasman Sea. It therefore becomes at once manifest that in order to preserve th*i appearance of local control, New Zealand is really paying two educational administrators for every one employed in Victoria and New South Wales. A comparative statement is as follows: New South Wales, cost per pupil, 5/4; Victoria 4/-; Queensland 4/1; New Zealand 9/2; New Zealand Native schools 3/6.

The Committee suggests that the new boards would be responsible for organisation and co-ordination of all schools in their areas. With respect to moneys raised locally for educational purposes, the Committee is of opinion that, if a Government subsidy is to be sought, generous subsidies should be given on such moneys; and that upon municipal contributions for purposes to be set out in the regulations, and subject to such conditions as the Minister may think necessary, £2 for every £1 so contributed should be granted, within prescribed limits; and finally, that in subsequent expenditure of those moneys the boards —and the same principle should apply to the school committees and councils —should have full power. The Committee places on record its high appreciation of the part taken in the education system by School Committees, which are desexwing of every encouragement in their public-spirited labours. The Committee is anxious that everything possible should be done to enhance the prestige of these committees, and to strengthen their position. The following recommendation is made:—“That the allowances paid to school committees should be increased and adjusted so as to provide adequate funds to meet essential requirements; and that subsidies on moneys raised locally for school purposes should be on a generous basis.”