The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1930. THE EDUCATION RETORT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, 17 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1930. THE EDUCATION RETORT.

Although critical comment must be withheld pending an examination of the full text of the report of the Select Committee on Education, the various summaries that have been furnished to the Press afford conclusive proof that the Dominion-wide tour of the Committee on Education was a sheer waste of time and public funds, since the recommendations embodied in the report reflect the preconceived ideas of the Department of Education, and the earlier conclusions of the Ministers. It will be called to mind by anyone who takes more than passing notice of the pre-election promises of politicians. that the principal plank of the United Party's education policy was the restoration of local control of the administration. Doubtless the Minister, in the early flush of his new undertaking, flattered himself that he really controlled the administration of education, hut if proof were needed to dispel such a false illusion, the report of the Select Committee does that. On the question of reorganisation, the report contains no surprises. From the outset the Minister swallowed the Departmental view of the junior high school idea “lino, hook and sinker,” but •such sturdy opposition was raised by his utterances during his earlier pilgrimages, that he con ceived the brilliant idea of setting up a Special Committee of Parliamentarians who made no pretence of being fortified with any special or expert knowledge that would help them to tackle the enormous task the Minister imposed on them. Generally speaking, the Department has had in its possession, for many years, the fullest information on the main points covered by the new report, and it may be said that had the Minister possessed sufficient courage to face the issue single-handed, with the Department always ready to prompt him, he would have issued precisely the same report as the Committee has submitted for the consideration of the House of Representatives, for the simple reason that the report really reflects the Departmental mind on the solution of the educational problems facing New Zealand to-day. On the administrative side the report will be closely examined. The acid test of the Committee’s proposals will be the measure of local administrative control that has been wrested from (he bureaucracy in 'Wellington and restored to the local authorities. Already leading members of education boards are condemning the report on the grounds that it proposes to take away from local authorities the last vestige of control. School committees, it is worthy of note, are commended for the conscientious manner in which they have discharged their duties and they are to be rewarded by being reduced to unpaid collectors who will raise funds that the Government cannot provide. They are to be solaced somewhat by a recommendation that more adequate incidental- allowances should be paid to school committees, although it was only a few weeks ago the Assistant Director of Education declared quite bluntly that there was no money available for such an increase. Departmental bureaucracy exerted from Wellington, and Departmental officers in the person of inspectors, are to be given a very much firmer grip on the administration of education, while the muchvaunted ideal of unification of control which the Minister has held before the country for so many months, has been translated into recommendations which must be more critically examined before judgment can be passed.' It is not surprising that the boldly championed “agricultural bias” in education, which the Minister has talked of so freely, is' to be provided for in the new order of things; but it is well known that the Minister’s idea of a perfect system of education has been strongly condemned by some of the leading educationists in New Zealand to-day. The whole question, of course, resolves itself into a problem of finance. From time to time, the Minister of Education and the Department have received reports on various phases of educational policy and almost without exception the proposals have involved heavy increases in the annual vote for education, and nothing has been done. The report of the Select Committee on Education is not unlike its predecessors in this respect, but since New Zealand has now to count its pennies to see if there is money enough to meet existing obligations, before any considerable increase in public expenditure can be considered, it savours of utter futility for any committee to ignore actualities and make recommendations to meet present needs that involve a very heavy increase in the annual education vote.