THE EDUCATION REPORT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18629, 26 July 1930, Page 21

THE EDUCATION REPORT.

To the Editor of the “ Timaru Herald.” j Sir, —For some years I have taken j an active interest in education as affecting our primary schools, and, having had an opportunity of reading ; the first section of the report of the j “ Select Committee on Education,” I which was presented to Parliament ; last week, I crave permission to pass a 1 few comments on the points which ; have struck me: First of all, the Committee, as “a policy of economy” re- ! commends the abolition of fifty-four Boards now in existence, these being High School Boards, Technical School Boards and Education Boards as we have known them for years; on the , surface that reads fine for economy. but on investigation X tw** l - that you J will find that really only ”9” of the existing ”54” Boards will cease to exist, while 45 appear to remain and be known as “Councils,” and 18 “new'’ i Boards are to be brought into exist- ! once. Truly this will be a reduction j of the number of “governing bodies.” | Secondly, it is claimed that under the j proposed changes, there will be a j greater measure of local control—j where? The appointment of teachers, I it is distinctly stated in the report, is :to be centralised in Wellington with ' the “national classification” scheme. What control is left? The cleaning of ! the schools and the “collecting” of indirect taxation to supplement the insufficient allowance made in the past to Committees (in so far as Primary Schools are affected, at least). Thirdly, there is a statement to the effect that, under the new scheme of things, “class distinction” will be abolished. Now, looking a little beneath the surface, I think I am not mistaken in saying that our existing “high and technical boards” which are to remain under their new names, will be, practically speaking, “High” or “Technical” School Committees. If so, why should “class distinction” be perpetuated (in a scheme which professes to abolish such) by calling them “Councils.” Would not the name “Committee,” which is considered good enough for “voluntary primary” workers, be honourable enough when applied to those who perform the same duties in respect of our secondary schools. There are other phases of the report which call for criticism but, for the present I will content myself with the foregoing in the hope that publication may provoke some discussion and awaken public interest, and draw attention to what is implied in the new proposals.—l am, etc., “ KRITIKOS.” Timaru, July 25. 55 1 L_■!! U