The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1935. ENGLISH EDUCATION VOTE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20056, 13 March 1935, Page 8

The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1935. ENGLISH EDUCATION VOTE

Someone lias said that the clearest proof of national recovery following years of financial and economic difficulties is the attitude of the ruling administration to education. In the Homeland, it can he said that no time in history has been more favourable for educational reform than the present. The shrinking of the school population opens up great possibilities which were almost impossible during the “swollen” post-war years. It is not generally realised that whereas in 1930 there were nearly 6,000,000 children on the rolls of elementary schools, to-day the number is just over 5,000,000, and that according to the Government actuary's estimate, by 1948 there will be no more than 4,000,000 children in the schools. One recently-issued report says: The upper classes of the elementary schools are still fairly up to sti'ength; the thinning out is taking place at the lower end of the age groups, and, of course, as the “bulge” moves out of the school into unemployment, as It will do within the next few years, there will be empty classrooms in all the large school.

This would appear to be a very favourable opportunity to reduce the size of classes, to give each teacher fewer children and more room in which to accommodate them.

But this is not being done. The moment the school roll falls below a certain number a member of the staff has to go, the school is “down-graded,” with consequent loss of salary to the head teacher. The opportunity becomes an excuse for economy.

The improved condition of the national finances will enable the British Board of Education to tackle some long overdue reforms. Indeed, an inspired President of the Board of Education could write his name among the immortal reformers of the Mother Country, if he were to seize an almost unique opportunity that has been created by the shrinking school population, coming with a definitely brighter financial outlook. Perhaps we can discern the hand of Lord Halifax in the civil estimates now before the House of Commons. The education vote, it is encouraging to learn, shows an increase of £1,074,364, compared with last year, the total for 1935 being £54,013,959, against £53,029,595 for 1934. The latter figure, however, included two supplementary estimates totalling £1,760,034, so that this year's estimates show an increase of £2,834,398, compared with the 1934 estimates, an increase of nearly three millions and a smaller school population to handle. The biggest increase is £946,769 for the Board of Education staff. This is mainly accounted for by the larger estimates for primary and higher education, the total for the former being £32,006,650, an increase of £982,050, and for the latter £9,804,325, an increase of £284,100. An additional sum of £36,900 has been allotted to scientific investi-

gation. making the total for this £226.33. Obviously with a smaller number of children, an army of unemployed teachers awaiting positions, more available classrooms, and a substantial increase in the education vote, great steps forward can be made in educational reform in England. This opportunity—created by an unusual group of circumstances — may not return for many years and a progressive Government, inspired by a wide-awake and courageous Ministerial bead of the Board of Education, could use the circumstances of the day to promote the well-being of the nation now in the making in the schools.

SHOULD PARLIAMENT BE BROADCAST?

Although one or two members of the New Zealand Labour Party are strongly in favour of installing the microphone in the House of Representatives, the suggestion that Parliamentary debates should be broadcast is at least ten years old. But the proposal lias hitherto invoked so little support that no practical steps have been taken to make it effective. Members of the New Zealand Labour Party insist that the people should bo given access to the debates in the New Zealand House of Representatives, because it is impossible for the Press to afford adequate space for Parliamentary discussions. If the people and members of Parliament are anxious that the proceedings of Parliament should he broadcast, why has nothing been done since the idea was first mooted in England in 1924? At first sight, as the M.P.'s favourable to the protiosal suggest, there seems a lot to be said for the proposal. Views collected from time to time, however, provide reasons why the idea is generally regarded as impracticable and undesirable. Mr Bernard Shaw, on his part, makes this reply to a question put to him as to the desirability or otherwise or broadcasting the proceedings in Parliament: “Yes, provided it were not done more often than about once in five years! “Nothing happens as a consequence of what goes on in Parliament. "The really interesting broadcast would be the proceedings at the meetings of those gentlemen, whoever they may be, who really govern the country.” Reasons advanced by members of the House of Commons, particularly Labour Members, go far to explain the mystery of disinclination of the authorities in

the Homeland to embark upon this unique experiment. Someone representing the average listenerin suggests that everyone would like to listen, once in a while at anyrate, to a Parliamentary debate, especially if the broadcast could be done without the members knowing that the public was listening. How often? No one, except the most talkative Members of Parliament, seem prepared to give a definite answer to this question. Many radio enthusiasts suggest that everyone would want to listen-in once before deciding whether they wanted any more! As a matter of fact very few people who attend the sittings of Parliament seem willing to set out a full dress debate. An uninteresting speaker takes the floor and there is immediately a noticeable thinning in the ranks of listeners in the galleries. But, of course, no speaker is dull and uninteresting if judged by our standard. Hence the impracticability of confining Ihe broadcast discussions to tiie most attractive speakers. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who is also Leader of tiie Parliamentary Labour Party, thus expresses his views on the question: First of all, my own reaction is against broadcasting of Parliaments. I think that if it were done at all it should be done in such a way as to allow all the members in the debate to be heard. There should be no discrimination between front and back bench speakers. That, I believe, would make the broadcast too long and unendurable to the listening public.

I should object to it being done on special occasions because there is great disagreement as to what is an important subject of debate. Some people would think that foreign affairs, or the Budget, or the condition of the poor were the most important subjects and the decision on such matters would in all probability rest with the Government of the day. I don’t want to trust that power in the hands of the Government.

On the general question of broadcast reports, that is of observers in the Gallery, I think these are quite unsatisfactory. The idea that the 8.8. C. can produce unprejudiced, non-parti-san observers is, in my judgment, pure and simple nonsense. Anyone who listens knows perfectly well that there is always a tendencious bias in such descriptions. The function of the 8.8. C. is to report summaries of political debates. These should be, not what the 8.8. C. thinks the public ought to hear, but fair, equal summaries of the speeches they profess to give a summary of. Long experience in Parliament lias convinced even the earliest of the pioneers in this so-called advance in communicating the oral deliberations of Parliament to the great mass of listeners, have been forced to the conclusion that the best course to pursue is to confine the discussion to leading figures in Parliament, who could go to the broadcasting studio and speak or debate at an appropriate vime in the evening. The danger of any general arrangement would be that the rank and file of members of Parliament would very soon find themselves playing to a wireless gallery. On this point, the views of Mr James Maxton, one of the most virile of the advanced wing of the British Labour Party, are interesting and convincing. In a considered reply to the question: Should Parliament be broadcast? Mr Maxton said:

“I had not thought of the problem before, but on a snap judgment I am rather against the idea, except perhaps for broadcasts on an occasional day—such as when there is an oration. Ordinary Parliamentary discussion should be pure debate with simple, clear statements. The presence of the microphone would tend to make members strive after oratorical effects to attract and sway the multitude of listeners outside.

“It would destroy the sincerity of debate and militate against clear judgment. I can see the advantage of broadcasting some important statement to the Empire or to the world, hut beyond these occasions the microphone in the House would be undesirable. In any case, I am sure that a daily broadcast of Parliamentary proceedings would not be in the least interesting to the vast masses of radio listeners.”

Generally speaking this pronouncement represents the concensus of considered opinion of the thoughtful members of the principal parties. As one member suggests, “the House of Commons is sometimes at its very best when it is at its dullest”; moreover, the average man in the street, who is interested in the radio, seeks relaxation and amusement when he turns to listen-in. But under any plan to broadcast the proceedings of Parliament, the radio community could always take refuge from the torrent of words by a simple turn of the dial; but until some contrivance has been invented that would enable the listener-in to “answer hack,” the general broadcast of debates in Parliament might give an entirely false impression to speakers in Parliament, who would imagine that through the microphone they were addressing the whole of the people of New Zealand, whereas they may be merely talking into the air because all the dials throughout the lengths and breadth of the land had turned them down!,