The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1938 THE AMENDING EDUCATION BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 21001, 1 April 1938, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1938 THE AMENDING EDUCATION BILL.

Whilst every credit should be given the Minister of Education in the attempt he is making to reach the ideal of the unification of control of education, It can be said that the Education Amendment Bill now under discussion by representative conferences in Wellington, recalls the story of an incident in one of the battles in the Crimean War. Some Turkish horsemen were dressed in the uniform of the Scots Greys—one of the crack cavalry troops—so feared by the Russians. All went well with the attack until one of the Turks was unseated. Once the Russians discovered what was inside the famous uniforms they made short work of the Turks. The new Education Amendment Bill looks well on the surface, dressed as it is in twenty-three pages of provisions, but once the dressing is knocked off the same old “nigger” of the bureaucratic control of education in the centralised department in Wellington appears with all its stifling influence on local interest in educational reform. When the Bill was. announced to provide for the unification of the control of education, all interested in educational progress were delighted. The restoration of the South Canterbury Education Board was warmly welcomed; indeed, the summary of the provisions of the Bill created a most favourable impression. But now that the provisions of the new Amending Bill are becoming known, a realisation is being forced on all educational reformers that while the Minister’s proposals certainly contain plans for unification, very little control is conceded. The whole measure is most disappointing, but it is realised that big hurdles confront the Minister. It is significant that the word “control” does not appear in any of the clauses outlining the functions of the new education boards! It is interesting to recall in this connection that Section 32 of the principal Act provides that the “Board in each district shall establish, maintain and control public schools within its territory.” The word “control” has been omitted from the provisions of the amending Bill. Moreover the scope of the new education boards does not provide for the exercise of auy authority in determining the course of education that may be adopted in any school; as a matter of fact, it is proposed that the “course of education shall from time to time be prescribed by regulation under the principal Act.” This means, of course, that the centralised authority in Wellington will determine education policy in all divisions of the State system of education. The proposed amendments, moreover, seek to reduce existing high school boards aud the controlling authorities in secondary education, to the status of school committees. The authority to appoint teachers has been taken from high school boards, which will become school councils. Moreover, since no mention is made of the appointment of teachers in the clauses of the amending measure setting out the functions of the new education boards, it is plain that the grading system still stands; although, as though to placate the newlyconstituted school councils, provision is made for these new educational authorities to “recommend” to the board the appointment of teachers. These new secondary school authorities will be given authority “to control the funds provided,” but these funds will comprise incidental expenses, and certain minor grants for instruction in manual and science subjects authorised by the Department. The only real measure of control that the new school councils are to be permitted to exercise is “to control and manage school buildings and school grounds.” As for any say in the control of education, that is definitely denied! The main functions of the new school councils are making recommendations to the education boards of the districts, but even the newly constituted education boards seem to have no say whatever in the control of education. That function still reposes in the centralised authority in Wellington. Another obvious weakness in the amending Bill is the provision made for the representation on education boards of existing secondary schools. In Timaru, for instance, with its three secondary schools, unless the enrolled pupils aggregate over 2000, only one member may be appointed to the education board, while each secondary school in the outer area is entitled to a representative. The tightening grip of bureaucratic control is revealed in the provision in the Bill giving the Minister authority

To appoint an Advisory Council of Education to deal with matters referred to it by the Minister.

Moreover, members of this council will hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. This provision suggests the revival of the Council of Education with this difference, that several members of that council were elective and the Act gave the Council of Education authority

“To report to Minister on methods or developments in national education which in its opinion it is desirable to introduce in New Zealand";

“To report on any matters concerning the provision of facilities for education in New Zealand or in any district thereof, and upon the 'co-ordination of the work carried out by the various bodies controlling education.”

The new proposal places the Advisory Council of Education completely in Ministerial hands —its appointment, tenure of office and activities are subject to his pleasure. But the strengthening of the bureaucratic control of education does not end there. The amending Bill provides for the appointment in each education district of an education officer. This officer, it should be noted, will not come under the control of any education authority. As an officer of the Department of Education he will be controlled from Welliugton. Various functions are enumerated among which the education officer “shall co-operate with the Board in the appointment of teachers.” The inference to be drawn from this sub-section of the Bill is that the education board lias some authority, otherwise it. could hardly “co-operate” in making appointments. But the Board has no authority whatever, because the education officer will be supreme in the enforcement of the grading system of appointment, which leaves no shred of authority with the education board of the district. As a matter of fact, the new amending Bill is silent on all points in relation to the appointment of teachers. The Education Amendment Bill of which so much was expected admittedly provides for the unification of education boards, but under its scope any real control ef education reposing in school councils or education boards simply does not exist. Provision is made for the control of school buildings and school grounds! That is the only measure of “control” given to school councils, who will attend to the affairs of secondary schools—a sort of glorified caretakership! There is lo lie control of expenditure—but this is restricted to the handling of incidental expenses! No wider measure of control of education is to be vested in any of the new boards or school councils; in fact, the trend is in the direction of more control going into the hands of the centralised departmental authority.