THE EDUCATION BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3229, 19 June 1871, Page 2

THE EDUCATION BILL.

[From the New Zealand Mail.] The principle- of rating, and the capitation fee, are the grand, aud distinguishing features of the new Education Bill ; and as school instruction will be given to scholars without any charge, education may become general without being made compulsory. Still wo think that a compulsory tax for the promotion of education ought to be accompanied by some pro. vision to ensure that the tax fulfilled 1 the object for which it was imposed. Under the proposed bill a settler, having four children between the ages of five and fifteen, can get them educated in most districts at a tenth of the cost he would incur under the existing system ; and while a much larger educational fund will be realized, the rate, in the majority of instances, by being spread over a wider surface, will be felt less onerous and oppressive than the existing uniform. house rate has been. If this rating principle be carried, the Government and Council will deserve the lasting gratitude of the province. The attempt to put the system in this respect on.j\a more satisfactory footing ought to secure to the Government the support of the public. There is one feature in the bill, however, which we consider very objectionable, and as it will, if retained, involve the sacrifice of a principle we shall refer to it more fully than might otherwise be necessary. "Decentralisation," says his Honor the Superintendent, "is a long word to express local power." We accept the definition, but deny its applicability to the measures and proposals of his Executive. Indeed, of conferring local power they appear expressly designed [ to abridge the little local power possessed at present. Instead of decentralisation we have both in the Education and Highways Bills a centralised system in a most oppressive and obnoxious form. This will not be thought an objection by the admirers of unity, symmetry, and uniformity, which a centralised system is better capable than any other of producing ; but also of producing at the same time an incapacity for selfrule, as is at this moment being painfully demonstrated in Paris, where that system has been brought as nearly as possible to perfection. But uniformity 13 not of itself desirable, and still less so when it cannot be secured without the imposition of restraints. Freedom is life, and wherever there is life there is diversity. The very essence of constitutional liberty and Anglo Saxon freedom, as understood and recognised by the Auglican ;race allr.over the world, is involved in maintaining the principle of local self-government against tho principle of centralisation. That principle demands that every local tax for a local purpose shall be exacted by a local power appointed by the people concerned, and every departure from this rule, as in tho Education and the Highway Bills, is a dangerous infraction of a great law. A geneva) tax for- a general purpose, like that of education, may be justified, but that does not prevent it from being locally administered-; still less does it necessite the abolition of the existing school districts, and the transference of all power, direction, and control over district schools from local committees to a central nominee board sitting in Wellington. No reason has been assigned, no good reason can be assigned, for this rev#lutionary proceeding, and we very much question whether local coramittes could be, even if was desirable that they should be, dispensed with. The bill professes to be framed on a measure which has been for some years in successful operation in Nelson province. We have not seen the Nelson Act, but we very much doubt whether that Act abolishes school committees, and reinov.es all the schools scattered through the province from ail local direction and control. But though we have not that Act, we have fortunately the report of the Educatiou Commission upon which that Act was founded. In that report it is expressly stated " that the. principle of local selfgovernment, combined with central supervision and support, has been steadily kept in view throughout ;" and hence it is recommended that the majority of the ratepayers in each district shall elect a managing committee to superintend the working of their schools and to furnish such information as may be required of them by the central board. It is further recommended that the duty of that board should be to distribute amongst the district schools, in proportion to their needs, any moneys voted by the Provincial Council. This would be a much more wise, judicious, and equitable mode of distributing the educational grants than that adopted in this province, which may be shortly stated to be the giving most aid where the least was required, and the least where the most was necessary. It is further recommended in the Nelson report that the board should have the direction of the inspectors, and act as the central controlling body within the province. To the school committees are given the whole management control, aud direction of the schools, subject only to such an amount of central control and supervision as shall ensure that the object in view be effectually accomplished, and that local activity is stimu* lated, improved, and assisted, without being eithar superseded or overborne. The plan thus recommended, it will be seen, leaves to those immediately concerned the whole government and direction, whilst it very wisely and prudently provides against the very possible occurrence of local neglect aud mismanagement. If this is the Nelson law, we only wish that our own had been like it. It contains all the advantages of local self-government, with those obtained from a centralised system, whilst the defects inherent in both are to a great extent modified or neutralised. This is far from being the case with the Education Bill before the Council. It abolishes local self-government in school districts, and gives the exclusive power into the hands of a central board,

not elected, as in England, but nominated by the Provincial Council. It violates the principle of local self-govern-ment, and that of election also. It is in direct opposition to the plan recommended by the Nelson Education Commission ; it ignores altogether the recommendations contained in the report of tho Wellington Education Commission ; and instead of providing the funds, and adding a central board to our existing educational machinery, which has worked so well in Canada and the United States, it gets rid of that machinery altogether. We do not j believe that the Superintendent is in f" f or of this Latin, Romanic, or antiiglicun system nosy recommended for .^ i adoption of the Council, because it is totally opposed to the plan recom- | mended by the Wellington Education ! Commission, of which he was one of the most distinguished members. That commission, of which our present Premier was chairman, after a careful examination of the various systems in operation in Europe and America, and after dwelling on the merits and defects of both the centralized and localized systems, arrive at the unanimous conclusion that the latter is equally as efficient as the former, besides being " the machinery of a fr«?e people — the only machinery under which popular liberty can long exist It is the little leaven which has leavened the whole social policy of England, and kept a spark of liberty aliva in the midst of feudalism, and in the absence of parliaments." They moreover emphatically assert that " to establish a centralized system of education in the midst of institutions founded on a localized principle, would ensure a state of conflict between the two which must end in the destruction of one or the other." We object to the Education Bill, not because it confers on the Education Board a certain amount of supervision and control ; but because, instead of stimulating and assisting, it supersedes local action ; not because it aids, advises, directs, and superintends local management, or, when necessary, assumes that management; but because it deprives every school district of any voice whatever in the matter. We do not doubt that the proposed machinery would prove more simple and even more efficient than that which exists at pr.sent ; but what was wanted was an improvement and enlargement of the existing machinery, not its abolition altogether. We hold that it is not the claty of a Government to take such matters into its own hands ; but that it is its duty to see that they are not mismanaged or altogether neglected. It is proposed to secure the instruction of youth ; but the educational machinery for adults, by which they were practically taught a knowledge of their social and political duties, which had a tendency to create a habit of self-rulo, and an interest in public business and local questions, will be abolished. We are well aware that neither ratepayers on the one hand, or school committees and road boards on the other, have in all cases satisfactorily performed, their duties; but what we contend is that the Government should have compelled them to perform them, instead of leaving them no duties to perform. Because certain localities have neglected to do what it was the interest of the public should be dono, they should be fined, and not all other localities punished, for their neglect. We are well aware that many of the members of school committees have been obstructive, ignorant, and narrow-minded, but we doubt whether they will be educationally improved by the short and summary process pi oposed ; or whether for that reason school committees should be dispensed with altogether. The evil would in time have effected its own cure, and if only perfect institutions ace to exist there are others more imposing and self-important than district boards that would have (o be abolished. Because the present school districts do not embrace the whole province within their boundaries, is that any reason why they should be destroyed, and the whole province be made a single school district ? It appears to us that a leas extreme measure might have been adopted. But strong as are the objections that can be urged against the centralizing principle embodied in the Education Bill, the advantages of having free schools established all over the province are so great and manifest it would be better to accept the bill as it stands, if the insisting on aDy amendment in the direction indicated would prevent it from at once becoming law. The rute will enable schools to be erected where none at present exist, while school teachers will be more adequately remunerated for their valuable services, and placed in a much more tolerable position than they are at present. But we urge j the foregoing objections against the abolition of school distiicts, and school committees, the more urgently and fearlessly, because we are persuaded that the mode of rating, the capitation fee, and the education board could be established without necessitating the abandonment of the principle of local self-government in the one case, and the principle of popular election in the other. As, however, free schools would be preferable to school committees, and schools without scholars, and as. any scheme of rating is preferable to the existing one, we most earnestly hope that the Government will be able to carry their Education Bill through the Council without, what we conceive to be, its grand and distinguishing features being impaired.