THE COST OF EDUCATION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1580, 9 June 1887, Page 3

THE COST OF EDUCATION.

Although New Zealand has reason to be proud of her system of public education, and although many of her politicians look upon that system as the Hebrews regarded the Ark of the Covenant as something altogether too sacred to interfere with, yet we are strongly of opinion that the demands which it makes upon the public purse are becoming a heavier burden than it is possible long to sustain. A return just laid upon the table of the Legislative Council; on the motion of the Hon Mr Holmes, places this matter before us m a very clear manner. From this it appears that the nett cost of education m all its departments has already reached the enormous total of over half a million sterling. After deducting "recoveries," that is to say, we presume, rents and fees, the figures representing the surplus of expenditure — m other words, the cost to the State — stand as follows (omitting shillings and pence, viz. : — New Zealand University, £2196 ; Auckland College, Canterbury College, £5936; Otago University, £8338 ; Lincoln Agricultural School, £2155; Thames High School, £1200 j other Secondary Schools, ,£34,588 ; Native Schools, £20,890 3 Chatham Islands Schools, ) £244; Industrial Schools, .£16,466; School for Deaf Mutes, £3128; Education Boards (i.e., Primary Schools), ,£409,575. Altogether a total of £509,038. Bearing m mind that this is an expenditure which goes on increasing from year to year ; let us look for a moment at what the figures just quoted mean. This half million a year is equal to the interest at 4 per cent, on I2}£ millions, as nearly as possible the equivalent of a 4 per cent, interest charge upon the cost of all our railways, which up to date reaches about 13 millions. At a time, then, when with a falling revenue the people of the colony are being called upon to take stock of their position, and to decide as to what is to be the financial policy of the future, it cannot but be that the question will be raised as to whether this enormous charge for educational purposes is to continue to fall wholly upon the public exchequer. If it is not, then the question arises bow is it to be reduced ? There are three possible methods. One is to give free education only up to the Fourth Standard ; another to raise the school age to seven years, end the third to impose a school fee and reduce the capitation allowance by an equivalent sum to that which such a fee would produce. Let us see how these several proposals would work out. Of a total of 106,000 children on the rolls of the Primary Schools, 21,000 are under seven years of age, and there are m round figures 13,000 pupils above the Fourth Standard. To strike off the children under seven would then reduce the annual chaige to the State, apparently, by £84,000, while to require a school fee of £1 per head per annum for the fifth and sixth Standards would apparently bring m a revenue of £13,000, so that if both these methods were adopted it would appear that the nett demand upon the colonial purse would be £97,000 less than at present. But while this at first sight seems to be the necessary result, it will be seen on looking into the matter that inasmuch as to strike off children under seven would, m the case of small country schools, render it impossible to carry on without an increase of capitation m respect of the remaining scholars, whatever amount is represented by the sum of such increases must be reckoned as a per contra to the £84,000 ; while also, inasmuch as the imposition of a school fee for pupils above the fourth Standard would doubtless tend to bring about a reduction m the number of such pupils, obviously, the receipt of the full £13,000 could not be calculated upon. Allowing then for these two things, viz., increased capitation m the one case, and diminished attendance m the other, we think it would work out that by the reduction m school age a nett saving of from £50,000 to £60,000 would be effected, and that by the imposition of a fee for the upper standards from £8,000 to £10,000 must be obtained. If both these methods were taken there would then, we think, be a nett saving upon the present Estimates of from say £60,000 to £70,000. Curiously enough the third method, that of charging a small school fee of say £1 a' year for all children of parents able to pay such tee, would work out a very similar result. For allowing for a concession being made that not more than three children of the same family should , be charged fo»-, and also for free education m cases where the parents or guardians are unable to pay a school fee, and we suspect that, roughly, payment would be obtained m the whole m respect of say 73 per cent of the number of children attending. As the gross number is, as above shown, 106,000, it will at once be seen that on this assumption the total of school fees would be about £79,000. But one or other of these courses must be taken if it is desired to reduce the burden now thrown upon the Consolidated revenue. ylf it be not so desired, but the electors prefer that the cost of Education should continue to devolve wholly upon the State, then they must be prepared to accept a growing burden of taxation. This question is one which should be well thought out m view of the approaching election of representatives for the new Parliament, and one upon which both electors and elected should tpeak out plainly.