Our Education System.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17124, 20 April 1921, Page 6

Our Education System.

At various times in past years the annual meetings of householders for the election of school committees have been marked by animated discussions on some question affecting education generally. This year, however, the re-, ports of the meetings on Monday night give 110 indication that any matters except of purely local interest were dealt with. This' is rather surprising. One might have expected that the electorate for the school committees- would have been sufficiently interested in vhe scheme lately put forward by the Minister of Education to express approval or disapproval of it. It will be remembered that in th'e course of an address to the School Committees' Association in Christdhurch at the end of February, Mr Parr suggested that a change in educational administration might come through the "reduction of the powers of Education Boards, or the total extinction of those bodies, and an increase in the authority and responsibility of school, committees, exercised under the control and direction of departmental officers known as district superintendents or managers.- The outstanding objection to such a change, as we pointed out at the time, is that it would constitute a marked advance towards that centralised control which we are afraid is in Mr Parr's opinion the uleal form-of educational administration. We .are the more apprehensive on this account/ wo learn from. Sydney paper? that one of the objects tluit . Mr Caughley, the Director of Education., has, in visiting that city is to make enquiry into the effectiveness-of the mora direct system of control by the Education Department. In New South Wales all matters plating 'to education throughout the State are directed from an office in "Sydney. Mr Caughley did not express any opinion to his interviewer on the superiority or otherwise of this system over that which obtains in New Zealand, "sqrfar as the quality of the education imparted was concerned, but he said that so far as he could judge | the New South Wales system was. fw? more economical in almost every sec- j tip® into which he .enquired. "That is possible, especially in view of his further 1 remark that education is more liberally provided, for in New Zealand than in Australia, and that teachers' salaries here are higher .than in New South Wales. It-would be easy to out down our expenditure on education to the Australian, level', but there are few people in New Zealand wiho would wish to see it/ done. Cheeseparing in the matter of education fortunately finds' no favour, in thi? community. As for. the greater economy of centralised control, which was one of'Mr Parr's argument? in favour of the scheme referred to above, we shall no doubt hear more en Mr Caughley l s return. "he reduction of expenditure would be the one advantage that'; might Result from concentrating educational administration > in the Director's rooms in Wellington; tlie great disadvantage that would certainly follow the adoption. of such a course would be tho extinction of public interest in education, and that would !>e a very heavy price to pay. for a problematical siiving. We have great admiration for the many good qualities tihat>Mr Pan* has shown as Minister of | Education, but'on this point he needs careful watching.