"COST OF EDUCATION" AND "ECONOMY CAMPAIGN."

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17469, 1 June 1922, Page 9

"COST OF EDUCATION" AND "ECONOMY CAMPAIGN."

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE FBES9." Sir, —From time to time persistent attacks are made on our education system, evidently in the hope of instilling into the minds of the public the idea that Education Boards have outlived tbejr usefulness, and that-their abolition w effect a large reduction in the expenditure on education. Such an attack a contained in the contributed artices appearing in your columns on the 10 and 26th May, under the titles 'Economy Campaign 1 ' and "Cost ot Lduca- | tion." Several assertions made there- > in are so inaccurate and contrary _ o ■ fact as to make your readers doubtful ! of the bona fides of the writer of the articles in question. After referring to ths total expenditure of the Education Department, your contributor states that "forty-five years ago most people regarded the continuance or Education Boards, in their then existj ; ing form, as a temporary expedient. One wonders in what terms of comment the founders of our education system—among -them the late Hon. Sir C. C. Bowen and the late Mr Alfred Saunders—would have replied to such a statement. The tact that alter a lapse of so many years the system is mainly based 011 the Act of 1877 is in itself sufficient refutation of such an audacious and wholly unnecessary assertion In writing as he has done, your contributor appears to have been | animated by alarm at the enormous) growth in the expenditure of the Education Department, apprehension lest reductions should be made in teachers salaries, and by an out-and-out deter, mination to injure Education Boards and belittle them in the eyes of the public. As regards your contributor's misgivings (iind not without reason) on the first point, and with reference to teachers' salaries, I have nothing to say at present;. There can be little objection, however, to my pointing out a few facts that disclose the fallacy of tho deductions arrived at by your contributor as to the savings to be effected i •bv abolishing the Boards. In the first article your correspondent I expresses the opinion that if the work now done by Education Board office staffs could be undertaken by the head office in Wellington, it would be more accurately and expeditiously performed, | at a saving of frorn £30,000 to £40,000 per annum. The misleading nature of such a statement is transparent when it is noted that in 1920 the total grants to all th« Education .Boards f or purposes of administration, involving considerably more than mere clerical work, was only £41,842. How, then, does your contributor propose to show a saving of nearly the. whole of. this sum by simply transferring to tho Department the many arduous and responsible duties that now ' fall to Education Boards and their -several staffs. By the way, your correspondent speaks of the preparation of salary schedules and payment of teachers' salaries as a simple operation. It is quite evident that he is unaware of the intricate nature of the regulations governing the payment of salaries. In any case the necessity for a roview of this work by the head office is the natural result of the Departmental scale of salaries. It was not brought about at the request of Education Boards. Further, it is well known that the checking of a .complicated return is far easier than is its actual preparation in the first instance. Apain, your correspondent is woefully astray in his assertion that tlie greater, part of the £IO,OOO exoended in the maintenance' of the Board's buildings' staffs cfculd be saved if thework were undertaken by the Public Works Department. It is difficult to believe that he would havo advanced such a tiieqry, had ho known the comparatively small percentage of cost which the preparation of plans and supervision of works by tho Board's officers entails, having; regard to tho large amount involved. ; In your contributor's second article, again chiefly directed against Education Boards, the increases in the cost of education are given. It is significant, however, that in his list no mention is mado of Education Boards. The reason for. this omission is apparent, when it is noted that within tfie last three years not only have tho grants to Boards for purposes of administration not been increased but have actually been largely decreased, despite the increased cost of all services. Then, again, as regards School Committees' incidentals. In the year 1916, previous io the amalgnmation of the Education Boards, tho North Canterbury Board's payment to committees for incidentals, including the special grant from the Department of Is, was at the rate of approximately 8s per head. ■ Under tho Department's present scale the average works out at about 10s, the increase being inadequate having Tegard to the greatly increased cost of all work connected with the maintenance of schools and grounds. It is safe to assume that during the next few months other attempts will be made to persuado the public that the abolition of Education Boards would tend towards a less complex, system and lessen expenditure, and already signs are not wanting that these endeavours will be accompanied by the promiso of enlarged powers to School Committees If the experience of the last few years has taught anything it has shown conclusively that .Education Bo&rda liflv© in no -way been responsible for the lessening of local authority, but that on tho other hand they have strongly protested against changes that have gradually. though none the less surejy, undermined tbo control and authority which School Committees, in common with Education Boards, formerly possessed. . „ Your contributor expresses, til® opinion that the year 1922 will reveal a further substantial increase in tho enormous expenditure on education during recent years. I four that this will prove to be the case. But Education Boards will not be the --ause ot mis, seeing that, *:apart frnn increased "rants to meet the abnormal cost ot buildingß, the capitation for administration purposes, as already stated, nas been largely reduced of late years, is truo the public is entitled to an explanation of the reasons for the large increase in the expenditure but it is not to Education Boards that it should look for such explanation. My own firm conviction is that th° nubile tronerallv, and Scnool Committees particularly, will be well advisea to insist that no radical alterations shall be made in the present so far as local administration byEduca, tion Boards and School Committed is concerned. Should they do „rasDthey will surely discover that in grasping at the shadow they have dropped th L S deS?with the issues raised by ' Your contributor, I have confined myself to facts and refrained from .remarks that might be regarded as criticism of Departmental principles and methods.—Yours, C LANE. Christchurcli, May 31st.