SCHOOL COMMITTEE TROUBLES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1071, 9 March 1911, Page 5

SCHOOL COMMITTEE TROUBLES.

CANTERBURY BOARD'S VIEWS. INTERESTING DISCUSSION. '{By Telocraph,—l'reja As-oc!atior! Christchurch, March 8. In a report submitted by the Buildings Committee of the Education Board today, the following ; clauses relating to Incidental expenses of school committees appeared:—A letter was received from the Department to the effect that it had not been found practicable to embody in tho new regulations the board's suggestion that small repairs should be left to committees. Under tho provisions of the Education Act Amendment Act, 1910, grants to school committees for incidental expenses shall amount: in the aggregate for all committnes taken together to not less than ss. fid. for each child in average daily attendanco. Your committee rccognise that thi3 sum'would not be sufficient to meet incidental oxpenses, and they accordingly recommend the board to inform school committees. that in addition to taking over repair of buildings, furniture, etc., .proscribed by tho new regulations, the°Board would endeavour to continue th6'payment of incidental allowances on . the existing scale, which .works out at slightly more than 7s. 3d. for each child in average attendance. It was further resolved that incidental expenses shonld includo cost of all paper and other stationery used in school for school purposes, salaries of caretakers, and cost of supplying water to school baths. Mr. Langford said that some of their committees were in p. state of bankruptcy, and the position would soon be that accounts would be sent on to tho board for payment. - This state of things must seriously interfere, with the management of school affairs. in North Canterbury, and lis moved that the report he referred back to tho committee with a .view to their recommendation being reconsidered, and 6eein|; whether something moro than what was proposed cimld be done' for committees. Ho Tvas satisfied that, there would 1m friction with the committees, nnd. if the board could grant moro, that friction might be ; reduced. -Ho thought that the extra ivork to be done by the board would not cost the board more than ljd. or 2d. per head, and yet the board assumed the responsibility of 9d. He thought the board could place-things on a inoro .equitable basis. Tho Act provided for a minimum of ss. 6d. per head to school cominitteesi but some of' the large schoeh wero receiving considerably less than this. r >For 'instance, Cliristchurch East was receiving 3s. Bd., Christchnrch West is., Id., , Sydenham 3s. 10d., and Richmond 4s. 4d. He considered'that tho board should not; sit idly by , and look on at this cheose-paring policy of the Department. Their committees wquld soon be in a state' of - bankruptcy. Mr. W.\ R. Smith seconded the motion. He was not. altogether satisfied on tho question of repairs." *'. .'. ... Dr. Russell .supported the motion; H: thought that Government were trying to pet rid of committees, and td hamper the board.

,The chairman Said that the board had made, a recommendation to the Department that certain work was being well done by committees, and more economically than it could bo done by the board. The Department, however,; had .refused to 1 accept their recommendation. Mr. Lanpford had stated that extra work cast on tho boards should cost not more than Id. or 2d., but as a matter of fact it would cost the board more than ilrt. The board had not received 9d., which was so often referred to. They had om> received lid. of it. Ho thought tho committee's proposal ivas as much as the board could do. The proposal was to give 7s. 3d., which was higher than any other board in New Zealand. The board's affairs were very economically administered, and .that was why they could do So much. As to approaching Parliament to enlarge the grant, he would bo in favour of tkat.

Mr. Hardy said that there was no hono of tho committee coming to another decision. As to tho "ninepenny dole," that ■was a tiling' of the' past. Tho board could not do any more for committees, and it ill became any member of the board to blamo the board, which was doing more for committees than any board in the Dominion.

Mr. Langford said that ho did not blame tho committee of the beard.

Mr. Hardy said that there should be more economy among committees, particularly in town schools. Some .of them had telephones, which were big items on incidental funds.; '.Other, committees employed secretaries,. who were paid as much ,as XIO per ; year: ; He considered that committees should ,do their ' own work. Ho had himself been, chairman, secretary, and treasurer of a committee, and ha took a pleasure in his work. The town committees should follow the example of country. committees, which cut thoir work according to their cloth, Ho thought that Parliament might be asked whether the Department was dealing liberally with primary education. . Ho thought that the Department was dealing very liberally with education, but that people might be asked to do a little more in the way of self-help in towns. Large schools wero (allowed caretaker's houses, and the board had to' keep them in order. ' He did not think that the committee coiilr! arrive at any other conelusion, especially -in view of the fact that the extra burden on the !?{>?. rd woti'd come to mere than "ninenence. Personally he thought it amounted" to a. shilling. Mr. Boyd said that school committers had surprises at the end of the year as.it was, in March and in summer. There Trere few commUtrA* wh'Yh wer -1 not : n debt in September or August 4 when firin" hr.d to be provided.

Mr. Dalzieli th?t small country Fchools were in tho worst position of anv. ns'tho small amount of incidentals did jio* coyer any morn than caretakinst work. Tho chairman. in reply to a question, fii" l that tho portion of school comivo= b* f tor than Wore. a= much rf the wnr'c they ha'! previously had to tin Tonltl' have to be done by tho board. Th? f work. js ho pointed out. would cost fch" board more than the ninepence. The report was ndonfed. '