COST OF EDUCATION

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1927, Page 4

COST OF EDUCATION

LAVISH EXPENDITURE. INADEQUATE It IvSI'I-TS. (Taxpayer.) Few members of the teaching profession. in n long list of public benefactors, have rendered better service to the community than has Mr .J. 11. Howell, the Director of the Wellington Technical College. For years he has 'laboured unceasingly and unselfishly in the promotion of technical education and has achieved a measure of success that has amounted to a very real service to the Dominion, In the report lie presented to the Board of Governors of the College at its last meeting, however, he appears to have misinterpreted some remarks made by the lion. R. A. Wright,, the Minister of Education. during that gentleman’s visit to tli.' technical school at Palmerston North, and. in consequence, to have misconstrued the Minister’s attitude towards education generally. M Howell had the grace to doubt the areurnry of a newspaper summary which credited the Minister with saving that in his opinion there was " too much

education in New Zealand " ; but he turned the printed words to account in number way. " Whether the' summary is correct or not,” he said. •• the altitude is utterly at variance with that adopted by the President of the United Stales in a speech on June 15th in Indiana, one of the progressive States ol the Middle West, when he pi’aeed ‘ increased educational advantages ’ as the first need of their country, a country where, already expenditure on education is on a very generous scale. In the county of Los Angeles, for example, with a population larger than in New Zealand, hut much more concentrated. I am told the expenditure oil education is nearly two-thirds the total expenditure. while ours in New Zealand is onlv one-sixth.' 1 Loose statements of this kind concerning American conditions carry no weight at all. Ihe Middle West has no such cdueationaT advantages as New Zealand enjoys and Los Angeles is practically a thickly populated city with lio national burdens. such as defence, public works, transport and settlement, to hear. HOW THE MONEY GOES.

Mr Wright repudiates absolutely entertaining any such opinion as the one attributed to him—that there is 'too much education in New Zealand—hut he pleads guilty to a desire, not only io maintain the present system of education at a high level, but also to extend its benefits ai’ong sound lines and to reduce its cost. As for the cost, of the system, this is a problem calling for very earnest attention from the public. How the Minister intends to proceed with Itis economies remains to lie seen, hut the field open to him is a very wide one indeed, as may he readily gathered by a glance at the public accounts. Tlie amount appropriated by Parliament la-1 session for educational purposes during the linancial year l!'2;’>-27 was the tolerably .iibstantial sum of £2.08(1.020. and in this was added £105,007, from special Acts, and, presumably, on tin- figures ol the preceding year, approximately £87.512 from national endowments and £1 19.9i9 from education reserves, making a lotal' of £.'’>.200,117. But even this huge sum does not appear to hate boon sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Department, for at the meeting of the Educational Institute held in Wellington six or seven weeks ago (ho Minister announced that the expenditure of the Department during the financial year ended on March Hist last had run into no less than £J,B|I,I.'H, without taking into account any expenditure that might have been incurred in connection with Hie proposed agricultural college. This means, so far as the mere layman can judge, that the Government, in addition to the £2.08(1,020 voted by Parliament and the -£3Ri.917 obtained from other .sources, has had t<> lay its hand on £515.017 to meet the expenditure of

ie vear. if these figures leally reprent tlie result of the year’s operations is little wonder that the Minister is ■aveiV concerned and that he is not elcoming the deputations that wait ion him with requests lor larger ants, new buildings, additional uipinent and higher salaries.

SOME SUGGESTIONS. Tliero is no more d«*.sire on tin* part of the public than there is on the part of the .Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet to lessen the efficiency and value of the Dominion’s education system. But there is authority for saying that there is a strong feeling outside Parliament against wasteful expenditure which is rellcctoil in Ihe House. When the education vote was a much smaller one in proportion to population and revenue than il is to-da.v it was perilous for any member of the elected chamber to suggest a reduction in a single item. Such a proceeding might have cost him his seat. But this has not been the case for a decade past and more. Members have seen flic expenditure of the Department growing year by year, without any tangible improvement in the standard of national education, and have begun to realise that.

the time is ripe for a frank investigation and overhaul. The purchase of school sites, the lavish expenditure upon buildings, the overlapping of school committees and education hoards, and again of education hoards and the head office, the expenditure on training colleges. the multiplication of school subjects and a score of other features require searching and unbiased examination. It is estimated that the double handling of financial matters by the head office and the education hoards entails an unnecessary expenditure of at least £00.00(1 a year, and that not one single advantage, except the glorification of the education hoards, is derived from the system. This is a typical state of affairs sadly needing reform and it is to the Minister of Education backed up by the Prime .Minister and. the Minister of Finance, that the public will look for effective action.