THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1927, Page 4

THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEPARTMENT.

A spirited attack on the methods of the Education Department, 'lllll its allege! policy of attempting to oust local Education Boards, was levelled by the Canterbury Education Board at the monthly meeting, when a committee was set Tip to find how much of the Board’s authority had been filched by the Department, and to take steps to recover that authority.

Mr R. Wild raised llm question, reading an extract from the Education Gazette in which it stated that at the Inst meeting of the Canterbury Education Board one of the members stated there were 900 classes in the Dominion with over 60 pupils each. The article stated that where he got this information the Department did know. It- was a most misleading statement.

At tho Board meeting, the speaker - said, Ali- J. G. Gow had stated there 1 were 31 classes in Canterbury with 3 more than 60 pupils. This was eorl rent, lnit the statement that there ? were 900 classes of over 60 in the - Dominion had been made hy a meni- - her of the School Committees’ Assoc- • iation at a committee conference. The > Department had seized on tho state- ■ merit and attributed it to the Board - with the idea of attacking that body. BOARD ABSORBS THE BUMPS. A daily paper, sold at ljd, could print tho news correctly, hut tho Gazette, selling at sd, gave incorrect j information, an example of the difference between the conduct of the Civil j Service nnd commercial enterprises. | The Department was apparently look- ; ing for every opportunity of injuring j the Board. “For too long the Board has acted as a kapoo mattress to absorb tho bumps of the Department,” said Mr Wiild. “There is an utter lack of cooperation between tho Board and tho Department, and it is well known that tho Department is laying itself out to have Boards abolished. The great curse that this country is suffering from is the multiplicity of Civil Servants. Air Wild instanced cases of Departmental methods. On one occasion the Board had made certain reeonimenda- 1 tions regarding an additional school at ! Kokatahi. A refusal by the Department was accompanied bv the oxplnnntion that the distance it would bo , necessary to carry children was three

and a half miles, judging by the map ■ and not five miles as stated by th( Board. He was not used to being called a liar, even in that polite way, and had measured the distance care- • fully again, finding it was five miles and 12 chains. The Department could not accept the Board’s word even then until one of its own officers had gone over the distance. And yet the Department spoke of needless duplication of work! INDIGNATION MOTION. The Department had said a big staff had to bo kept to check mistakes and differences of opinion as to the payments made to teachers. In the Canterbury district, out of 1465 different people paid for a year with £351,408 only 13 discrepancies were found, amounting to £62 under-payment and £3O over-payments. The Department on another occasion made a bad arrangement with one of its officers, who obtained a position with the Canterbury Board at a fixed salary. Then the Board was required to pay him £BO more a year over the scale, because of the Department’s trouble. At Evans Creek there were ten children, seven of whom could receive no education because of their situation, yet the Department would not grant the £l5O asked for a school, simply because the farmers in the district were poor and had no “pull.” The Department had also refused a grant for only £750 for a residence at Wataroa, where the master, a married man, was forced to live in a deserted whare.

“My grievance is not against the Minister for Education,” said Mr Wild, “but against tlie Department. The Board cannot get past the Department to the Minister, who should know what is going on.” Mr Wild then moved the following motion :—“That this Board observes with indignation that the Education Gazette published a statement without taking the steps to ensure the accuracy that its title and place of origin give people a right to expect, and request the correction of its statement regarding the size of classes in its issue of 'September Ist.” PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW.

Mr E. H. Andrews seconded the motion. The public, be said, should be told what the department had been doing for years past with the sole purpose of getting complete control of New Zealand education to Wellington. It had now come into the open as to its intentions, adding as a sop that it would retain school committees. This would not be so bad if the Department was capable of handling the control of education, but almost all the officers of tlie Department were recruited from school teachers and hardly any of them had the business training which would enable them to run a lolly shop. These were the men. certainly, who should have charge oi the academical side, but not the handling of our millions of money a year.

The Department could never take the Board’s word for anything. It always sent an officer down from Wellington to check up and report. Mr G. W. Armitnge : And lie invariably arrives at the same conclusion as did the Board.

Mr Andrews: Yes, because the Board is right.

“Who can know better than the people living in a district, and who have lived there for years?’’ Mr Andrews asked. “Officers of the Department have differed from the Board and been proved entirely wrong time and time again. Look at the record of mismanagement—on one question we have three different findings from three different officers in the Department .”

The Department was proposing to destroy local interest in educational officers, and did not realise how valuable that interest had been. Since January Ist, 1925, and subject to subsidy £12.523 had been raised locally and as much again without subsidy. The Department wanted schools like those nl New South Wales, and he had never seen such drab uninteresting schools as those in that territory. The Victorian Director of Education (Mr F. Tate) had spoken eulogistically of the local government of schools prevailing in New Zealand, hut the Department wished to destroy that system.

ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE. The Board should accept the Department’s challenge to battle, the speaker said, and let the public and members of Parliament know that it was a move by a bureauscrntic body to get control to Wellington and oust local interest in schools. If the Department really wished to improve the educational system it should give the Boards a definite grant of so much per head on school children in the districts, and leave them alone. They would do much hotter than was being clone at present.

Mr \V>. H. W’insor agreed as to the state of Australian schools, compared with those in New Zealand, yet the Department, wished New Zealand to. emulate the deficiencies of the Australian system.

The chairman (Mr V. S. Thomson) said that the suggestion that Education Boards should be abolished, lead been resented throughout New Zealand, though the Boards had taken no part in tlie agitation. That proved that the work of the Boards was valued and appreciated by the people. The Minister had said the proposal was a rumour, that the speaker considered that it emanated from Department officials who wanted increased salaries because they would then take on more important duties. Mr T. Hughes was of flic opinion that the Board should protest strongly against tlie movement, which was not in the interests of education. The Department had challenged the value of Education Boards, and the Canterbury Board would be lacking in its duty if it did not review tlie whole position. .Mr Wald’s motion was carried. COMMITTEE SET UP

On the suggestion of the chairman that a sub-committee should be set up to go into the question, and to secure the aid of outside bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce, the following committee was elected: Messrs Thomson. Armitage, Wild, Andrews, and Winsor.

The committee was instructed to go into the question of the authority that had ljeen taken from tho Board, nnd to find out if steps could not he taken to regain that authority.