EDUCATION REPORT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1930, Page 6

EDUCATION REPORT

TECHNICAL COLLEGE VIEWS

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES'. WELLINGTON, July 31'. . The report of the Recess Education Committee of the House of Representatives was one of the subjects brought up at last evening’s meeting of iite Technical College Board. 11 was dealt with by the Director. Air <3. H. Howell, in his report of the board, and was spoken of by the chairman, Mr W. H. Bennett, and Mr T. Forsyth, after which it was held over until the remainder of the report is issued. The Education Committee’s proposals, said Mr Howell, were revolutionary in character. They involved a complete recasting of the system of full-time education beyond the age of 11, as well as of the entire administrative organisation. The two most important changes—the termination of primary education of 11 plus years of age, and the extenioh of post primary education to 15 years of, •’age—hack been urged for some years . .past byeducationists both' in New Zealand and in England. The first change had already been carried out at Home, and an attempt was being made to put the .second into effect..

Administrative questions were mentioned, and in Mr Howell’s opinion .the proposals offered an opportunity for immense improvement.. What, they needed to .develop, , he said, was a local concern and a .local pride in. educational institutions. There was no surer way of doing this than by giving local bodies responsibilities for their development and control. There was no reason why the suggested changes should not result in considerable decentralisation.

The unification of the teaching service by the abolition of . the present salary scales and grading systems would commend itself to educationists generally, thought Mr. Howell. The teaching , service . was fast - becoming a service where followed as the. result of. seniqrit^--and not of devotiqn| / and ability ( Ip , the long run such a thing would be . disastrous for education, an’d the ,proposed changes were timely and. to, be greatly* welcomed. k.Z\U\.x t v v.-. ~-v K.V r?Vr*.i W

INFLUENCE ON TECHNICAL

Mr Bennett’ pointed' but ' tlie whole .of hoy* the would affect : technical, education' would be discussed at the '‘conference of technical board members to be held later in the year. ,If the proposals wore adopted, he said;' one of the first present duties of tfib” board ' 5 which, would be taken’ awfiy r would be tlie payment and appoint'ffiont of teachers. Although til'd' report' stressed- 'ihb' necessity for''saviffg, ‘i't'wbfild ft'(rt;°hpparently, affect technical colleges • 1 very much. In their own case, he added, it _ i “j. . .’*l. L-'.'C-U -fT+lttihrSf- ,*+*,,<* ._ .... appeared to mean a■ redirotmiimf~wnin the offioff .'staff. No change in the purely techfi ixsislt indi ca t e d,; t p nif ■ £ lie syM ei 7 probably - The advisory boards, to whom technical education owed a great deal, were not likely ;tb he done awav wi|V. mid Mr Bennett. “It woul&HilMji do;”, he said,, “for the department or the Government to frown JctiL.-ian institution which we have built up so well.” The Minister had told him that it would be a calamity to do anything that would destroy local interest.. Mr Bennett felt, nevertheless, that the seeking of more power by the department was not going to b 6 in the best interests of education in the Dominion. There were, however, many things in the report, that were good and which would 1 be approved by everyone.

Mr Forsyth pointed out that. thp ..report ns./yet was only half a report, and suggested that any organised .and prepared idiscir sion of its contents should he tef* over until the remainder of the retort was published. This was agreed .to; ; . • , . y j f<\