Levelling the Standard

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1065, 1 September 1930, Page 8

Levelling the Standard

Criticism of “Atmore” Report

AN avowed purpose of the Education Committee in the At more report is to level down the standard of education which is now given in the grammar schools of Auckland, irrespective of class distinction. This statement is contained in a further criticism of the At more report which has been issued by the Auckland Grammar School Board for circulation among members of Parliament and others concerned.

The late Sir George Grey, the statement says, was the statesman who endowed the Auckland * Grammar School to enable the son of a labourer or a Maori to receive the same education as was given to the rich man’s son. lie was perhaps the most democratic Governor New Zealand ever had, and he introduced the “One man, one vote” principle, at a time when the rich man had a dozen votes to the poor man’s one. The Atmore Report means that higher education will be -the privilege of the rich only and the labourer’s son, instead of being able to rise to the highest position in industry or the professions, will be unfitted for the higher walks of life and practically will be compelled to follow in his father’s footsteps as an artisan. Could anything be wider or better than the franchise by which the Auckland Grammar School Board is elected? The municipality is represented by the Mayor of Auckland; the University of New Zealand by three members; both Houses of Parliament by three members. Three members are elected by the Auckland Board of Education, one of whom is chairman of the Technical College; and two members are elected by parents of pupils. Many of the board members have been and are sound clear-headed business men, who have made their names known throughout New Zealand for their business ability. The recommendation of the committee is to disband this board of business men in order that the departmental officials, mostly ex-school teachers who have had no business training, may have greater authority. But the board is not composed of business men only; it has among its members noted educationists such as Professor Thomas and Professor Segar. The whole trouble is that the board is throttled by regulation, so that any

co-ordination of action among the various types of post-primary schools represented thereon is almost impossible. The chairmen of three boards (Grammar. Education and Technical) meet on the Grammar School Board, but are powerless, for example, to arrange for the transfer of a single pupil from Kowhai to the Grammar School, Technical College to Grammar School, or vice versa. Had they more power, articulation would soon be simplified and the present lack of co-ordination would be remedied, without either expense or any unsettlement. The administrative cost of the five schools under the Auckland Grammar School Board is only 6s l|d a pupil per annum, or 50 per cent, less than the average cost a pupil quoted on Page 40 of the committee’s report. Besides its five schools, the board controls a school hostel and manages huge endowments, houses, leaseholds and farming properties. The committee’s report leads the House to believe that there will be a saving of some thousands of pounds if the new method is adopted. This is as erroneous as are the figures regarding the cost of education in New South Wales put out by the committee. These the chairman of the Auckland Board of Education has already shown to be wrong. The permanent head of the department under the Minister of Education should be a capable business man with organising ability. Such a man would save the country thousands of pounds a year by efficient administration at headquarters. He would also consolidate and clarify regulations, salary scales and other business points, which few schoolmasters have the ability to deal with. He would also remove friction with boards, in that boards of businessmen would be dealing with a business man instead of with an ex-school teacher.