231

II.—Local Administration.

Contemplating the gradual transfer of powers from the Central Board to the several local bodies, the Commission recommended the introduction into the Act which constituted that Board, of provisions assigning certain functions to local committees.

As already mentioned, it is the opinion of the Commission that the direct influence of the Central Board in matters affecting particular schools should be only temporary, to continue only until that state of transition shall have been passed which is inevitable in every change of system, and that the new system should be worked principally through the local committees.

The Commission are of opinion that this localization of power should become a very prominent feature in any future general plan of education, as likely to produce all those advantages which are peculiar to local administration, without the corresponding evils generally found to accompany it. In the first place it is reasonable to suppose that the persons most familiar with local circumstances will be those most capable of adopting the measures best suited to local wants, and secondly that the possession of local power over schools will call forth a corresponding local interest in their efficiency.

As regards the local organizations already in existence connected with the respective religious denominations, it is considered that it would be unwise for several reasons to attempt any sudden or violent changes, and thus, so far as these are concerned, the Act does not interfere further than to confirm arrangements already made, and to give a recognized existence to bodies whose powers seem hitherto to have rested rather upon sufferance than upon any well-defined right. In the first place it may be supposed that the mere fact that these bodies are in existence, and that they have already been in operation for some time, gives to them a certain value which could not be hastily ignored. But, besides this, their peculiar relation to the respective religious bodies would be an obstacle to their being brought under regulations affecting schools established by the State for the benefit of the community in general.

Indeed, the existing local committees cannot be properly termed local organizations at all. None are connected primarily with any particular locality. Their sphere of action is not local, but denominational. The property which they administer is held not so much for the benefit of any given locality as for that of a certain section of the community resident in that locality, and thus the local committees as now existing, may be considered as the representatives not so much of local wants as of denominational interests.

It is proposed that this principle should, in the establishment of future local committees, be reversed, and that the limits of their jurisdiction should be determined by divisions of territory rather than by distinctions of creed. Besides, the objections already stated to the application of this principle to denominational communities, the possession of the sites gives to each denomination a power of refusing to bring the management of its schools under the control of a body not appointed exclusively from its own members. Indeed, most of the sites are held on a tenure which would forbid their being used in a manner calculated to obliterate their denominational character.

While, on the one hand, the difficulty, if not the impossibility, is recognised of adapting existing local committees more fully to local circumstances; on the other hand the Commission are anxious to insist as strongly as possible upon the desirability of making a change in this direction in all future arrangements.

It need hardly be urged as an objection to the present denominational organization, that its natural tendency is unduly to multiply schools. Abstract justice on the denominational principle would require that, inasmuch as members of various denominations are connected with the different localities, each should have an organization of its own in each of those localities; and though this has not been generally the result in practice, yet in some instances a tendency in this direction has manifested itself. While there are some districts in which as yet no school exists, though one is required, there are others where, though a single school would suffice, two or more have been established in close proximity to each other.

The most obvious objection to this state of things is that it creates a waste of public funds; but there is another and more important objection, that it causes a waste of educational power, making each of the schools less efficient than it otherwise would be. Each of these different schools is attended by children of different ages and different capacities, divided roughly into classes, all taught by one master without reference either to his own qualifications or to the different attainments of his pupils. The neighbouring school is almost an exact counterpart of the former. Here, too, the master has the charge of the same number of classes, each of which can only receive a limited portion of his attention. It is evident that in such a case as this, if the two schools were amalgamated, the expense of maintaining two separate establishments would be reduced by one half, while from the fact that each master would be able to devote twice the amount of attention to each class under his charge, the teaching power would be doubled.

Then, as regards the masters themselves, it is not to be supposed that with their attention constantly distracted by the wide range of subjects in which they are expected to give instruction, they can perform their duties with any great satisfaction to themselves; while, if they could concentrate their efforts on the task of teaching any particular subject or group of subjects, they would not only acquire an additional interest in the work, but would also do that work more effectually.