E.—l2.

36

[g. hogben.

primary schools —of course, I do not mean exactly the same?—ln the case of the primary schools, they are financed by the Central Government. We pay over the amounts; unless you alter your method of control, you cannot do that with the secondary. 33. That is subject to your suggestion that the control is in the hands of the Education Boards. But you must alter the method of control? —I am putting qualifications on that. '. " 34. You first said you would give the Education Boards, elected on a different basis, the control of the secondary schools, but not the control of the appointment of teachers : who would have that control: surely the-Central Department?— No. 35. Who would have the appointment of teachers? —The governing body, as now in New Zealand and in England. 36. What governing body?—lt is called the " governing body." 37. Who would be the governing body under your system? —The governing bodies would be restricted, so that they could not determine what courses should or should not be taken in the schools. 38. Before you mention that at all, you said you were in favour of one body having control of the whole of the primary and secondary education in their district?— You have quite misunderstood me. When I say control, I mean general control. What I want to see is that this body —Education Board or whatever name it gets after it is altered —this local authority on education should have a general control over all branches of education. 39. You do not mean the abolition of the secondary boards of governors?—l think it would be still most necessary to let every school, whether primary, secondary, or technical, have its own board of governors or managers or committee or whatever you call it. Let each have its own board of managers. I will put it this way : that the local authority —that is, the Education Board —commensurate with the present Education Board in importance and area of control, should have general control of all local education. 40. The Chairman.] Up to the point of the University ?—The University is now generally held to belong to the sphere of non-local education. I regard university education as a question of national importance rather than of local importance : the other branches of education are more local in character. 41. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to make the education district coterminous with the University one, would the local authority up to that point have general control over all education matters, save and except the University? —Yes. 42. Where would you put training colleges? —I would take them right out of local education. The training of teachers is higher education, or, at all events, non-local education. Now as to " The expenditure on manual and technical instruction, and the question of local responsibility in regard to providing portion of funds therefor " : there are two questions there. The expenditure, I have already pointed out, is down under the vote for manual and technical instruction, and is partly for manual instruction in schools, primary and secondary, and partly for technical instruction and continuation classes in so-called technical schools and technical classes. I shall put in a return showing the amount paid for manual instruction in primary schools, the amount paid for manual instruction in secondary schools, the amount paid for continuation classes, and the amount paid for technical instruction proper. It will show under separate headings what the expenditure in each branch is. In regard to the question of local responsibility, and providing part of the funds therefor, that is part of the debatable matter already referred to. Now, as to " The amalgamation of local governing or controlling bodies " : no doubt three of the Boards are far too small at the present time. Whatever theory you have of the duties and powers of Education Boards, Marlborough, Westland, and Grey are too small. I am not at all sure that Auckland is not too large. I am inclined to think it is. It depends on what theory of education control you are proceeding on. As to " Overlapping and duplication " : first of all, it does not necessarily follow that all overlapping whatever is to be avoided. For instance, if a boy's day-school life ends at fourteen, it seems to me appropriate he should get some of that kind of attention which he would get at a secondary school if he were to go on to a secondary school after the primary school. That relates to strictly mental training and to moral training also. In such a case there would be justification for some overlapping between the primary schools and the secondary schools. Also, there may be some boys and girls that would gain by an earlier beginning of their secondary-school course. In my opinion, these are number, if by an earlier period you mean an earlier stage of education, and not an earlier age. However, there may be ground for some overlapping on that account. There may be apparent overlapping also in the case of technical schools and secondary schools, because some of the same subjects may be taught in both. I think the proper way is to look at the course as a whole, and see if the courses are the same in the two schools. There may be an amount of apparent overlapping in the technical education that is given in the higher departments of a technical school and the technical education that is given more properly at the University. It is most easily explained by a reference to one of the professions, say that of engineering. In my view, the function of a technical school in engineering is to train apprentices, fitters, foremen, submanagers, or managers of branches of engineering works; the function of the University is to train professional engineers who presumably satisfy the conditions that are required for the general management of engineering concerns and for direction and consultation. You may have a branch of engineering taken in a technical school with the same name as a branch of engineering taken in the engineering school of a university college, but it would be approached along the line suitable for a professional man who has had a complete training in the theory and practice of science beforehand; whereas that in the technical school is given for the man whose training has been from that of the apprentice and fitter and foreman upwards, and therefore mainly practical and only partially, as it were by chance, scientific. The methods of teaching would be different in a great degree. Therefore, when it