scheme for

[?]-NG upset over scheme for school fees

From a Port Moresby correspondent It’s one of those things which eryone is for in theory, but lich almost everybody seems to

against in practice—the

urging of fees for school equip

snt in Papua-New Guinea.

OBJECTIONS centre round two * main points: lack of proper tice of the scheme and the collec n methods involved.

So far at least three influential urches in the Territory—Roman itholic, Lutheran and Anglican— ve publicly expressed opposition to rtain aspects of the scheme; and the Administration tries to enforce > scheme its way it could very well ;ate real strife.

Yet the churches are all in favour people being required to pay for dr children’s school equipment, hat, then, has gone wrong?

The whole thing appears to be an ample of what the Anglican Bishop New Guinea, the Rt. Rev. David md, describes as Administration am-handedness”.

Though it is officially denied, there :ms to have been a breakdown in -ordination between Administration partments at an early stage.

Last September the decision to in duce equipment fees was an unced in the House of Assembly. :ter that, nothing was heard until 2 end of the year when the ABC oadcast a story which they’d dug i themselves, but which wasn’t ard by everybody.

Information too vague

The first that many Administration ,d Church educationists knew iout it was when Treasury circulars gan arriving for district education mmittees. The circulars were just gue enough to pose assorted un iswered queries, but they did make clear that native primary and condary pupils were now to pay larges for equipment (Europeans e already responsible for providing eir own equipment) and that achers would collect the money.

The reaction from at least one unmittee was prompt and terse— ey declined to collect any fees this ;ar because of inadequate notice.

Then a more audible protest came from the Anglican Church just as the P-NG Education Department con firmed that teachers would have to collect $1 from primary students and $3 from secondary students.

Since then the department has issued a longer, explanatory circular which elaborates on the scheme and answers some of the barrage of ques tions and protests provoked by earlier events. Yet the main bone of con tention still remains: teachers must collect fees. Many Administration teachers as well as the churches pro test at this.

Chief objections are that collecting money for equipment puts teachers in a wrong relationship with their chil dren; they are in an awkward position if public money is lost or stolen while in their charge; and it could for some constitute a severe tempta tion.

Is there a better scheme?

In fairness, the Administration has, almost from the start, recognised that the use of teachers in this capacity is “not entirely satisfactory” and that there may have to be safe guard amendments to the scheme.

The Administration also says that if anyone can think of a better way of collecting the money, it will consider the proposal.

The churches have asked that the scheme be deferred for a year to give time for it to be properly worked out, for it seems to have been im provised piecemeal as ideas and prob lems have developed. If nothing else, it is surely reasonable that it might be deferred until after a meeting of the Educational Advisory Board which, incredibly, seems not to have been consulted.

Both Administration and churches are represented on this board, which is a suitable body to thrash out problems.

All-in-all, it’s been another ex ample, like the Public Service pay rates and the Bougainville mining business, where the Administration lead-up has been seriously at fault, thus obliterating the good intentions.