ASHBURTON SCHOOL COMMISSION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1310, 22 July 1884, Page 2

ASHBURTON SCHOOL COMMISSION.

The following ia the report of the Commission appointed by the Board of Education to enquire into Miss Harband’s case at the Borough School:— “ Education Office, “ Ooristchurch, July 17, 1884. “ The Chairman of the Board of Education.

’ “ Sir, —We have the honor to report ' that, in accordance with the resolution B passed by the Board at its last meeting, we visited Ashburton and made a full enI quiry into the matters referred to us for ’ investigation. The enquiry was held in 5 the schoolroom, and was open to the } public, a considerable number of whom 7 were present. The Chairman and some members of the present School Com- ® mittee, and the Chairman of the Cbmmittee of 1883 attended, also, of course, II the master and mistress, who were I allowed every opportunity of bringing for--3 ward any evidence or of making any statements they wished, and pf examinII ing or cross-examining witnesses. A large amount of correspondence relative to the : matters at issue had previously been forh warded by the Committee. £ “ Upon the opening of proceedings the e Chairman of Committee (Mr St Hill) de- ; r livered an address in which he objected '* strongly to what he considered the unfit- ' ness of the Commissioners appointed by| the Board. In his opinion there >f 'were technicalities involved, which ir none but a professional teacher could understand, L and the Board should s therefore - have entrusted the end quiry to the Principal of the Normal e School, the head masters of the schools in e Christchurch, Inspectors, or other experts. He went on to declare that the member “ of the Board then present was disquaiifi d . hy ignorance of school affairs from form;r ing any sound opinion on the case, and > to charge the Secretary with suppressing letters from the Committee to the Board, i- And he ended by announcing his deters mination to take such action hereafter as S he might think advisable, it is fair to ‘ add that later in the day Mr 8t Hill ex- ’ pressed some regret for the warmth into s which he had been betrayed in his open- ’ ing remarks. [j “The facts of the case under enquiry e are as follows :—Miss Harband was appointed mistress for the Ashburton School in May, 1882, and for eighteen months - performed her duties without, so far as s appears, any expression of dissatisfaction. 4 In November, 1883, after the annual ex--1 animation by the Inspectors, the head- ? master reported to the Committee that e the results . in Miss Harband’s class had 3 been very unsatisfactory; also, that she was careless and inaccurate in her work, j and showed no ambition to do better. He 3 therefore recommended that she should ; be removed from the main to the infant . school. The Committee did not act on - this report, the Chairman considering 1 that it was not borne out by the report of the Inspectors. Towards the of 5 January, 1884, a new Committee came 1 into office. In March, Miss Harband ob- [ tained leave of absence, on the raoom- " mendation of the Committee, to attend r the Canterbury College, her sister being accepted as a substitute, but the arranga- ; moot fell through in consequence of her , sister’s illness, and in the course of the : next month Miss Harband returned t q ■ her post. While stye was absent the ComI mittee received another report from ths master reflecting upon her in strong terms, and thej then wrote to the Board that she was incompetent for her 'position. They urged tips view on the Board in subsequent letters. On June 11th jthey i called on her to resign, and on her defining to do so they regolve<i to dispense with her services at three months from date. Ultimately, on July 2nd, they forwarded to the Board a recommendation that she should be transferred to some other school, and that the Board should institute an inquiry into’ the circumstance The reasons assigned by the Committee are—l- The want of discipline in Mias Harband’s class. 2. Thai the headmaster has reported unfavorably of hor. 3. That written complaints have been recoiyed from the parents of children attending the school about the sewing. The charge made against her to’ the Board of inability to keep her class in order ia included in the first reason. It should be stated that the master’s reports and the complaints about the sewing were not communicated to Miss HtjrbartJ. The Committee's Igttpr of .June demanding hsr resignation, was thejr fipst intimation that they were dissatisfied with her, aqd no particulars were given till June 27th, after she had appealed to the Board against the Committee’s attempt to -force her to resign. The complaints as to sewing have been withheld from her altogether. The Committee referred her to the master, and the master, on her applying to him, answered that he did not ,l -onassary to produce them, think u,..... written com- “ With regard to plaints, wa have to report an absence c. evidence. When wo asked for them only l one could be found—a note dated May 6, ' not necessarily intended as a complaint. > The Chairman of Committee stated that he had seen others which he had left with the headmaster. But they were not forthcoming, and as it had not been thought worth while to mention them to Miss « Harband, or to take any notice of them, i it must be presumed that the complaints i were trivial. * The headmaster’s charges against Miss t Harband (besides the want of discipline, f whiuh will be the subject of the next c paragraph) are:—(l) That her class did i badly at the Inspector’s examination ; (2) j

that she is careless in the. correction of exercises aad home work ; (3) that her methods and style; of teaching are detective ; (4) that she shows no ambition to excel. The: last charge rests on a surmise. The master, in his report to the Committee, represents Miss Harband as wanting in ambition, “as she says she is quite satisfied with the work of her class." But when questioned he admitted that she had not said so, but he inferred from her remarks that she thought so. With regard to the examination the master certainly had reason to complain of the large number of children, 32 out of 80, who were found not ready to be presented. The work done, however, seems to have satisfied the Inspectors. They passed 83 per cent., and reported that the class was on the whole well prepared. Of the alleged inaccuracy in the correction of exercises, etc, it is perhaps enough to say that the only specific instances referred, to occurred two years ago, soon after Miss Harband was appointed. With respect to the charge of inferior method and indifferent style of work, the evidence is contradictory. Mr Dempsey (the headmaster) affirms that he has from time to time spoken to Miss Harband about the reading ln-iw>-jiina and bas objected to her me-hanical wayofTeacn--ing arithmetic, telling her how he wished the subject taught. Mias Harband denies that Mr Dempsey haa ever on atiy occasion found fault with her work, and says that though he once gave her some sets of arithmetical questions, he made no observation but that she might find them useful. She declares that he has bad no opportunity of judging of her style of teaching, as he has never been in her room for five minutes together. Mr empsey did not appear to deny the last assertion, He also acknowledged that though in the ordinary course he occasionally takes charge of Mias Harband’s class, he has never dona so for the purpose of showing her how a lesson should be given. He further stated, with respect to Miss Harband’a management of her class, that he did not think himself called upon, as headmaster, to point out to her any mistakes she might commit. We now coma to the important question.: the want of discipline. Since the examination in November last. Miss Harband has had charge of the Fourth Standard, which contains (as did the third, which she had last year) a considerable proportion of boys ; and it is alleged that she is quite unable to keep the boys in order. Miss Harband frankly admits that the class is in a disorderly state. But she maintains that this is attributable to her not being properly supported by the headmaster. When the boys become unruly an appeal to the headmaster is, she says, her last reaour e, and it continually fails her. (When she sends bofb to him, his mode of punishing, by short impositions, is so ineffectual that they care nothing for it; in her own words 4 they go to him cheerfully, come back smiling, and behave worse than before.’ These statements ace fully confirmed by the pupil teacher who has charge of a part of the Fourth Standard under the mistress. Miss Harband says she has represented the matter to Mr Dempsey, and begged him to be more severe, , but that he cannot be prevailed on to make any alteration. On the other hand, .Mr Dempsey declares that he has several times severely caned boys from Miss Harband’a class, and he called one of the assistant masters, who deposed that in his (the assistant’s) class the headmaster's punishments made, a very salutary impression. But the question is not of the assistant’s, but of the mistress’s class. We are bound to

say that, aa regard* this particular class, Miss Ha band’s complaint is well founded. Whatever may bo the case in other parts of the sjhool, it is plain that in this part the headmaster’s action is inefficient, and that the boys are aware and take habitual advantage of his reluctance to punish them. “ Two or three other point* of minor importance are debated in the letters of the master and mistress, upon which no positive conclusion can be arrived at, there being no evidence but tile statements of the two teachers, which are in direct opposition to each other. We can only say that throughout the enquiry we were favorably impressed with Miss Harband’s manner <t giving evidence. She was clear, straightforward, and explicit; which epithets, we rogret to add, oanhot by any means be applied to the evidence given by the master. “ Reviewing the whole case, we have to state oar opinion, founded on a careful examination of all the papers and on our personal inquiry, that the charge against Miss Harband with respect to the sewing has altogether broken down; that the charges of inaccurate work and careless teaching have not been substantiated; and that, though the charge of want of discipline is true —and indeed is not disputed—the blame rests to a very great extent with the headmaster himself. Miss Harband is justified in her complaint that she has not received the support which she had a right t expect from hiffij and waichit was his duty to gme. We have no doubt that, if he had 4 one hi 3 duty, all this trouble in connection with her class would not have arisen.

“ We cannot close our report without calling the attention of the- Board to the extreme inj stice with which Miss Hatband has been treated by the present Committee.. They appear to have come into office with a foregone conclusion that she should e got rid of—for Mr Andrew Urr states that at the first meeting held for the dispatch of business, a motion for her dismissal was brought forward, and was withdrawn only on account of his opposition— and have acted in the same spirit ever since, They have adopted, without enquiry, every report to her prejudice. They have made vehement representations to the Board, and have done everything in their power to get her out of the school—all this without giving her the slightest intimation that charges were being preferred against her, and without asking her for any explanation or allowing her any chance of being heard in her own defence. It is hard to understand how any men could—especially when dealing with a woman—so thoroughly dlsrega.d tße commonest principles of fair play. “ We have the hopor to be, “Sir, - “ Your obedient servants, “(Signed) H. W. Pbryivian, “ «f. Y. Colbobng Veep.”