THE ASHBURTON SCHOOL COMMITT E IN REPLY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1317, 31 July 1884, Page 2

THE ASHBURTON SCHOOL COMMITT E IN REPLY.

The following letter has been addressed to the North Canterbury Board of Education by the Borough School Com-

mittee : To the Chairman and Members of the B >ard of Education, Christchurch. Gentlemen, — We be* to thank you for a copy of report which has been submitted to you by Messrs Peryman and Yeel, who acted as a Commission to enquire into the case of the head mistress of the Ashburton'Borough School. 2. Knowing the facts of the oase and the nature of the evidence submitted to your Commissioners a . the enquiry, we were somewhat surprised on receiving a resolution passed at your last meeting, which, while admitting that Miss Harband’s class is in a disorderly condition, insists that discipline must be maintained by the headmaster, but does not point out how this can be done, while the cause of laxity is allowed to remain in charge. On receiving a copy of said report, however, our surprise was somewhat modified—especially whan we considered that your resolution would necessarily be based in a great measure on the conclusions drawn by your Commissioners, without having an opportunity of becoming acquainted with all the circumstances which surround the case, and which have apparently so influenced those gentlemen that they have proved themselves to bp utterly incapable of weighing both sides, or of takingfau impartial and unbiased view of the evidence placed before them Many of the statements contained bn the report are so one-sided, and in some instances so much at variance with the facte that they can only be accounted for by supposing those gentlemen have allowed their intellect* to | be blinded by the strong feelings of sentiment and partisanship which characterise | the few persons who have in this district taken upon themselves the responsibility of interfering with your Committee in the discharge of their duty. While, therefore, we exonerate the Board as a body from all blame in the matter, we cannot allow such an extraordinary document—as the internal evidence found in the report proves it to bo—to pass unchallenged. 3. Before entering into the merits of the report we unhesitatingly state as our opinion that your Commissioners came to Ashburton with their minds fully made up as to what would be the result of the enquiry. This was clearly shown hroughout tha whole proceedings by the eager manner in which you secretary jotted down any point of evidence favorable to Miss Harband, while anything favorable to Mr Dempsey was either quietly sup pressed or carefully construed to a differ ent meaning from that intended

4. In paragraph I, the rap irt states that the “ master and mistress were allowed every opportunity of bringing forward evidenou,” etc. Well, as a matter of fact, your Commissioners gave no intimation whatever to Mr Dempsey that an enquiry would be held, and it was only two days beforehand, one being Sunday, that ha became aware of the fact that an enquiry vyould be held This, coupled with the fact that ssyeraj qf the a sistant teachers who might have given valuable testimony in his favor were absent from town spending their holidays, and consequently ooutd put. be summoned in time to attend, placed that gentleman in a very unfair position. On the other hand, Mias ,Harband had invited her friends, witnesses, and supporters to be present^

thus indicating that she bed been duly notified from headquarters when the enquiry would take place. This may constitute fair play frem your Commissioners’ point of view, but the meaning of this term as generally accepted by Englishmen is something totally different. 5 This injustice we might have overlooked had not much of the evidence advanced in Mr Dempsey’s favor been completely ignored. Par. 3of report states that for eighteen months Mhs Harband performed her duties without so far as appears any expression of dissatisfaction. While in giving evidence Mr Dempsey stated most distinctly that during 1882 and 1883 ho had repeatedly drawn Miss Harband’a attention to the unsatisfactory Condition of her class. . 6- An attempt has been made to create an impression that in recommending Miss Harband’s removal from the school year Committee and the headmaster have been actuated by improper motives. So far as the headmaster is concerned this is completely disproved in the paragraph now under consideration. The Commit tee’s position will have due attention further on. The report continues :—ln November 1883 after the annual examination by the Inspectors, the headmaster reported to the Committee that the results had bean very unsatisfactory. He therefore recommended that she should be removed from the main to the infant school. The report ought to have continued “ without any reduction of salary." Now to anyone but a furious partisan ne motive can be discovered in this recommendation but a desire to improve the general condition of the school by placing the headmistress in a position where her talents eould be employed to better advantage. It is not reasonable to expect that the delicate organisation of a lady can exercise sufficient control over a class of high-spirited boys from 11 to 13 years age. And yet you insist that this mast be done regardless of consequences. What course does Mr J. Orr (who was then Chairman) take in reference to this recommendation 1 In the first place he kept it back from the Committee for more than a month, and did not place it before (hem until it was too late in the year for that body to act. And when election day arrives instead of facing what he probably considered to be a difficulty requiring very delicate handling, he quietly declined to allow himself to be re-elected a member of the Committee. And now that the new Committee have taken the matter in hand he turns round upon them and, backed by a small party who represent very few children put of the 550 who attend the school, endeavored to harass them and the headmaster in a manner altogether unworthy of a Christian gentleman. And what reason does he urge for remaining inactive ? That “he did not consider the report borne out by tbs report of the Inspector.” At the best this could only be a matter of opinion. And when we find in par. 5 your commissioners state that “ 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,” further expression of opinion on our part becomes quite unnecessary. 7. The statement that “ the work dene seems to have satisfied the Inspectors,” as “ they passed 83 percent,” taken by itself is rather misleading. Of the number presented 83 per cent passed ; but of the total number in the class only 50 per cent passed. This may “seem” quite satisfactory to Mr J. Orr and your commissioners; but occurring as it does in a Third Standard, to your Committee it indicates that there is something wrong. 8. Although of .minor importance, we must direct your attention to the conclusions drawn by your Commissioners on the subject of sewing. We only do so in erder to point out that from some cause unknown to us probably from the possession of a faculty which does not exist in logical minds—those gentlemen are able to draw deductions and arrive at conclusions quite contrary to the indications present iu the evidence before them. On the one hand the head mistress states that no complaints had been made to her regarding the sewing. On the other hand both the Chairman 'and headmaster state that many complaints had been made to them—both written and verbal. They hai not preserved the written complaints, as they had never entertained the idea that they would ever be required in eviience. Are we to suppose that two gentlemen would stand up before their fellows and deliberately utter falsehoods which could not possibly serve any purpose—good or bad ? Yet this is what your Commissioners u presume ” to be the case. 9. Another matter of secondary importance referred to in the report, is that Miss Harband “ shows no ambition to excel.” The charge rests on a surmise. The master in his report to the Committee represents her as wanting in ambition, as she is quite satisfied with the work of Iter class. But whan questioned, he admitted that she had not said so, but he inferred from her remarks that she thought so. Now this is either a mistake, or a gross misrepresentation. Why not report the statement exactly as made by Mr Dempsey ? Which was that the headmistress had not employed these exact words, but she had intimated to him that she considered the work of her class “ very fair,”‘which, to au ordinary mind, expresses precisely tne same meaning. 10. With regard to the evidence bear-

ing on the “ indifferent style of work,” etc., your Commissioners state that it “ is contradictory,” but they make no attempt to analyze it, or to sift the truth

from the statements laid before them. If Miss Harband states she believes her method of working to be all that can be desired, this is only natural, but it proves nothing. If the gentleman in charge of the school states that her general method is d fective, his opinion is at least worthy of respect, although even that taken hy itself might prove little. But when we take into consideration the fact that his statement is verified by the results being unsatisfactory—which is conceded by all then the idea contained in Mr Dempsey’s statement must be true, and the truth would still exist although no statement whatever had been made on either side. If any two gentlemen prove themselves to be incapable of perceiving a logical deduction so simple as this they certainly cannot be considered qualified to discharge the functions of lawyer, judge, and jury, at one and the same time. 11. The report further states that the headmistress “ declares that he (Mr Dempsey) has had no opportunity of judging of her stylo of teaching, as he had

never been in her room five minutes together,” that Mr Dempsey “ did not appear to deny the last assertion.” But why suppress what that gentleman really did say ? Viz., that ho went regularly into her room and remained long enough to see what was going on and to take a general survey of what was being done, but could not give the exact number of

minutes, as he had never been in the habit of timing himself. But silly mis-

representations like this only confirm what we have already said regarding the bias and partiality which was so strongly manifested throughout the wfyole proceedings. ' ■ r

12. The report continues “He also, acknowledged that, though : in the ordinary course he occasionally takes charge of Miss Harband’s class he has never

donq so fop the purpose of showing her how a lesson should be giyen." We shall not be so ungenerous <*s to apply the ten* “untruth” to this - statement although it is absolutely untrue; but in commit-

ting it to paner your Commissioners must certainly have been laboring under a gross misapprehension, as Mr Dempsey stated

most distinctly that be occasionally took charge of Miss Harband’s class, “in order • to show her how the lessons should be taught.” But the fact appears to be th*% the headmaster, in dealing with Mii» Harband, has exercised too much consideration for her feelings to be rightly understood by that lady. Tat (if the Inspectors’ report may be considered a safe criterion) his influence over the scholars and his general success seem to be all that can be desired, for these officials state that the condition of the whole school has gradually and .steadily continued to improve since the present headmaster, took charge. 13. Many of the points already referred to are so trivial and unimportant that whether proved or disproved they do net 1 affect the position of your Committee. > The important points upon which the ’ whole question hinges are the low per--1 centage of passes at the last examination, ‘ and the want of discipline in Standard i IV. The first is registered in the Inspectors’ report, is admitted by your Commissioners in their report and by all con--1 corned. The second also is not disputed. It is “frankly admitted” by Min Her- - band, by yoar Commissioners, and by ‘ yourselves, that the class is in a disorderly > state, the only question in dispute being - a difference of opinion between the Board > and the Committee as to what might be j considered the best remedy for the unsatisfactory state of affairs known to ’ exist. Now, while we dp not lay claim to • any superiority of intellect over yourselves, we do claim that being constantly on the * spot opportunities frequently present 1 themselves for observing*the condition of. • the school which cannot in the natnre of ■ things present themselves to the Board, t We are, therefore, in a much better pbsir tion to judge, and to offer suggestions as i to what steps should be taken to assist i the master in maintaining that high state ' of discipline for which be has boon .so I justly eulogised in your Inspectors’ roi ports. * 14. But to return to the report now i under consideration. In dealing with tha > question of lax discipline, your Oommis- > sioners again find themselves confronted f with “contradictory evidence.” When i the boys are sent to the master to he - punished his “ mode- of punishment ”is ■ s&id to be “so ineffectual that they care - nothing for it.” “ They go to him cheer--1 full} and come back smiling. ” “ Theae r statements are confirmed by a pupil > teacher.” Now the fact of a boy smiling i after being punished is nothing new, aa 7 most of us know from experience, and t certainly does not. provethat the boy has i. not been punished. Miss Harband and % > pupil teacher who have no means of teeing ■ what punishment is inflicted state as their 1 opinion that the punishment inflicted-la-not sufficiently severe. Mr Dempsey de- > dares that he is in the habit of severely - caning the boys sent to him from Miss. 5 Hatband’s class. Yet in the face of this 1 declaration and the evidence of Mr Gil t boy, yonr Commissioners “ feel bound to • say that Miss Harband’a complaint is well founded,” and “ whatever may be the ease 5 in other parts of the school it is plain that i in this part the master’s action is inefficient.” Now, gentlemen, we submit that this conclusion is unfair, illogical and. i contrary to all recognised rules for judg- ; » ing evidence, and as you cannot fail to see f is not warranted by the evidence placed before you in your Commissioner's report, s According to that evidence we find that t when Jboya are sent to the master from , - other parts of the school to be punished ■ “ the punishment, makes a very salutary i impression. . But, says the report, tha s question is not of the assistant’s class, but of the hvadmistress! The question, as } we take it, is of the whole school. If the - master’s mode of punishment is effective i in evey class but one it must be dear to i the simplest undemanding that the defect s must exist in the internal arrangement of 9 that class itself. ' t 15. But you Have said the master 1 is responsible for -.the discipline of the 9 whole school. -So say we. But in the ■ same sense so is your Committee and so 1 is the Board of Education. If the master finds that his instruments are not 1 adapted to the work of the school it is his. | duty to report accordingly. Aa a Com- * mittee, it is our duty to recommend any 3 change that may be necessary to maintain 1 the efficiency of the school. As the 5 Board of Education, it is your duty to r carry our recommendations into effect, or r suggest some other means whereby the desired result m>ght be brought about. 3 This you have not done. Bat instead, r yon have sent two gentlemen to hold an 1 “ enquiry,” whe, as we hate already s shown, and as we shall further show, de * not seem to- know what an enquiry is, These gentlemen charge us with injustice and wickedness of various kinds. We are : charged with having Seated Miss Harband 1 harshly by recommending that she should be removed to another sphere of useful* 1 ness. But it is not pointed out wherein 1 the hardship lies. Ws fail to see how' that lady would suffer by being transferred . to another school at . the- same salary she now receives. Under the late Ur Chichester’s control the discipline of thia class was equal to that of any other class . in the school. ■ The master (cannot be expected to be constantly on the spot to see that order is maintained. Thia would mean the neglect of more important work. We do not underrate Miss Harband’a abilities as s teacher, but as already stated we maintain that a refined lady is altogether out of place among a * class of high spirited beys. Therefore, apart from every other consideration in the interests of that lady herself, the change wa have recommended would be beneficial. There is nothing unusual contained in our proposal. In connection with mercantile firms the assistants qrq ■ frequently transferred from one bran els. tq another to suit the convenience and nqnirements of each* Tha injustice in this case exists only in. the imagination of Miss Harband’s ill-advised “ friends,” 16. Returning once more to the report we find that Aether points of minor importance were debated, on which no con? elusion can be arrived at.” One po ; nt was brought up which we find was omitted from the report altogether. And as thia involves the question of who is master of the school, we must direct your’'attention to it. An order was issued by Mr Dempsey to the effect that during the winter months no children be kept in school alter four o’clock.' The order was disregarded by Miss Harband on the ground that it was not convenient for faer to attend to it

It is only fair to say that a few days later the lady announced her willingness to acquiesce. This little act of insubordination may be of “minor importance” in the eyes of your Commissioners, bnt In our opinion it involves an important question of discipline, and would not have been omitted from a fair and impartial report.

17. The manner in which your Commissioners endeavor to show that Miss Hatband's evidence is trustworthy, while that of the headmaster is quite unreliable, is unique, and strikes at the keynote of all the partiality which was manifested throughout the enquiry, viz.—Miss flapband belongs to the opposite sex, while Mr Dempsey has the misfortune- to bs a

njaq. “ Throughout the whole enquiry,’’ they say, j* jjre were favorably uppiesied with Miss Harband’s manner (quite so) of giving evidence, dhe was clear, straightforward, and explicit, which epithets, wj regret to add, cannot be applied to the evidence given by the head matter.” NoW* in our law courts the usual custom is (a judge the yalue of evjdencf, "hot by the mariner qf the person who gtye| it, but®*, the nature or the evidence itself. a ßul your, Commissioners seam to have a mei hod for weighing evidence peculiar to themselves*- Had they taken the trouble to observe whet vis going on among tljq

few V householders ” who the «« enquiry,” Jits* Hatband's readme** OMild accounted for. During the whole rf'the enquiry catch questions end suggestions, written on slip* of paper, were constantly being passed to that lady from various parts of the room, while no opportunity had been given to Mr Derapapy to make the necessary preparations to sustain his position; and he stood • before your Commissioners single-handed, and was allowed to be pocked at—-not by Min Harhaud, but by a few individuals whose children do not attend the school j who have no personal interest in theinstitutioß, and whose attitude towards him, -ever since he was appointed master, has been too well known to the inhabitants of this district to require comment at our bands. 18. And now we come to the last and ■ crowning paragraph, the climax and masterpiece of this extraordinary literary production. Your Commissioners say they “cannot close their report without calling attention to the extreme injustice with which Miss Hatband baa been ti eated / by the present Committee. They appear to have come into office with a foregone conclusion that she should be got rid of—- ‘ for Mr A. Orr states that at the first meeting held for the despatch of business a motion for her dismissal was brought * forward, and was only withdrawn on Account of hi* opposition ; And have . acted “in the same spirit ever since.” How any two men could be induced to snake such wholesale charges against a body of gentlemen, Vbo (we hope) have hitherto been considered fairly respectable. on the bare statement of one individual, passes beyond our comprehenslon, more especially when the Chairman offered to correct Mr Andrew Orr’s .statement, but was premptonly ordered iS« remain silent. Your Commissioners • may imagine that they possess a monopoly, of that trait of English character, called “ fair play ” but in the face of this report 'this opinion can be shared by none but themselves. In the first place Mr Orr’s statement was made from memory alone, and no man’s memory can be considered perfect. But suppose for a moment that his memory is perfectly sound yon have . his statement against that of the y other, members of the Committee, [sea resolution passed by the Committee at foot] which la that no such motion was , brought forward till several month * after the time stated by Mr Orr. It must be - apparent to you gentlemen of the Board that the deductions drawn by your compussionors from evidence of this description must in the nature of things be quite ■■ unwarranted. And we formally request - that you ash those gentlemen to tender an apology for what we can only regard as a .gross insult to yonr Committee. • ~.'19. In conclusion, gentlemen, we beg to point out that by allowing such » re-port-to be published without giving your Committee an opportunity of placing a statement before you, you have incurred the risk of damaging the usefulness of cor public school. But, as already intimated, we fully exonerate you from all blame, aa yon have probably been led to do so by placing too much reliance on the Judgment and good sense of yonr Commissioners, We ' would further urge, as already stated, that the main points on which our past recommendations have been baaed were fully borne out at the enquiry, and also by the Commissioners’ report. -And we eannot see how the general usefulness of the school can be promoted by compelling the master to neglect his other duties acd devote his attention to work which ought to be performed by his subordinates. Various —motives have bean imputed to us for the recommendations we have made in con- . nection with this matter, but we ssk yon

asimpartial men to assign any reason by which we can possibly bo actuated other than a de&ira to promote the best interests of the school. We bear no animosity either towards Miss Harband or Mr Dempsey. We respect them both, and consider that they are both useful members of society—she in her proper sphere and he in hia. 20. The recommendations we hare ' made on this subject have not been based on the headmaster’s repons t alone, but also on our own obserrations and the reports of your luspecto s. We are aware that to suggest the removal of a lady is rather a delicate matter, as her personal friends immediately rise in arms, raise a cry of persecution, and cause as much hubbub as if we had beeu guilty of some heinous crime ; but that can be no reason why w 6, as a public body, should shirk What we consider to be w public duty. Gxobpk St Hi’L, Chairman. Edwin A. Scott. Aldxandbb. Okaigbbad. Fkahcis T. Mato. - Thomas Bz Ait. ' Resolved —“ That Mr A. Orr’s statement, made hifore the Commissioners, on which the last paragraph of the report is based, viz :— ‘ Av, the first meeting of the Committee held for the dispatch of business a moticn for her (Miss Harband’s) dismissal was brought forward, but was withdrawn only on his opposition,” is incorrect, as no such resolution was brought * forward at that meeting. ■ -The Committee passed a resolution expressing unabated confidence in Mr r Dempsey as headmaster. It was also resolved that a copy of the above letter be published In separate form ts well as in the newspapers. Ashburton District Schools, July 30th, 1884.