ASHBURTON DISTRICT SCHOOL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1436, 22 January 1885, Page 2

ASHBURTON DISTRICT SCHOOL

A special meeting of the Committee of the Ashburton District School was hold in the Borough School last evening, to consider the Inspector’s report. Present— Messrs Sealy (chairman), Zouch, Craighead, Reid, A. Orr, and Dolman. The Chairman said that he had received from the Board of> Education the Inspector’s report on the school, but he gathered from the letter which had accompanied it that it wou’d not be expedient to make the contents of the report public until the explanation from the Head Master, invited by the Board, had been considered.

Mr Craighead concurred with the chair man. He thought the consideration of the report' should at present be in committee, In justice to the Head Master, the report should not be made public until the master’s explanation could appear with it. At the request of Mr Orr, the following letter from the Board of Education to the Committee was read : “ Christchurch, Jan. 16, 1886. — T. Sealt, Esq., Chairman, Ashburton District School Committee —Sir, I have the honor to forward the Inspectors’ report on the Ashburton I School with standard lists attached. lam directed to call the attention of the Committee to the very unfavourable character of the report, and to request them to place it in the hands of the Head Master, desiring him to forward to the Board, through the Committee, any explanations or remarks he may wish to make not later than the 2nd of next month, so that they may be laid before the Board at its next meeting, when the matter will be farther considered. I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, J.V. OolborneVbel, Secretary.” Mr Orr contended that the report had reached the Committee in the ordinary way, and that it should therefore be made public in the ordinary way. The headmaster’s explanation, whatever it might be, would not altar the tenor of the report. Mr Zouch thought tint in view of the approaching annual meeting it would be very unwise to delay the publication of the report. The public would, he feared, misconstrue their object. ' Mr Dolman said the report should at once be published, otherwise they would be charged with its suppression. Mr Reid considered that if the report could be demanded by the householders at the annual meeting it would be better to publish it at once. The Chairman understood from the Board’s letter that the report had been merely sent to the Committee for transmission to the master, Mr Crr said if the report was in the position ascribed to it by the Chairman, he failed to see with what object the Committee had met He was satisfied that

the Board merely wished an explanation from the master, with which the Committee had nothing whatever to do. He did not wish to prejudice the position of the headmaster or any of the staff, and thought the publication of the report was as much due to them as to the parents, children and Committee. After further discussion it was resolved

to read the Inspectors’ report and the master’s explanation in committee, and then determine whether they should or should not be published. On resuming, the Chairman proposed that the Inspectors’ report and the master’s explanation be published after they have been dealt with by the Board. The headmaster, addressing the Committee, said that he claimed the report as his property until 2nd February. Mr Zouch thought that the publication of the report would remove much misapprehension. There was not one of the Inspectors’ unfavorable allegations which had not been fully refuted by the master. The Inspectors on tha occasion of their last visit had complimented the members of the Committee present at the examination upon the improved discipline and order maintained in the school. The parents of the children were satisfied with the present management, and would regard as a misfortune anything calculated to impair the confidence and good feeling at present existing. " The Chairman repeated that it would be a great injustice to the master, the school, and the Committee to publish the report without the explanation. The Board had considered the matter in com mittee, and he thought the Committee should do the same. The matter should be disposed of by the Board before the documents were published. Mr Keid thought the report was clearly the property of the Committee; but the master’s explanation was not a public document—it was merely following the ordinary course in passing through the the Committee to the Board. He thought it would be better to publish the report, and the Committee could, if they chose, express their approval with or disagreement from the master’s explanation. It was resoived to publish the Inspectors' report as follows : Ashburton District School—Examined Oct--30 and 31, 1884. Attendance. —Number on roll, 532; number present, 490; average last quarter, 351; average last week, 421; per centage of attendance on roll number, 92. 1-’ esults of examination in standards ;—■ VI. V. IV. 111. 11. I. Tl.

cess in each Standard... 23 64.7 66.6~g6 go 76 Presented in Standards, 236 ; passed, 179 ; failed, 57; not presented to pass a higher Standard than that previously passed, 6; percentage passed, 76 ; per centage of roll number presented, 44 ; present below Standard 1., 248.

GENERAL REMARKS. The school premises and furniture .are generally clean and in good repair; maps and wall cards are in fair order ; the ou l houses are well looked after ; the boys’ closets are rather inconveniently situated. This is, perhaps, unavoidable on account of the diTculty of finding a suitable site close to the main building. We would recommend, in order to secure greater privacy, that trees shou'd be planted round these outbuildings. The water (or the use of the school is good and abundant. The staff is sufficiently large, and the plan followed in the distribution of the pupil teachers is, in the main, to be approved of. We fail, however, to see why the second master, presumably the better teacher, should take charge of Standard 11., and the third master should be entrusted with Standard Hi. Further, while we approve of the headmaster taking charge of Standards VI. and V., we would have liked to have seen definite provision made for the oversight or teaching of these classes during his temporary absence while engaged in the general supervision of the school. Under the present system of management it appears to us that there is no thorough system of supervision. The headmaster does not appear to have anything like a good knowledge of the condition oi the classes, or of the state of the school generally. The results of the examination of the third and fourth standards fully bear out this statement, as also the small but significant fact that One teach r’s desk had been broken and carried outside, and that another was much injured, was not known by the headmaster, though w eks had elapsed since the breakage had taken place. To put the case in its mildest form, we can only say that the master is «ot an observant man. At first sight, the percentage obtained appears fairly large; but when we look closely, we find that when Standards I. and 11. are omitted from the calculation, oijly fio per cent of the number presented-pass ; or, if wo leave out Standard Ilf., only 54.5 per cent of the number presented pass in Standards VI., V., and IV., then a fair idea of the condition of the school is arrived at. Had we gone according to the strict letter cf the regulations, the percentage gained would not have been so large. Thus in' Standard IV. we have not counted the arithmetic “ a class failure,” though we were fairly entitled to do so, {fwc

had been strict in our interpretation of the regulations, 47 children would have been failed out of 51 presented. If the sums set had been of supreme difficulty, or if the children had been unduly hurried, there would be found reasonable complaint against the examiners, and sufficient excuse for the children; but if the sums set were of ordinary difficulty, if every legitimate explanation was allowed, and if the children were granted more time than is usually allotted, then we submit that the blame rests on other than the examiners’ shoulders. Upon whom then does the blame lie, and on whom does the responsibility lie for the disgraceful condition of this Standard ? We answer that primarily the teacher is responsible, but further we assert that the headmaster mmt share the responsibility. The teacher of the class is responsible to the headmaster for its progress, while he, being responsible to his Committee for that, and every class, ought to take steps to ascertain at stated periods the exact state of advancement of each child. If he fails to do so, or doing so is unable to judge correctly, or carelessly allows the class to proceed to new work before mastering the old, then it rests very largely with others to decide on the merits of the case. We now come to the condition of the classes under the immediate teaching of the headmaster, viz, Standards VI. and V. In Standard VI, reading, writing, and spelling are the only good subjects ; arithmetic is a complete failure, and the grammar is bad indeed for the Standard; geography and history are moderate. In Standard V the reading in many instances is of an inferior character, the writing in a number of cases is rather below the average. In arithmetic there are nine failures out of thirteen children presented ; in grammar there are 8 failures; in geography and history rather better work was handed in. The above is “ the hard logic of facts.” Having drawn attention to the very unsatisfactory condition of three of the standards, we further state that Standard 111, though comparatively better than the others mentioned, is not well up in its work generally. We now leave conclusions to be drawn by others from the facts we have stated.

The infant school was very much overcrowded at the time of our visit, and thus the children were somewhat restless. Very fair progress has been made by the children. In most of the classes reading, spelling and writing are very good. The arithmetic of the upper classes would have been creditable in Standard I.

Sewing was in many instances far above the common run of the work in other schools.

Drawing, singing and science are taught. Mr Orr said he thought the explanation framed by the master was a highly satisfactory one, and would doubtless prove so to the Board.

Mr Craighead moved—“ That the Committee are of opinion that the tone of the report is somewhat stronger than the circumstances warrant, and that the Inspec-

tors have drawn conclusions which are not borne out by the facts of the case.” He said that he believed the Board would be prepared to take an impartial view of the matter, and it would be well that an expression of opinion in reference to the Inspectors’ report should be chronicled. From the records they had before them it was evident that the master had periodically examined and tested the different classes, and the results were recorded with precision and care. These resillts were almost identical with those revealed by the Inspectors’ examination. This fact was known to at least one of the Inspectors, and it was not a little strange that those gentlemen should now impugn the master’s powers of judgment. Mr Craighead referred at soma length to the present and preceding report, to show that some Standards referred to unfavorably in the former had made unmistakeablo progress since last year, when they were either commended nr passed as fairly satisfactory. Mr Zouch seconded the motion, which, on being put, was carried unanimously. The Committee having agreed to a report for presentation to the annual meeting (Monday, 2Sth instant), thh proceedings terminated.

Presented ... 2 13 Si 60 55 55 236 Passed 0 3 33 40 53 50 179 Average age 14.1 12.9 11. .5 10. 2 9.6 Percent of sue-