EDUCATION BOARD AND TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16154, 7 March 1918, Page 9

EDUCATION BOARD AND TEACHERS.

TO TIJE EDITOR .01? "THE TRESS."

Sir, —Permit me to reply to the letters of Mr Andrews and Mr Hamilton, which appeared in your issue of the 20th of last month. . Mr Andrews quoted the Education Act (some other fellow quotes Scripture at times), bus lie forgot to toil your readers how ho drives a: coach and four through its provisions. It is the administration of the Act by the.Bgard that is bein;c found fault with, buE- this and other important questions at issue between the Board and the Institute would occupy too much of your space just now. They will be dealt with in the near future on the public platform, when I hope the jnembers of the Board will be present. The letters, so full of inconsistencies and misrepresentations, supply ample evidence to prove that, in the matter of appointments, both the letter and spirit of the Act are being evaded; and. in spite of what Mr Hamilton says, I contend that neither the Teachers' Court of Appeal nor tie ordinary legal tribunals can afford any redress.

Mi- Andrews upon more than one occasion has conaescendcd to make a personal attack upon mc, and by so doing has committed a breach of faith. When_ the deputation waited upon the Appointments Committee, of which ho is the chairman, it was informed that anything said would be treated as confidential. What has his committee to say when its chairman breaks this promise ? "When the Board confirmed the appointment to which he refers, 'the_ matter was ended, yet ho •trios .to hide his own and his committee's bungling by taking an unfair advantage of a position which no fairminded person could discuss in the. public Press; because while serving no good purpose, such a course might tend to inflict injury upon others. He takes good care hot to attack tho householders and tho committee who tool; an active part in the agitation, perhaps because they have votes in the election of members of the Board. Even his attack upon me might hava been excused, had he stated the facts. ;He says I headed a deputation, when in reality the School Committee appointed the deputation, and requested me to accompany it in my official capacity. His insinuation that the appointment did not suit me is a most unworthy one, for I made it clear at the meeting that I had no personal interest whatever in the appointment, as I, was resigning my position in the school. Equally untrue is his suggestion that I wanted someone else ; and at variance with his previous statement that I said take any other name on the list. It was the School Committee and the deputation that suggested another applicant, and when he asked me for my advice, I informed him. that it was the Board's duty to make the appointment and shoulder $he responsibility. Mr Andrews asks, "Did qualifications enter into the matter?" Yes, certainly; particularly that elusive one so much belauded by some members of the Board—personality. Lastly, Le charges me with saying that members of the Board were no judges of persona litv. "What I did say was, that thev could not judge the personality of teachers they did not know. In *11 important appointment now under consideration, the names of three applicants have been submitted to ;he School Committee, two from Canterbury and one from Auckland. "Will Mr Andrews tell us how be judged the personality of the Auckland candidate? Was it not from the reDorts of the inspectors as summed up in '.be j grading list? The teaching service is j a national one, and if the appointments are to be national, the Board's knowledge of personality must be counted out. Its- knowledge of the teachers even in our district is but very limited, and therefore tends to make for merely parochial appointments. The grading list is an attempt to eliminate past abuses and - injustices, and to make the appointments national. Some members of -the Board complain that they had no voice in tho drawing np of the grading list, but they overlook the fact that other Boards had lists of their own drawn up, and that these, when tested, proved highly satisfactory, while our Board declined to prepare one, thus opposing a very necessary and important reform. They now complain beoause "someone else had to do, it for them.

Mr Hamilton again indulges in n cheap sneer J when ho hopes the

teachers iviJl make a trifip choice of those they appoint to ex} their views. i hope so. too; but if TT'e teachers peruse his letters they wj«l linrdly b,. likely-to seek his advic-e. He and other members Uiy great strv-s upon the rights of the ;/-?ople, householders. etc., yet when twese Ihrouch their repiesentatives lay 'I jofore them their views, and ask them to tau? inti> Lonj-ideration sornes very exception.?] ci'eui'ist.inces, thfjy are turned down. Evidentlv Mmse "members cnlv attcml to the public's wishes when it '-mts tiirir p-irrose- -dr -Andrews himself knew all nbr.ivit the special circumstances <if this pnrt;cular case, nnd if a ''real* 7 consult* .tion with the inspectors had taken pi: ice. the crisir. could have be»-n avoids I._ .now blames the grading fist, the inspectors, tlie headmaster, and bin himself. I agree with 3lr Anarews= when j'e ? avs that we want a more intense lorai goVernnn nt to stiinuiat-2 iha.l; local.interest which- means life and vigour !'> our fechoois. and T. hope he also '.vui agrt;o with me "chat- to a-t{*iin. this cud. it" will first be necessary to get n-.i of *he ivd tnpr and ihe diy-rot ii eihorN of auiorrratH- Hoards, who, instead or lead lit?, have oppo: ed every effort at educational rcior/n. —lours, etc..

r.. U. .TI'ST. Headmaster lyVttcitoni D.H.fe March sth.