SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND EDUCATION BOARDS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 248, 14 July 1919, Page 6

SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND EDUCATION BOARDS

MR. PABKIKSON'S COMMENTS. •'Sir.-Your condensed report of my remarks to the Minister of Education as a member of Saturday's deputation trom the New Zealand Uducationa Institute nves a wrong impression of the purport of that part which referred to school committees. I found no fault with the committees, but with the bpards-tho ellinston, Canterbury, and Otago Boaub in particular. Wliat I Mid, in «« «» carefully weighed and reduced to.writm,, so that there could be no' misunderstanding, was:— , . . . . ■' "This unfortunate proviso (r« ernn £'? the section of the Act) tei been seized on by certain of tho boards- ho Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago Board, in particuh,-as a mean, of shirking thai responsibilities to the teaching btafe. and the pupils of the schools entrusted o their administration, and in doing so to defy both the letter and the spirit of the Act. In tho making of the more important appointments, nioro particularh to the of the larger schools,, it has become almost a general Pf ohce to send tirce names to. the «I>° O V O T,! tee, after tho preliminary step Has. ben taken of striking out the names of a applicants from other districts. No ll is possible that in very rare case ? llieic might bo some difficulty '« deciding between A and B, but that there should be A. B, and C to make a treble difficulty is hard to believe. And yet he* particular boards won d make it appear hat for nearly every important appointwent thero are jusl eadly three applicants that are » equal in gualihoa on» that tliev. cannot he separated. I he thing would bo'ridiculous it it were not that such important issues dopend on it. iue boards named seem to have-established a system of sending these three names to tho school committees, regardless of the clear mandate of the Act they are supposed to administer, and regardless of the welfare of the schools asd tho claims of justice in dealing with the teaching

stafF—for t-he system is totally desfcruo tivo of justice and is evoking a feeling of deep and bitter resentment amonj teachers. If the board, ' with its presumed knowledge of the teachers in its service, with recourse to the records in its own office and with the <dvice of the senior inspector at command, finds a difficulty in discriminating between candidates, how is the committee, which has none of these Uiings, to do it? There are varieties of experience to be taken into account, the value of testimonials no bo weighed, the mysteries of tin; grading scheme to be allowed tor, as we;i as other elements of which tho committee can have no knowledge. It is consequently at the mercy of tin; arts of the canvasser, who can put on any or all of these items whatever explanation will be most helpful to his friend among the three. Hence committees are deceived, to the injury of their own schools, and a fresh lease of life is given to the canvassing system, the very system that section 71 (li) was designed to remedy. The injury is not only to the particular school, but to the whole service, for it intensifies the spirit of dissatisfaction and discontent, the sense ol injustice that saps vitality and cripples energy. It is not too much to say that- the ixient to which the evil has developed in recent years constitutes an intolerable scandal, the exposure of which i -u longer be delayed." It will bo se';n from these remarks that I made no complaint against school i-ummiuces, which no doubt do the best • can under impossible conditions, but against the boards, whicii u'elibsrately ..ide.the duty placed upon them by the ■.-;.—l am, etc., •'■"CIXSOX, . Secretary, N.Z.E.I.