SCHOOL CHILDREN’S PROTECTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 114, 23 May 1901, Page 3

SCHOOL CHILDREN’S PROTECTION.

■— (To the Editor.) y IKi —I was su. prised nfc Mr Bull’s poov attempt to disprove that he did no punish mv boy Cyril on Monday. I still challenge him to say he did not, and speak the truth. I was informed before the boy returned that he would bo punished, in spite of the excuse sent of his inability 10 attend. It seems strange how teachers elude complaints made by parents and children. Surely some of the parents and children speak the truth; or do only the teachers ? , . As for the Committee bemg my proper course. I did not seek redress; but only to expose what I hold is the harsh nature of the teachers. Besides, Mr Bull might still refuse to show the punishment record, as he has already done. The fear Mr Bull has for publicity of his conduct is clearly shown in his letter, by his objecting to the press as a medium to ventilate our grievances. I have, surely, a free hand as to how I shall make my complaint of public teachers —who aro our servants, not our masters as they would like to be—when they return a polite excuse asking further and fuller reasons of children’s absence. I maintain they have no right to ask parents’ private reasons, some of which, if thoy were given truth, teachers would think were sent in offence. (Experience.) He has also had the audacity to send me word that if I sgnt the boy back to school' lie would send him home agam, because I did not complain through the pet Committee, which I was sorry to see defeated' good men who spoke their If you were to kick my dog I should be inclined to return it. Why should I not have a stronger feeling and retaliate when mv son is' hurt ? —I am, etc., W. Hr. Clayton.