EAST CHRISTCHURCH SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2173, 11 February 1881, Page 3

EAST CHRISTCHURCH SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

The committee met last Tuesday evening. All the members present. Correspondence relating to the appointments of head mistress (Miss A. Gresham), second and assistant masters, was submitted. The chairman reported that ho had allowed the use of the Bingsland schoolhouse to the Avon Road Board for an election. It was decided to make a definite charge to cover cost of extra cleaning for the future. The chairman further reported that he had forwarded the resignations of Miss L. M. Allison and Miss O. A. Harvey to the Educational Board. The chairman’s action was approved. It was decided to recommend Miss A. Spence to_ the appointment to be vacated by Miss Allison. Mieses A. Keand and Eliza Carey were nominated as pupil teachers. There being still one vacancy for a lady pupil teacher, the secretary was authorised to advertise for one. Mr B. W. Austin, of Wellington, appointed second master at the main school, wrote, stating he would be able to assume his duties on Monday, March 7th. The committee voted for Messrs J. Inglis, G. Booth, and H. W, Peryman to fill the ordinary vacancies on the Education Board, and for the Rev. H. O. M. Watson (their chairman) for the extraordinary vacancy. It was decided to recommend the head master to give Mr Wykesmith, lately transferred to the Bingsland Side School, a testimonial of efficiency, the inspector having reported favorably on his work for the past year. On the motion of Mr T. S. Weston, seconded by Mr Thompson, the secretary was instructed to write to the chairman of the Hokitika and Timarn School Committees, to ascertain what rate, if any, they charged the children attending their schoo’s for stationery, and what percentage of parents paid the charge. Sub-committees to attend to matters of detail in connection with the main and side schools were appointed, and other matters of routine were dealt with. The chairman then submitted a statement in reply to that of the chairman of the Education Board, which was approved by the committee, and ordered to be forwarded to the Board. The statement was as follows : The statement cf the Chairman of the Board of Elocation respecting the difference between thq Board and the East Christchurch school committee is only a partial account of the matter in dispute, to which, and to which alone my remarks at the meeting of householders were directed. The statement says— *' The Board replied, to the committee’s recommendations, that the second master should be a teacher of superior qualifications . . and that_ the second mistress could not bo dispensed with.” The whole matter of the dispute is wrapped up in the last sentence. To this I referred when replying to Mr Leslie Lee, os reported in the “ Lyttelton Times." The chairman thought that it was not so much a question of economy, as of the Board’s wishing to carry out their own arrangements in preference to those of the committee ; and, further, in reply to Mr Cogan’s question plained of ?” —I stated that I was in Melbourne during the time that it was proposed, and could not answer the questioo, but that Mr Farr, who was acting chairman, was present and could probably tell the meeting ; bat that, whoever proposed the reduction, the Board was responsible for it, as it was forced upon the committee by the refusal of the Board to carry cut the course recommended by the committee. In all my remarks I kept to one point—the refusal of the Board to sanction the arrangement which the committee recommended. The following extracts from correspondence bear upon the point:—l. In March last the Board stated “ the addition of a he -d mistress will necessitate the removal of one of theteachers now employed,” and they recommend the removal of one of the teachers receiving -£IOO a year, and the reduction of the second mistress’ salary to £l2O ; or the dismissal of the third master. Letter of March 23rd. 2. In September the committee, after consultation with the head-roaster, wrote thus to the Board: — “After mature deliberation the committee has coma to the conclusion that neither of the courses suggested in your letter as above will be satisfactory, it therefore recommends that the ‘acting head-mistress receive four months’ notice, from Ist October, that her services will no longer bo required, in consequence of a rearrangement of the main school staff. The committee will be quite free then to appoint a lady of higher qualifications.” Letter Sept. 29th. 3. The Board wrote deferring consideration of the committee’s recommendation. Letter October £hh. 4. The committee replied urging the Board to consider the committee’s recommendation, and to forward their decision without loss of time. Letter October 19th. 5. The Board finally declined to carry out the recommendation of the committee, on the plea that if the acting mistress’ services were r’ispen ed with the girls’ department would be left with but two teachers. Letter October 25th. The headmaster’s memo, upon this letter is that “ the girls’ department will," under the case supposed, “have four, or practically five, teachers.” 6. In view of this statement the committee replied, “the committee hive fully considered the recommendation contained in your letter of 23rd Match last. They are nevertheless fally of opinion, based mainly upon a strong recommendation of the head master, that the interests of the school would be best served by their own recommendations being given effect to, and would urge the Board to rc-consider the matter with a view to sanctioning the same.” —Letter, Nov. 2. 7. A sub-committee was appointed to confer with the Board, and that sub-committee, after conferring . with several members of the Hoard, reported—” That the Board were firm in their determination to retain the services of the acting head'mistress.” 3 hese facts should have been made public in the chairman’s statement ; but Mr Inglis was, liks myself, in Melbourne daring a portion of the time that the matter was under consideration, and when it was finally determined by the Board be was not probably aware of the strong attitude taken up by the Board in respect to the committee’s recommendation. The Board’s account of the particular reduction made is correct. It originated in a recommendation from the head master, was excepted by the committee, and approved by the Board. I did not know this until after I saw the chairman’s statement in the daily papers. Had ! known it I need hardly say that I should not have permitted the meeting to assume that the reduction was proposed by the Board of {Education. I certainly left the meeting with the impression—and it was the general impression of those present—that the Board had proposed the particular redaction complained of. But the point that I urged s not affected by this fact. The Board proposed

reduction in one lorm —viz , me removm of the third muster; the_ coo. mittee (it seems, acting under the advice of the headmaster) proposed reduction in another form Sly point is that the committee took this course be ause the Hoard insisted uoon carrying out heir own arrangements, viz , the retention of '.be acting head*mistress in preference to that which the committee recommended, viz., the removal of the acting head mistress to make mom for a head mistress qualified adequately to fill the post. Surely the most natural course to par us. In conclusion, I would add that what I asked for in the case of our own committe, I ask for in the interest of every committee in the colony—liber'y to manage their own affairs within these limits which are imposed by kindness and fairness to all concerned. If it is desired to secure a good class of men to act upon the various school committees, and to increase their efficiency, they must be permitted to exercise a greater power than the Board s>em disposed to allow. This was the point emphasized in my speech at the annual meeting, and one which received the hearty approval of those present. . H. C. M. Watsqn, Chairman, The meeting then adjourned,