BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2380, 18 November 1881, Page 3

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

The ordinary fortnightly meeting of the North Canterbury Board of Education, was held yesterday, at the Normal Bohoo), at I3p. m. Present—Mr J. Inglis (chairman), Messrs W. Montgomery, A. H. Cunningham, H. W. Peryman, Geo. Booth, 0. 0. Bowen, H. B. Webb, Bev. O. Eraser. The business transacted by the chairman since last meeting was approved. A letter was read from the committee of the West Christchurch school in reference to the subject of the new scale of salaries. In reply to the request of the Board that the committee should state in writing the reasons given verbally by the members of the deputation who had waited upon the Board to urge a reduction in the scale, they stated that the request was of so unusual a character that they did not feel justified in oomnlying with it. They were still of opinion that a reconsideration of the scale was necessary. It was resolved to acknowledge the receipt of the letter. The chairman of the Wakanui school committee wrote, inquiring the reasons which influenced the Board in dismissing the master of the school, and calling attention to the section of the Act which provided that no dismissal should take place until the committee had been consulted. The chairman explained that the committee hod been informed of the reasons in a letter, of which they hod taken no notice. A letter was read from the committee of the Amberley school, stating that the master declined to apologise to the inspector as required by the Board. The committee desired to place on record their disapproval of the tone adopted by the inspector in bis memorandum, and to state that his remarks as to the arrangement of the desks did not apply, and that the word “ contumacious ” applied to the committee. A disposition to find fault was everywhere apparent in the inspector's report. The chairman stated that he had received a letter from the committee, which he had referred for a legal opinion as to the powers of the Board, in which they declined to make the required alteration in the arrangement of the desks. It would be for the Board to consider what course to take—whether to instantly dismiss the master or give him three months’ notice. The former course could only be adopted if the master’s conduct amounted to gross misbehavior within the meaning of the Act. At the request of Mr Montgomery the letter from the committee was read, which preceded the demand for an apology from the master. The committee in their letter stated that the visit of the inspector to the school on the occasion in question was ill-timed, and that he should have been accompanied by a member of the school committee. Mr Bowen said this remark showed at once that the latter were acting in an entire misconception of their position, and of the duties of the inspector. The intention of the Act was that an inspector should be able to enter a school at any moment for the purpose of inspection. After some discussion it was decided to refer the matter to the Board’s solicitor for his opinion as to whether under all the circumstances the conduct of the master constituted “ gross misbehaviour,” so as to justify his summary dismissal. After transacting some routine business the Board went into committee, and on resuming adjourned.