The Reporter.

Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 680, 6 February 1894, Page 3

The Reporter.

Town School Committee. Monthly meeting held Thursday evening. Present : Messrs Flower (Chairman), Lochhead, Mclnnes, Mills, and Renner; Mr Maxton after the Committee had sat for over an hour.

Leave of absence was granted Mr Boyens. Acceptance of J. 11. Sandford’s tender at £l2 14s for various school repairs was formally reported. Master's report showed 167 on roll ; 75'3 average. Highest attendance 139.

Notice of motion given by Mr Maxton lapsed in his absence, no one else taking it up. The Committee then proceeded to investigate a complaint made by Mr Goodall that his daughter, and others, had been ‘ thrashed unnecessarily.’ (This was afterwards stated to mean * undeservedly/) The hearing of the complaint, of witness in general support, and the defence, occupied over 2 hours. Mr Goodall said, while he had nothing personally against the Master, it was with reluctance he made the complaint, but he did so in the interests of defenceless children. He referred to a son of his having been beaten severely 2 years ago. He went to the Master about it, they bad a conversation, and the matter was patched tip. His daughter was in the latter part of November beaten for not doing a rhomboid properly, while she had not been taught to do it. Others were treated in the same way. He questioned the right of any Master to thrash girls, particularly those bordering on womanhood. He complained generally abont the Master’s treatment. Mr Borthwick appeared, sometimes, to deal out •Jedburgh’ justice to the pupils—punish them first and try them afterwards. In others, when he found out his mistake, he would, after beating them, say that the punishment would stand for next time. That was silly twaddle.

Mr Borthwick, in defence, said girls .had not been taught Geometrical Drawing since Sept 14, as the Minister ofEducation had determined girls need not be so taught. He called Miss McAra who confirmed his statement, and added that explanation of drawing lessons was given before pupils were asked to make the figures. Mr Borthwic ksubmitted the pupil's (C. Goodall’s) drawing book, in which the figure of a rhomboid was shewn, as drawn by her. Mrs Henderson, called by Mr Goodall, said her son had been beaten for not taking money for a book; she hadn’t any to give him. Mr Borthwick said the alleged beating did not take place ; children were never beaten for not bringing money, they were simply threatened. Miss M. McLauchlan and Mrs Sandford confirmed this, that children were not beaten for not bringing money. Mrs Henderson said that her boy had told her he was beaten for not taking 3d., and she could not get him to go back to school in consequence. Other parents complained of the same thing.

Mr Borthwick said the complaint was quite unfounded.

Mr Renner, while accepting the statements made by the Teachers, said that a number of parents were under the impression that their children were punished for not taking money for books, or other school requisites. The statements made by the Teachers would be published, and parents would then know the true state affairs. It was a fact, however, that children went to school in fear and trembling when they were unable to take with them the money required to pay for books, etc. Mr Goodall put m a letter from Mr Inglesby (who was unable to attend), complaining that his (Mr I’s) daughter had been beaten for being late when it was not the child’s fault, for not taking

money for books, and for not knowing lessons which she had not been properly instructed in. He considered such treatment ‘ barbarous,’ and had, io consequence, withdrawn the child. Mr Borthwick said Mr Inglesby was laboring under a misapprehension, through his daughter having misinformed him, the child being herself mistaken.

Mrs Sandford said the girl was careless about her work, and had, in consequence, been punished, but not unduly. Mr Borthwick said if pupils did not get books they could not keep pace with thoso who did, so that either some children’s progress would be retarded, or, on the other hand, teachers would have to remain in and teach those who were backward through not having had books. The Misses C. McAra and M. McLauchlan both testified that the child came late frequently, and was inattentive. Sometimes she would be kept in at play time to do lessons.

Mr Borthwick instanced failure of the pupil in memory lessons. He stated such were carefully gone over with pupils, two or three times. When pupils were lazy, careless or inattentive some form of punishment was necessary, but he had not inflicted such severely. In answer to questions, Mr Borthwick stated that a cane had not been used in the school for 2 years, only a leather strap (which he produced); that he had not kept children in from dinner; that he had punished some children for being late, which some were habitually. Late attendance by pupils disturbed the work of a class. Mrs Sandford, in answer to Mr Goodall, said that the Master had called her daughter a * liar,’ the girl having told a lie.

Mr Goodall remarked that that disagreed with his information. Mr Close, called by Mr Goodall, said, in answer to questions put by Mr Goodall and the Chairman, that he had taken his son away from the school, and sent him to the Kohai, owing to the boy complaining of harsh treatment. Whether it was so, or undeserved, he could not say. His little girl also complained of severe beating, but he did not know that it was so, or whether she merited punishment. He bore testimony to the fact that he had seen children dawnling along the road when they should have been in school. Mr Renner said that he had not assisted in the investigation as he otherwise would, owing to a recent decision of the Education Board really governing the Committee’s decision regarding the complaints made. The complainants and teachers having withdrawn, the Committee proceeded to consider the matters brought before them, and arrived at the following conclusion : The finding of the Committee, from the evidence given, is : Re Mr Goodall’s complaint:—That the two first charges, which occurred some time ago, had been explained by the Head Master to Mr Goodall, and the explanation had been accepted. That with regard to the two latter cases, about Novr. 29 : That the child's statement that she bad been punished for not knowing how to draw a rhomboid, never having been taught, appears incorrect; she had not been punished as stated, and she had been taught a rhomboid, as evidenced by her drawing book. That on the other occasion on which she was punished it doesnot seem clear to the Committee that any undue punishment was inflicted ; the term ‘ unnecessarily ’ as used by Mr Goodall being, as he said, intended to mean ‘ undeservedly.’ Re Mrs Henderson’s complaint: From the evidence of the teachers it appears that Isaac was not caned for not bringing money for a book. This tbe teachers state has never been done in the school. In the second case, which was investigated by three members of Committee at the school next morning, the child’s statement was entirely unsubstantiated, and his classmates knew nothing of the matter.

Re Mr Inglesby’s letter: As to caning for not bringing money for books, disposed of as above ; as to caning for being late ; and for not knowing lessons and master not teaching them : The Committee find, from the teacher's statements, that tbe child was habitually late, and was usually

kept in and occasionally caned (strapped). That she was careless, and inattentive to the instruction given. Mr Close stated : That owing to punishment, which he was not prepared to say was either severe or undeserved, his son did not care to come to School, so he had sent him to the Kohai School. That the punishment of his daughter he objected to, but here, also, he did not know that it was either severe or undeserved. The Committee then adjourned.