TEACHERS v. PARENTS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 74, 20 March 1908, Page 3

TEACHERS v. PARENTS.

— $- - [BY l. le gallais.J

Teachers versus Parents ! Here is indeed a paradox, and one that is essentially harmful. It is " the house divided against itself," for the relation of parents to their children is to a great extent educational. Jt were ; perhaps better to say teachers versus j teachers, for then the pernicious na- ; ture of the case is more readily per- i ccived. ! In how few districts docs one find \ the teachers and parents agreeing as < they should. The fault may be on j either side. In most cases it is on j both: but the result is determinate, j and the injury falls on the children. j One in authority is useful only on | condition that those under him have j faith in his efficiency. Without this : faith no merit or effort on the part of the leader can be of much service. It is the same with the teacher. If j the pupils believe in him his useful- ! ness. is at a maximum; but if they have no faith all his efforts will be j fruitless. The school will be a place ; of tyranny ; for obedience will have ; to be obtained by force, and ' the fellowship between teacher and pupils be supplanted by a sullen submission. It must be plain to all that this state of affairs is undesirable—that at all costs it must be avoided if pupils are to profit much by attending ; schools. Parents cannot be expected ' to believe in every teacher that they j may meet. This would be absurd. ; for if the teacher was inefficient it ! would be folly to expect the parents j to support him. But surely all fathers and mothers could be expected to keep their complaints for the teacher, I and not cry them loudly in ears of | their children. This is a common i mistake which does much to hinder ! the. progress of the young. By way j of example I will state a conversation j I had with a gentleman holding a responsible position in Auckland, i His little daughter was present, and I I asked how she got on at school. , Before the father could answer the J child called her teacher a pig, and in- , formed me that she was about to leave the school as her teacher did not get her on well. The father then made some most disparaging remarks about the teacher, all of which the child seemed delighted to hear. I happened to know the teacher in question, and if long service and good certificate stand for anything parents should rejoice that their offspring were in such good charge. No doubt the child did not get on. How could she ? The teacher was powerless, for her authority was gone. The father, for purely personal reasons, did not like the teacher, and perhaps, in justice, could not be expected to tolerate her; but, while his child was under her, his discretion should have shown him that he was making bad worse by abusing the teacher in the presence of his child. Here lies the key to mitigate this evil. Let parents fight with the teacher if they wish, but they should advocate him and respect him when the children are near. In truth a teacher often has a trying time, Mrs Jones says he must be gentle with her little Freddie, who wears a lace collar and has a face like a saint. But this same little angel is as peevish and self-willed as it is possible for a child to become in eight or ten years foolish training. Mrs Jones complains if her child docs not progress and she warms up if he is chastised. What can a teacher do but take a professional view of the case, enforce obedience, and defy the anger of the parent, Again, there is Mr Brown, whose children never obey at home. The teacher calls in to see Mr Brown in the evening. Mr Brown would like his children to go to bed ; but his little cherubs absolutely refuse to do so. They are threatened with the shoe. Mrs Brown then offers them some cake if they will go, and the children sit up another hour or so, accept the cake, and go to bed. The next da)'. Tom gets a thrashing at school for insubordination, and the morning following the teacher gets a letter from Mr Brown complaining that he cannot have his boys caned at school. In cases like the above the discipline of the school must clash with the parents desires, for implicit obedience must be insisted on at school, while in the home it is often I very lax. Everytime disobedience is : allowed, or a child bribed with cakes or sweets bad habits are encouraged, which must be eradicated in the schoolroom. We have so far looked at only one side of the question. Let us now see where the teachers are often at fault. In the first place teachers should be as fair as possible with the pupils. Before punishment they should sec that the child thoroughly understands why he is chastised. Boys have a very keen sense of justice and readily detect any unfairness. They will carry their troubles home, _ and, through oft repeating them, will at last gain a hearing from their parents. If the parent send a note of complaint it should be received courteously and should be well considered. Teachers would do well never to treat a complaint lightly. Let them remember that they are dealing with the strongest of all the passions- the love of the parent for the child. In true motherly and fatherly love parents must be jealous of their children. If they are sometimes suspicious of harm befalling them it is but the manifestation of an instinct implanted by the Creator for the good of his creatures. Let teachers remember this and readily forgive interferences from those who are anxious for the wcllfare of their offspring. Through refusing \o quarrel much harm aini unpleasantness may be prevented, and the authority and. respect of the teacher maintained. In some cases complications may arise, making \t beyond human endurance to quietly submit. If quarrels must come, at all costs keep them from the ears of the children, for it too often happens that while the elders are squabbling the education of their children is irreparably neglected.