SELECTION OF HEAD TEACHER.— A REPLY.

Kumara Times, Issue 1558, 24 September 1881, Page 2

SELECTION OF HEAD TEACHER.— A REPLY.

[to the editor.] Sir —ln your issue of the 20th inst., you published a letter from a Mr M‘Carthy, of Grey mouth, in which he misrepresents not only his own Victorian career, but also takes the liberty to misrepresent mine. As the public have his version, it can only be fair that they should also have mine, and I therefore take the liberty, with your kind permission, to correct some of his gross misrepresentations. The purport of his letter is to make it appear that his professional status and and qualifications in Victoria are vastly superior to mine, and that in the selection of a teacher for Kumara he should have had the preference. I will, therefore, endeavour to show that neither his professional status nor qualifications are superior, and in point of fact quite the other way. I began my career in Victoria, in 1865, as a pupil teacher, and in 1869 passed the examination for Second Certificate of Competency. In 1874 I passed the literary portion of the examination for First Corticate of Competency, and in the following year completed the practical portion. Subsequently I supplemented these qualifications by passing in additional “ Optional Subjects,” and resigned in August 1879, after a service of 14 years. Mr M‘Car thy was not trained as a teacher, but was simply coached to pass the examination for Second Certificate, which he says he did in 1866, and only obtained his First Certificate eight years afterwards, by passing the same “searching examination” that I did, and in the very same year. In 1870 he left, after a service (according to his own showing) of 10 years. By a good rule in the Victorian Education Department, those who have been trained as Pupil Teachers obtain the preference when appointments are made. You see, therefore, that I am not only his senior in the service, but have also the decided advantage of a thorough training for the profession, from youth upwards, having been both Pupil Teacher and Assistant Teacher, under competent instructors, and have, besides, additional qualifications to that of First Certificate of Competency under the department. I most emphatically deny ever having had a “ License to Teach and, in proof of the above statement, I send yon herewith for your perusal my certificates, testimonials, Ac. (originals, not copies). The statement that he (Mr M‘Carthy) was qualified to assume the management of a school of “1000,” while I was only entitled to assume the management of one “ under

75,” though possessing superior qualiications, is too absurd for comment. Mr M'Carthy says that in 1870 he was “promoted” to Sandhurst, and in 1872 “further promoted” to Timor. The word “promoted” is altogether mislead l ing. In those days—the old Denoinina'tional days—there was no such thing iii Victoria as promotion. The selection of a teacher was entirely in the hands Of the local bodies, who appointed whom they pleased, irrespective of qualifications or professional status. The abuse of this power of selection was so great that it Resulted from 1873 in the other extreme, viz.,, that all voice in the Selection of a teacher was taken from the local bodies—the appointments being entirely in the hands of the Minister of Education. After 1873 we do not hear of Mr M‘Carthy’s “ further promotion.” His highly successful career appears. to have ceased when “ promotion ” was the only road upwards ; and now alas! we find this (according to his own showing) profes l sioiial genius languishing in an inferior position-, from which he would willingly extricate himself ; and to get out of it, is quite willing to accept a School with axi average of only about 100 ! I certainly came to New Zealand to better my posi l tioil, though not from a school of only “ 35 ” as he states, and not to accept an in l ferior position ; and was told on leaving that at any future time I could again be employed under the Victorian Depart l ment; and further, that Department pet 1 mitted “ reference ” to them as to char l acter and abilities. Can Mr McCarthy say the same 1.. He says that he holds no New Zealand classification, because he is hot an officer under the Act; but that if he were, his “ equivalent classification would be Dl.” That is,. of course, according to his own estimate of his qualifications ; but it is quite possible that the Inspector-General might not estimate his (M‘Carthy’s) quali l fications as highly as he himself does. I recently saw a copy of Mr M'Oarfhy’s testimonials purporting to be signed by “John Main, M.A.,” “Inspector of Schools, Victoria.” lam not aware that there was an Inspector in the service of the Victorian Education Department who signed himself as John Main, “M.A.” ' In conclusion, 1 have to express my deep regret at having to-trouble you with this reply ; but as Mr McCarthy has, without the slightest provocation on my. part, made a most unwarrantable attack on my professional status in Victoria, apparently to aggrandize himself and in* jure a stranger, I feel reluctantly compelled to place the facts of the case before the public, so that they may judge foi* themselves ; at the same time Testing as* sured that such despicable conduct to in* jure a quite unworthy of any gentleman—must in due time meet with its own reward.—Yours Very truly, , ' E. ; tJ.'JusE. ■ Stafford, September 22, 1881. ' [Further correspondence on this subject is declined.— Ed. K.T.]