Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1880. MR HULKE'S CHARGES AGAINST INSPECTOR FOULIS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 90, 6 July 1880, Page 2

Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1880. MR HULKE'S CHARGES AGAINST INSPECTOR FOULIS.

» • ' •- — The prominence which has recently been given to the subject is, we are sure, sufficient apoligy for our directing public attention to several phases of the jaatter indicated in our heading. And the first question is, had Mr Hulke any right to bring the charges at all? To this we reply, undoubtedly he had. The Wanganui Chronicle dissents from this view, in these words : ' He (Mr Hulke) might with propriety have beon informed that his duty was not to endeavour to piok holes in the Inspector's Report, . or to teach other ■ men, including the Board, their ditty, but to do his own, aithe Catechism says, in that state of life to which it had pleased God to call him. The principle underlying the above sentence is, that no ' subordinate should find fault with his superior. A gore false . or pernicious, doctrine it would be impossible to holt ,To adopt it would be to stifle all enquiry as to the conduct of Government officials, and to permit the most monstrous iniquities to remain unearthed. A system of espionage, is to be • de-r tested by every honorably-minded man, but when a schoolmaster sees evidence of carelessness and- incompetence in the Inspector's official conduct, and positive misstatements in his report (for upon these matters as a rule the schoolmaster is the only person in a position to know), and when that master makes those charges pilUicly, and is willing to substantiate them, —instead of being hounded down he is to be commended as a man who is willing to do an unpleasant duty, even at tbe risk of being a "marked man." If. the people of New Zealand had more subordinate officials with the courage ajid inflexibility that Mr Hulke pos.sesses, our Civil Service would not be in its present rotten state, and thousands of pounds would every year be saved to the country. With a singular inconsistency, the Wanganui Chronicle lays down a principle, and then flatly contradicts himself, for a few lines .further down we ' find . this sentence: In the event of his (Mr Hulke) being dis satisfiedjtfith anything which the Inspec,' did in oo^ 9 |nti OJ|^tVAafc.p VlS h l ular seat of learning, (Foxton School) he should in a friendly and not hostile manner have drawn that gentleman's attention to the •auae of complaint. If that oaurw proved

TOsncoessfnl, he should, we. think, have jralPWllie^chool Committee, _nd left, it to^them to* Jake what steps appeared ?to< them right. . How that quotation can bft> reconciled with the previous one is. a mystery to us. In one sentence Mr Hulke is told his duty is shut his eyes to everything but teaching his school, in the next his duty is deolared to be to coi_pMn first to the Inspector himself of *his conduct, and if no satisfaction is obtained carry the enquiry further ! We can fancy what the Inspector's reply to the complaint would be.

We will now deal as briefly as possible with the charges made by Mr Hulk© against the Inspector. Our readers have already seen in this journal a list of those charges, and so far from considering them "frivolous" or " trifling " (as some members of the Board called them), we regard them as of such importance as to make it absolutely necessary the Inspector should be at once dismissed, provided the charges were fully proven. But were they proved ? The Board considers they were not, — on what grounds it would be impossible to say. We venture to think, how-, ever, that very few. who dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and calmly read the evidence published in the Wanganui papers, will endorse the verdict of the Board. The reasons for that opinion, we will now give. The first charge — that . Mr Foulis gave arithmetical questions not permitted by the regulations— was admitted, but he explained that' they were given* as extra - questions. Not only was there Mr Hulke's assertion in support of the charge, but one of the scholars — a girl aged 18—asserted in the most positive terms that Mr Foulis said " if they worked that sum alone it would -pull them through."

The second charge was that' Mr Foulis asked a class to name *• three rivers flowing through Asia into

the White Sea." This also was admitted, and the Inspector again "explained" that he put it as a negative question ! But unfortunately for this explanation, no one seemed to take that view of the question until Mr Foulis explained it so to the Board Not one of the children in the class, nor the master-, nor any one else in the room regarded it as a "catch" question, nor did the lnspector explain it in that tvay at the time. Mr Stewart, who was present, says in a letter, " With the exception df the White Sea question so- often referred to, I considered the Inspector's geography questions perfectly fair and intelligible." We repeat that no one who was present .at the examination regarded it as a negative question, and that had it been so intended Mr Foulis should and would have explained it so at the time. We omit reference to the third charge. The fourth charge was to the effect that Mr Foulis' pronunciation of common English words was such that children could not understand him. We think Mr Hulke made a great mistake in bringing this before the Board, not because he had not a good case, but because the Board were not competent to pass a judgment upon the question. No one who remembered the large proportion of Scotchmen, who are on the Board, would expect them to condemn Mr Foulis for those eccentricities of speech which stamp him at once as from the " land of brown heath and shaggy wood." By a quibble the proofs of this charge were not permitted to be laid before the Board. It would have been far better if Mr Foulis had fought the matter .out on its merits, rather than take advantage of an opportunity of quashing the evidence. We will plainly assert that the Inspector's pronunciation is most defective, and that children would find it most difficult to grasp his meaning readily on that account. This is a serious matter, inasmuch as a difficulty .in comprehending him readily would damage the children in his eyes, and by inference their teachers. In fact, tho. weakness of Mr Foiilisaa^thiß respect is notorious. - Would the Board think for one moment pf appointing as Inspector a ; gentleman with a strong French, or German, or Italian Accent ? Certainly not. Yet we are bold to say that numbers of foreigners whom we know in this Colony, who would never on account of their accent be elected Inspectors, pronounce the English language clearer and more correctly than does Mr Inspector Foulis. Tr.e Wanganui Chronicle devotes great pains to this particular matter of the Inspector's pronunciation, Lut begs the whole question by pointing to the Professors in the Otago University. The analogy does not hold. Mr Foulis deals with children, in many cajes of the most tender years ; the Scotch Professors deal with men, to whom the subject is the all-important question^. not/tjtesproiinnciatioii.i Besides, their excruciating pronunciation is regarded by - every educated Englishman as a blemish, 'which is compensated for ; in %ome degree, by the profundity of their learning. But to say that because a Scotch Professor, or divine who murders the English language is tolerated, therefore an Inspector of Schools who is similarly afflicted should be tolerated also, would be tantamount io_aying< tbat -because' a* Scotch Professor's manuscript is an execrable example of. caligraphy, therefore aa Inspector should be

tolerated who could not write his questions: legibly ! We repeat thyat tho /Board are not the persons to isy this question, and were- the InspectorGeneral (Mr- Habens) calle^dupon to give |an opinion we have little doubt his verdict would be that Mr Hulke's charge was well founded. The fifth charge was, " That slates were so carelessly marked that teachers were unable to pay any attention to the Inspector's classification or his judgment." In support of this charge Mr Hulke stated that after .last examination he found several oi* the slates on which the sums were "right, "marked "Wrong," and others on which the sums were wrong marked "Right." Affidavits were put in signed by two well-known settlers of Foxton, who had seen the slates,, and verified the assertions of Mr Hulke. Yet what was the reply to this most serious charge? That the children might have altered them after the Inspector had marked them. We are quite willing to believe that a boy whose sum was incorrect would in all probability alter it to make it tally with one wliich the Inspector had marked " right," even though he knew the alteration would 'be to him no benefit. But is it pro-bable'a--boy whose sum .was right, whose slate was marked "Right," would' alter it and make it wrong? Yet some of the slates marked " Right " by Inspector Foulis had incorrect sums upon them. We •can vouch for this, having been shown the slates by Mr Hulke immediately after he saw them. There is an utter absence of motive for a boy to make a sum "wrong " after it was marked " Right," so that even Mr Foulis' supposition that the scholars altered the slates after ha- had marked them does not apply to half the proof adduced in support of the charge. In fact, the matter resolves itself into this : 'either Mr Hulke wilfully, and frandently altered the slates (and he has made an affidavit he did not), or Mr Foulis made the mistake he is charged with having committed. The last charge is perhaps the most serious of all, viz., that Mr Foulis reported " The infants spelt and read fairly," whereas he did not examine one of them. In support of this charge . sworn affidavits by the two female teachers were laid before the Board. Strange to say, however, the assistant teacher (Miss' M'Phee) appeal's to have been desirous of " running with the hare and hunting with the hounds," for while giving an affidavit to Mr Hulke that the Inspector did not examine the infants, she forwarded a letter to Mr Foulis containing a most ingenious defence of his report. What drew forth this letter it would be interesting to know, as at present it is involved in mystery. Certainly it was a perfect Godsend for Mr Foulis, and should prove a great recommendation for the mistress of the Foxton School should she at any time desire the good offices of the Inspector. Miss M'Phee appears to have written to the effect that some children who were scheduled for the first standard and plucked should not have been presented; that the Inspector probably regarded these plucked children as infants, and reported accordingly ! This clever defence the 'cute Inspector at once brought to bear on the Board, and with it won the day. Still the fact remains that the infants were not examined. . The class waited all day without being examined, and though it may suit Mr Foulis' book -to say, " Oh, I examined some children who ought to have belonsred to the infant class," every truthful miud will regard this as a prevarication. If he had examined the infants, he would probably have bestowed far higher praise on the attainments of the infants than 'he did! To neglect an examination, 'and cover the neglect : with a generalism which may mean anything or nothing, is conduct that cannot be condoned in an Inspector. We wonder whether, on the same principle, Mr Foulis would take the- , children plucked for Standard IV. jts " types" of the Standard IH. children, and leave Standard 111. unexamined ? Yet that was what he did with the infants.. Besides, it is most, unfortunate for his theory that lie gave' Mr Sanson quite an opposite version some few months ago. Then he said he went into the infant school, picked out one here and there, and regarded them as " types." Which story are *we to believe?