THE BOWATER CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1564, 15 June 1916, Page 3

THE BOWATER CASE.

The Teacher’s’ Appellate Court: upheld the appeal of Air Bowater, headmaster of the Gonville School, Wanganui, against, his transfer by the Wanganui Education Board to Queen’s Park, with costs against the Board. In giving judgment for the appellant, Air A. L. Beattie dissenting, Alagistrate Kerr, in reply to Air Pirani, said the. Court had considered the point he raised that, the Court should not interfere with the powers given in section 71, which stated “if it appeared in the opinion of the Board that the efficient conduct of a school” necessitated the transfer, the Board was justified, and the majority concluded that it the weight of evidence was equal the Board should be supported, but the weight of evidence was on the side of Bowater.

The following editorial article appeared in yesterday morning’s Wanganui Chronicle : Now that the Court’s judgment has been announced in (he appeal of Air C. 11. Bowater against, the decision of the Wanganui Education Board to transfer him to Queen’s Park, it is of some importance to the welfare of education to consider what the result cannot fail to be. In the first place, it is advisable to sum up the grounds upon which the action of the Board was based. Attention was apparently first drawn to Air Bowater by the system of classification and promotion adopted by the Board. In tin l official list, Air Bowater was actually lower down than any other teacher in the same grade of schools, and yet his salary was going up by leaps and hounds owing to the accidental aggregation of population in Gonville, while efficient were l either at, a standstill or were dropping in salary. A (dose examination of his record —the classification list —showed that the Inspectorial stall agreed that he was not eligible either for a higher classification or of being placed on the promotion list, and this led to an inquiry as to the advisability ot placing him in a smaller school without any diminution of salary. It is clearly the paramount duty of the Board to make the efficient conduct of a school its Hist coiimderaliun — it is the right of the pupils attending a school to have the beneld ol the best available teacher, and should the Board fail in that duty, then it has betrayed the trust reposed in it. There are two parts of the Act dealing with teachers who are in schools beyond their powers of control : If a teacher is unlit or inefficient, a Board has power to dismiss or disrate him; if a teacher does not control a school efficiently, it Board has power to transfer him. It was under the latter power “that it appeared, in the opinion of the Board, that the efficient conduct of the school" required it. that the Board acted. After the decision had been given by the Court yesterday, Air Pirani asked Mr Kerr if he would state the ruling in regard to that point, and the only reason vouchsafed was that “the weight of evidence was in favour of Mr Bowater." He did not explain ulmt that meant ; but if it meant that the evidence of those in the best position to know showed that the school was conducted efficiently by Mr Bowater. then the two members of the Committee who favoured it (Mr Kerr and Mr llogben), will, we think, tind many to disagree with them, 'fake the points brought: out in evidence ; Mr Bowater allowed his admission register lo be in an extraordinary inefficient condition ; he did not draw up schemes of work for the school as a whole ; he did not test the markings of the pupils’ work at the annual examinations or make the promotions from class to class ; he took no steps to appoint monitors for certain work suggested by the inspectors ; for three years he made no advance in his own (-lass schemes of work ; he did not take advantage of (lie breadth op the syllabus to substitute improved methods ; no scholarships or literary competitions wore won by his scholars ; no pupil-teachers or probationers were drawn from the pupils of Gonville school ; no school librarv was established at Gonville, and Mr Bowater had'never approached the Board on. the subject; and frequent complaints made by inspectors to Air Bowater and noted in their notebooks were ignored year after year. Senior Inspector Strong, the only expert in a posi(iou to speak positively as to All Bowater’s work, and a Government, not a Board, official, was most emphatic in the witness-box. Shortly summarised, he put it, that in the public interest, in the interest ol the pupils, and in the inteiesl ol education, (he transfer was necessary ; that even in a school ot 300 it was doubtful whether Air Bowater had the necessary knack, ability force of character, power, and initiative to manage such a, school as it ought to be managed ; that his weakness as a headmaster ran through his school record ; that although he was admittedly a good class teacher, he could not successfully carry out his work as a headteacher at Gonville ; and that the promotion resulting from his retention at Gonville wijs not merited by his work. Not a single one of these contentions was effectively controverted by Air Bowater’,s side. Indeed, both Air Grundy and Air Jackson laid down principles to be followed in a large school which Air Bowater had neglected, and the witnesses one must fall back on to believe the dictum of Air Kerr about the weight of evidence were, those whose opinions would surely not be generally' accepted as of value as against those, of ap. admitted export. The paramount consideration

by which the Court ought to have been guided was the efficiency of the school and the welfare of the children, as affected by the transfer which the Board deemed it its duty to make. In other words, which of the two teachers was the better (|ualilted to conduct the particular school efficiently? It must be borne in mind that no attempt whatever was made to suggest that Air Bowater was tin inefficient teacher. In its essence it was a question of; the relative value of two men for a particular position, in the tilling of which to Ihe best advantage the educational welfare of a very largo number of children was involved. From the purely personal and sentimental aspect, our sympathy would naturely incline towards Mr Bowater, whom we regard as -an estimable citizen and an earnest and conscientious member of his profession. But this is a matter in which the public interest mnst come before personal or sentimental considerations, and, therefore, while we sympathise with Mr Bowaler in the trying ordeal through which he has been forced to pass, we feel bound to say that in our opinion, the decision of the Court was not in accordance with the weight of expert evidence, and that its effect upon the conduct of public schools of the Dominion may prove prejudi-cial-to the best interests of the community. If the judgment of the Court is to stand, it will be impossible for any Education Board to transfer a teacher unless his deficiencies are so grave as to justify his dismissal, and the influence on the education system must be detrimental in (‘very way. If the powers of the Boards ai’e to be curtailed in (his way, then (he initiation of a Dominion system of promotion and transfer of teachers, without any right of appeal, will be welcomed by (he community even if it proves unpopular to the leaching profession.