The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays) SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 1879.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 390, 11 January 1879, Page 2

The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays) SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 1879.

At a meeting of the Carlyle School Committee, held immediately after the examination of scholars l>y the Education Board Inspector (Mr R. Foods), a resolution was passed to the effect that ■the Education Board should be s:sked to .obtain ,t.he opinions of the various schoolmasters throughout the Education

District as to tlio inode in winch the Inspector had conducted the examina-; tions. The School Committees at Waverley and Kakaramea I'oilowed suit. Though a majority in each case were in favor, the Committees wore not unanimous as to the proposed action, and divisions were called for. On the letter of complaint from Wavcrley being road at the meeting of the Board at Wanganui, Mr W. AUlliann—as would bo seen by report which we reprinted from the Chronicle —suggested that an inquiry should bo bold, as from what ho had heard, there bad been very general complaint. The Inspector being present, while objecting to such general charges as those made by the W averley Committee, expressed himself ready to answer any question as to his method, and to explain any point which appeared obscure; and, as judged by the report, we are inclined to think the Inspector very satisfactorily disposed of all the objections, wo can hardly dignify them by the name of charges, which had been urged against him showing, indeed, that they were for the most part frivolous, and on points over which much wrath had been expended by misinformed Committee-men, and for which ho was deemed most deserving of censure, quite unjustifiable. Much, very much, was made of catch questions which the Inspector had put to school-children. He appears to have a notion that children should be taught to think, instead of, parrot-like, only to repeat by rote. For this reason, questions requiring the exorcise of but a very moderate amount of thought, wore put to the children. Almost without exception throughout the Educational District, children failed to give anything approaching to satisfactory replies. They had not been taught to think on the simplest matters of every day life. “ Scandalous, sir, that poor little children should have their hrains racked in this manner, and because they could not answer such haphazard and tom-fool questions, that they should be disgraced and their teachers brought to discredit. I say ibis scandalous that any Inspector should refuse to pass children because they could not answer his stupid catch questions.” So think some of the irate Committee-men, none of whom, unfortunately, were present at Carlyle or Kakaramea, to see, hear, and judge for themselves as to the questions put, the method, or the manner or bearing of the Inspector to teachers and scholars. Replying to this “charge,” the Inspector stated, “ That in no case had a child lost marks through a failure to answer catch questions. He strongly felt that in order to ensure real progress it was essential that children should be taught to think, and this had been his motive in patting what had been called catch questions, hut the answer to these had not affected the number of their marks one way or another. These were wholly determined by the replies to the printed questions. The examinations had been conducted on a definite plan, which had been adhered to in every case, as the returns would show.” This statement is very clear. At about two dozen schools within the Education District, the selfsame printed questions had been put. Other objections were met in an equally pointed way. On account of the heat shown about the examinations in certain quarters, we took the trouble to obtain copies of the printed questions, and from inquiry, cannot find that they are much objected to oven by the schoolmasters, and certainly for the respective standards they do not seem formidable. It is certain that very strong language was used in Carlyle and other school districts near, and the most foundationless statements made regarding the Inspector —all because the examinations had not proved so satisfactory in point of passes as had been expected. We can quite well understand that teachers—especially in the case of the Carlyle master, who had worked hard and beyond the usual hours to ensure good results—should feel cut up at the comparatively small success. It may bo this and other teachers over-estimated the mental strength of their pupils. It cannot be said that the results arc bad. They simply fall below expectations. And for this—and as was, wo think, very clearly shown by the remarks made by the Inspector at the last meeting of the Education Board, on totally incorrect grounds—Mr Fonlis was made the subject of most unfavorable comment. Favoritism was one of the charges made against the Inspector, when, as a matter of fact, he could scarcely know any of the children. The Rangitikci Advocate was strong in attack on what have since been proved to bo weak or altogether groundless points. One point which our contemporary made a special subject for ridicule and harsh remark was the marking of the schedules of the lower standards—the rod crosses signifying satisfactory, and the bine unsatisfactory results. A clearer manner of marking could scarcely be devised. Yet about two-thirds of a column of space was devoted to detailing the mental agony occasioned to a certain schoolmaster, who appears not to have known the meaning of the marks, and who was too timorous or independent, or too stupid to ask the simple question of what the marks meant. Though the results have in many cases been a surprise to parents, we do not hear of any case of Committee-men who have, attended the examinations being other than satisfied with the manner and capability of the Inspector for his work. It is much to be regretted that no Committee-men were present at the examinations lately held here. At Manntahi, where the Committee attended, the greatest satisfaction was expressed, not at the results of the examination, for in some respects these were disappointing, but at the manner of conducting the examination. It is a considerable point in the . Inspector’s favor that he has been solicitous for the attendance of members of School Committees, and has, we believe, been in

the habit of specially inviting them. We have no objection whatever to the Inspector being censured, and should ourselves readily do it on good and sufficient grounds, but we do strongly object to the reckless, unfounded, and unjust statements which have been made respecting him by those who have not seen him at his work. We wen* pleased with the manner in which Mr Fonlis set to work on first receiving the important appointment he now holds. His first efforts were directed to the improvement of school buildings, the object being' to ensure the healthiness, comfort, and thorough cleanliness of the children. By improving the schools and surroundings, he doubtless hoped to ensure the good physical condition of the children, and, as a consequence, mental strength and a purer moral atmosphere. The Inspector did not relax effort in this direction until schools throughout the whole district had been supplied with conveniences and appliances, and were sanatorilly placed on a far better footing than before known. We naturally sympathise with the teachers in the disappointment many have experienced at the late examinations. Such active supervision and such thoroughness in the work of inspection is not what they have been used to. It may be they know best, but wo incline to the opinion that Mr Fonlis, botli from natural aptitude, training, and past experience, and from the distinction he attained in the old country both as a teacher and Inspector, is the best judge of requirements, and what will ultimately prove best for children and teachers. New machinery cannot at once he expected to work smoothly. We think teachers should organize themselves. Unity is strength. They could then, without the need for special inquiries being hold, have their opinions properly represented to tiie Board, and would be in a position to meet the Inspector in a body, or by representatives, to discuss matters of mutual concern. At any future school examinations, we trust Committees and parents will attend, and judge for themselves, both of the examinations, the Teach u’s, and the Inspector. If faults lay with the Inspector, they will then be in a position to aid the teachers, who are deserving of support and encouragement to the fullest extent. Intelligent and just conclusions can only be formed by Committee-men and parents seeing and hearing for themselves.