The Patea Mail. Established 1875. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1884. SCHOOL PRIZE DISTRIBUTION.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1136, 9 January 1884, Page 2

The Patea Mail. Established 1875. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1884. SCHOOL PRIZE DISTRIBUTION.

There wonld seem to bo very little doubt that a considerable amount of dissatisfaction exists in reference to the recent distribution of prizes at the High School. Throe different correspondents have used onr columns to express their views and each complains of partiality. Complaint No 1 was made by “ Pro Bono Publico,” who said that “ some of the children were to be scon walking away with two and throe prizes each, while others of the children, no doubt as well, and perhaps better deserving, had none.” There is nothing in the fact oi a pupil gaining two or three prizes if the prizes are awarded according to merit. But it is hero that our correspondents urge that something else was taken into account besides. Carelessness and favouritism are hinted at. Upon receipt of “ Pro Bono Pnblico’s ” letter, we made enquiries from the Head-master, and from him we gathered that prizes were awarded strictly according to merit. Wc stated that in a foot-note to the letter. “ Alpha” next writes that we have been “entirely misinformed with regard to prizes having been awarded according to the results of the Inspector’s Examination, as the reverse is the sole cause of so much dissatisfaction.” He then asks for a list of the children who received prizes, and the order of merit in which they were awarded, also the value of the different prizes of each standard, Mr J. Gibson, in onr last issue, joins with the two previous correspondents, and from his letter we learn that “ it is in the giving of these special prizes and their proportionate value that dissatisfaction has arisen.” It is obviously out of onr power, and indeed beyond our province, to furnish the different items of information required by onr several correspondents. In stating that the prizes were awarded according to merit, we alluded to the ordinary prizes for standards, and we had authority for saying so. We knew nothing about the “ special prizes.” That subject was not mentioned until brought forward by Mr Gibson. The proper course now will be for the School Committee to take up the subject and answer the statements made by our correspondents. It is due to the teachers that such should be done; it is due also to the public, and it is therefore a matter of duty on the part of the Committee. As it stands at present, there are some unpleasant reflections that require to be cleared off.