South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2458, 3 February 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1881.

The annual election of members to fill the three vacancies in the South Canterbury Board of Education is about to take place, and it will be for the School Committees of the district to consider -whether the present Board sufficiently approaches a state of perfection to render the introduction of a slight change of composition undesirable. There are several important questions upon which the new Committees would do well to exercise their deliberative ingenuity before recording their votes. The members that retire by effluxion of time are Mr H. Belfield (Chairman of the Board), the Hev G. Barclay, of Geraldine, and Mr Howell. Next to the secretary, who is de facto the leader of the choir, these three gentlemen have been active and industrious to a degree that would be eminently praiseworthy, that is, presuming the doings of the Board arc worthy of approbation. That at least some of the Committees approve of the Board’s transactions is sufficiently indicated by the circumstance that these three retiring members have been nominated for re-elec-tion. There are nine new candidates besides, so that the Committees can hardly grumble on the score of a restricted choice. It is patent that one of the first things which ought to be determined is the question of new blood. Is it desirable that the three old members should be returned to their seats, or would a slight change be likely to prove advantageous ? The Committees are brought face to face with three of the most active members of the late Board, and no stone will be left unturned to secure their re-election. If they are restored to their old places the event will be hailed as an unmistakeable manifestation of general confidence in the old Board, and an expression of sympathy with their proceedings. The forthcoming election therefore involves most

important issues. Personally Messrs I Belfield, Barclay, and Howell, may be most estimable gentlemen, but in determining their right to re-election the Committees on this occasion will only act with prudence if they cast ihdividnalties behind them, and weigh the merits and demerits of the candidates by the estimate that they place upon the Board’s transactions in the past. As a guide to the Committees we will endeavor to indicate some of the questions that, in our opinion, might conveniently be entertained. Has the South Canterbury Board of Education in the past been an unqualified success ? As a distributing body has it treated every portion of the district -with equal justice ? Have the members of the Board displayed the efficiency, determination, and independence which is expected from a public body responsible only to its constituents—the community? Have they led the way when difficulties have arisen, or have they been contented to be driven ? Have they, unconsciously perhaps, been automatons, and are they now like toys out of gear, entirely at the disposal of their official manipulator ? What about the Board’s repeated attempts to cut down expenses, and make both ends meet ? Are arbitrary interferences with the allowances to Committees, alterations in the code of remuneration, and periodical reductions in the teaching staff of schools designed to attract competent teachers to South Canterbury, or to contribute to the peace of mind and contentment of present servants ? is an autocratic and cavalier bearing towards School Committees, or a disregard of the plainly worded provisions of the Education Act relative to the appointment of teachers, calculated to promote that spirit of harmony which ought to subsist between Committee and Board, but which in South Canterbury is unfortunately absent. Can the action of the Board in attempting to force a female teacher on the Waimatc School Committee, and standing obdurately in the way of a fair and free selection, he designated a successful stroke of policy ? Is the Board’s resolution of March last, construing the Timaru High School—an institution independent of the State—to be a public school, with the object of enabling its pupils to compete for pnblic scholarships, an exemplification of efficiency, or an example of moral obliquity ? Does it redound to the credit of the Board that, after sleeping over a wrong - doing for nearly twelve months, at the eleventh hour, after the spurs have been' vigorously applied to the School Committees backed up by the householders, one of their own members should denounce their resolution as illegal and illogical, and then that the members in a sudden fit of virtuous repentance should unanimously resolve to rescind it ? Is it desirable that School Committees should constantly require to act the part of Vigilance Committees in order to prevent the funds that the State has placed at their disposal from being misapplied ?

If the School Committees of South Canterbury can answer these questions in the affirmative, then they will be justified in recording a renewal of their confidence in the Board by re-electing the three retiring members. If the answer is in the negative, their duty will be to take due precautions against the re-admission of the old leaven. It is much to be regretted that the choice of new candidates is so large as almost to ensure the return of the old members by a small but compact. corner of the district in which they have their stronghold. If the majority are divided, their votes will probably be so distributed that they will go to waste, and their object—that of imparting new blood to the present Board and breaking up the family circle—will be defeated. A good deal has been said about the defective way in which the election of members is carried out, the towns, with their large populations, being fairly out-voted by the country Committees, but one of the chief reasons, we imagine, why the different parts of the district are not fairly represented, is the want of organisation, or anything approaching unanimity. If the district could be split up into, say, three divisions, and each of these was enabled to return a member annually, something like fair representation on the Board might be anticipated. Under the present system, a little nest of insignificant schools has only to combine to be able to defeat the choice of the rest of the district. We trust that the Committes will do what they can to defeat these tactics. They have old tacticians to deal with, and the time and opportunity for arranging concerted action is so limited as to place them at a great disadvantage. If, however, by prompt action, three candidates out of the nine new ones—men of the right stamp who would be likely to bring about necessary reforms in the Board —could be decided upon, and the Committees generally resolved not to divide their votes, but to waive all personal friendships and influences in the desire to promote the educational wellbeing of South Canterbury, something might possibly yet be done to turn the tables on the three old hats whose hopes are, doubtless, centered on Geraldine.