The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4214, 4 July 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1882.

A short time ago we learned by telegraph that the Board of Education at Dunedin had dismissed a teacher, Mr Farnie, for writing to the local press relative to matters educational, mkL commenting more particularly on the appointment to an assistant inspectorship of a Mr Goyen. a gentleman unconnected with the teaching staff—but, what apparently was much more important, having the higher qaalifi. cation of being brother-in-law to the Secretary of the Board. Mr Farnie's annonymous letter condemned the appointment, and the indefatigable secretary, filled with brotherly lore, sallied forth to ferret out the assailant of his family ties, and satisfied himself that Mr Farnie was the foe. The machinery of Board was speedily set in motion, and Mr Farnie was challenged with the authorship. He at once acknowledged the fact, and maintained that he had a right to take part in the discussion of any question of public interest. Of course the Board could not regard this as other than a breach of discipline—no kicking against the goad could possibly be allowed by that august body—and Mr Farnie had to go. But there is a power even stronger than the Board of Education—the force public opinion. Meetings hare been held relative to the matter, and many of the leading men of Otago bare condemned in weighty terms the action of the Board. Our logical contemporary, the New Zealand. Herald, writes :—" He was no doubt guilty of imprudence in attacking his superior officers in the columns of a news* paper, even under the cover of anonymity," and then goes on to show that such letter could not have been detrimental to the spirit of discipline. Now, it either was or was not judicious, and w« contend that it was, and further that if Mr Farnie had subscribed his own name to the letter it would have been both justifiable and judicious. A prevailing opinion notwithstanding, we hold that the teachers are justified in criticising publicly the action of the Board or its officers with regard to any* thing that affects themselves. The Board of Education is not the master of the teachers, it is merely the instrument by which the public education of the colony is carried on. The teacher owes no allegiance to the Board individually or collectively except in its capacity of administrator. And yet the functions of the Board are moot important, and too often the working of its affairs is left to the Secretary and In*

spectors. It seems as if the Secretaryship to some of these Boards is a most potent if not all powerful position, and the holder of the office a sort of demisemi j»od. It is said that the salary voted is by no means the pole source of income per ; taining to the office of secretary to Boards, i we have heard of, but frequently handsome additions accrue in the shape of commissions. Speaking more specifically, while we hare no general admiration for Messrs Goldieand Laishley—regarding the first as one who delights in the generally cantankerous role, and the latter as a notoriety' hunter, —we are fain to confess that they have done good work in checking the march of officialdom in the Auckland Board. We take it that, while the teachers are bound to obey the regulations (many of them rery absurd) laid down by their superiors, they are quite at liberty to criticise them. Who should hare a better knowledge of education or teaching than those whose business it is, and to whom it is bread and butter. And to carry our argument still further, who should be better qualified to inspect that one who has won his spurs as! a teacher ? On such grounds we say the objection raised by Mr Farnie was both judicious and justifiable. The teachers ought to be encouraged to aim for the highest possible laurels, and an Inspectorship should bo the crown of honor. They would be much more practical than university men, who are well versed in everything except what the children of the common schools require. If anything were needed to show the unfilness of this class of persons, who hare had noexperience as teachers, and probably would be utter failures when it came to the humdrum of imparting knowledge to little boys and girls, for the office of Inspector or examiner, tbe style of questions, puzzling, far-fetched, and 4 unpractical, given to teachers and scholars, in the examination papers is ample demonstration. The Inspectors under this Board, so far as we can learn, are both competent and popular.