THE HIGH SCHOOLS' APPOINTMENTS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9606, 22 December 1896, Page 6

THE HIGH SCHOOLS' APPOINTMENTS.

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS. At the ordinary meeting of the Canterbury College Board of Governors yesterday, the College Committee recommended—(l) That the responsibility for the future appointments and dismissals of teachers at the Girls' and also at the Boys' High School shall be vested _n the Lady Principal and the Head Master respectively, provided that any teacher dismissed shall have the right of appeal to the Board of Governors ; (2) that the Medical School Reserves Account be charged a portion of Professor Dendy's salary to the extent of two hundred pounds sterling (£200) per annum. A letter was read from the Lady Principal of the Girls' High School on the subject of Clause 1. His Lordship the Bishop moved the adoption of clause 1. It seemed to him that there were a great many faults in the system by which the Board made the appointments. It was a difficult thing to appoint under teachers in any schools of the kind, and the members of the Board were not experts in the matter, though they knew a good deal between the lot of them. They either had to work without reference to the head master or mistress, or in concert with them. Even if they allowed these to have a voice in the matter, the members could not divc-t themselves of their responsibilities, and each must act on his own judgment, which might be adverse to the opinion of the headmaster or mistress. In almost all cases it was absolutely impossible for tho head teacher to come before the Board and tell all he knew about a teacher, yet it was many of these little matters of detail which were important. In the present instance the Board had acted in the usual way, and the Committee recommended a certain teacher. When the matter came before the Board members voted according to their judgment, and they were justified in doing so. They did not hear thai the teacher outside the school possessed qualifications above those possessed by the teacher in the lower part of the school, and in fact there appeared to be no reason why the teacher in the lower portion of the school should not be promoted. He knew that in business it was advisable to promote, but it was not always advisable to apply tho principle to a school. Then a Board like their's was not able to make a choice of a teacher without showing bias either in favour of or against the applicant. Concerning the proposal of the College Committee he read, as applying to it, the following extract from the English School Enquiry Commissioners' Report of 1868:— " It would be possible to give the appointment of all assistant masters to the trustees, and give the control and dismissal to the head master, but there is good 'reason for giving him the appointment also. It is not merely a question whether the trustees or the master would appoint best ? that would depend on the judgment of the particular person for the time being, and in neither case hitherto has the welfare of the school been always the first consideration. The head master is not always bold enough to appoint one better or stronger than himself. The trustees, even if they are careful in their selection of a headmaster, sometimes look upon the inferior appointments as pieces of patronage, in the bestowal of which they may gratify feelings of personal liking or pity. But if the master has not the appointment and control of his assistants it is impossible to hold him responsible for the good conduct and teaching of the school." The last clause of that extract was very important ■ the head master or mistress was held responsible for the conduct of the school. His feeling was that the present system was bad, but it appeared to him that / holding the master or mistress responsible for the conduct of the school was the only way in which the system could be properly carried out. When he came here the present system prevailed at the school "over the way," Christ's College. The appointments were with the governing body, but now tho appointments and dismissals were vested in the head master, with manifest advantage to the school. ("Question.") He moved the clause. . In answer to the Hon. E. C. J. Stevens, The Chairman said that neither the head master nor the head mistress had been consulted on the proposal. ,Mr Wbstknra seconded the motion. ~' The Rev. Gordon Wkbster said he dissented from the proposal on several grounds. He had first the strongest idea that it was a wide departure from the use and wont of every public school in New Zealand, and to show that where chere were Girls and Boys' High Schools in the colony the administration was the same as that of the Canterbury College Board "he read letters from Dr. Brown, a Governor at Dunedin, Rev. Mr Paterson, a Governor at Wellington, and the Secretary of the Nelson Board. ' These were a complete answer to his Lordship's remarks concerning the institution •'over the way," as he called Christ's College, and he (the Rev. Mr Webster) pointed out that the system as explained by the Bishop only obtained in Anglican Bchpols, which were in a sense not public schools. He did not believe the Bishop could state the case ot a public school in Christendom that had the system as proposed by the Committee. As to the question of bias there was a difference between the bias of an individual and the bias of the individual members of the Board. In the latter case the bias of one would be set off by the bias of the other, and more justice was likely to be done. The Board had recommended itself by the faultlessness of its appointments, and among their teachers there were prohibitionists and members of "Our Father's Church," all of whojn were good teachers. He would like to. iask if those would remain were the proposed principle adopted ? He doubted it. ■Then as a purely abstract question he could not countenance it under the circumstances in which it had arisen. If it meant anything it meant that a grave error had been committed by Mrs Foster and the majority of the Committee, and because the Board corrected that error it was now to allow opportunity for such errors to be committed in the future. There was a beautiful inconsistency about the matter, and if i the proposal were carried it would allow of Miss Stevenson being put out and Miss Gibson put in. Then aa to the matter of authority in the school, he considered the position would be worse under the proviso of appeal than under the present system. Were the proposal carried the Board would justify all that had been said outside in the way of agitating for what was called a "reform'* of "the Board. He never approved of it, and he had full confidence in the Board, and in nothing more than in the matter of appointments. The Hon. W. Montgomkrt took the same view as the Rev. Mr Webster, and also pointed out that they could not under Act of Parliament do such a thing as was proposed. He, however, would not argue on that point, but on the injurious effect it would have on the teachers and on the schools. He held it were better to give such power to no man or individual in connection with public institutions. (Hear, hear.) He explained how such authority vested in a single individual might be injurious, and instanced the manner of the appointments of teachers under the North Canterbury Education Board as a most satisfactory one. The proposal if carried would strike a blow at the teachers which would be injurious to the institutionsMr J. L. Scott said he thoroughly endorsed all that had fallen from the Rev. Mr Webster. Mr Stringer said he was opposed to the proposal, as he believed it would be thoroughly re-actionary if not absolutely revolutionary. He wonld also say that he had S,i ~B tel ' •"* though she wanted her £^-_!_Y lefinod * h J> didnot W what the _' - -K^. BU £K_ *? d Bhe "id that if there «-*y lault in .the prvwm. system the ___________ :Xl'.

proposal would aggravate it ten-fold. The fact of the matter was that the proposal had been brought forward purely out of pique by s.me members of the College Committee on account of what had taken place at a previous meeting. (Hear, hear and "No.") He contended that there was little merit in the .proposal. He spoke strongly on the fact that a great deal of what the fioard did in Committee got talked about outside, and that should not be so. (Applause.) He considered that the Rev. Mr Webster had demolished the Bishop's arguments. Mr Malet suggested that as a majority of the Board ware evidently not prepared to adopt the proposal, the Bishop should withdraw it, and h>> also suggested that something should be done to pub a stop to the system of ci.nv_-.ing of members by candidate, and candidates' friends. While the Board were evidently not prepared to accept the Committee's recommendation, he thought the Committee should take the matter into further consideration, with a view of bringing about a better state of things in connection with the appointment of under teachers to the schools in question. In answer to Mr Beetham,

The Cha-KMA-v said that he knew of no similar case to the present where the recommendation of the Lady Principal and Committee had been ignored. Mr Ciirystali. said he believed a similar thing happened in Mrs McMillan Brown's time.

Mr Wkstxv supported the proposal, and expressed regret that Mr Stringer should have given expression to words that some members of the Committee had moved the proposal out of pique. He did not think his friend could be serious in saying that of gentlemen who were entrusted with the partial management of the institution, especially as the parties concerned were strangers to them. Personally, he was there to do his duty, and he gave members credit for the same thing. His LoiiDSHrr said that as he had been asked to withdraw the motion, and that seemed to be the best thing to do, he would not press it to the vote. Should he have again to do so he would vote on the appointment as he had previously done, but at the same time he recognised that no doubt Mrs Foster had some reasons for the recommendation she made. It was that which made him feel that the system was faulty. Then so far as acting from a feeling of "pique" he pointed out that he voted for Miss Stevenson. Of course it was absurd, and he did not for a moment think that Mr Stringer meant his colleagues were moved by "pique." The position was a very difficult one, and it was very hard that Mrs Foster should be over-ridden in the matter. It appeared to him that the teacher could not have the same confidence in the Board's confidence of her, and she would feel a little aggrieved. A man would, no doubt, feel equally aggrieved.

Mr Strtnorr said that if anything he had said seemed to reflect on the members of the Committee, he wished to withdraw the remarks. His Lordship obtained leave of the Board, and the motion was withdrawn. The second clause was referred to the Estates and Finance Committee.