THE SHIRLEY SCHOOL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21974, 24 December 1936, Page 8

THE SHIRLEY SCHOOL

TO TH« EDITO» OF THB PKB3S. Sir, —Mr Bradley is annoyed because he has not been able to get his own way with the Shirley School Committee, and has now carried the innuendoes used by him in committee meetings to the public press. He will no doubt admit that he was the only member who refused to see the necessity for the action taken by the executive, this action being endorsed by the committee. He also agreed to the interviewing of the nine finalists, the method of selection by secret ballot with two scrutineers, the appointment of the selected applicant, and the reading and confirmation of the minutes of both meetings. Had the late caretaker been appointed Mr Bradley and his followers would have raised no outcry at all, but because their man was rejected they have made most improper suggestions against the honesty and integrity of the members of the committee who dared to exercise their right to vote for whatever caretaker they choose. Let him ask the members of the committee why they did not vote for his candidate. Perhaps Mr Bradley does not know that a member of the committee (not the chairman) has had seyen years' experience on school committees; and another member five years. Neither the chairman nor any member of the committee has contravened the Education Act. Not one word of the schedule of duties has been altered. The committee approved the calling for applications, and the chairman was not the one who claimed that the system of balloting was the only one used by the board. That method was used when the caretaker of another school was appointed, and a member of this committee was also a member of the committee making that appointment. Mr Bradley's lack of knowledge of school committee work is so colossal that he finds it necessary to bring a copy of the Education Act to the committee meetings and even then cannot read the act correctly. His last paragraph says that "It was indeed refreshing to know that a large number of householders' take a live interest in the welfare of the school," but is was distressing to know that such canvassing was necessary to ensure the attendance of people not entitled to be present. We are wondering why Mr Bradley joined the committee at all. In conclusion, we would state that we have provided the school with an apparently efficient caretaker, and the improved state of the grounds and outbuildings has been commented on. but if in doing this honourably and honestly we have unfortunately incurred the displeasure of a section of the householders, we must be prepared to accept adverse votes at the annual meeting of householders, but. we would ask them to be patient and give the new order a fair and impartial trial, and we can assure them that the interests of the school and the welfare of the pupils will be our first care, and wc have no desire to enter into personalities.—Yours, etc., S. J. GEARY (Chairman). J. McKINLEY (Treasurer) B. WILSON. F. LANDERY. W. F. A. TURNER (Secretary). A. JOHNSON, Members of the Shirley School Committee. December 23, 1936. TO THB EDITOR OF THE THESS. Sir,—The Shirley householders held a meeting to investigate the apparent injustice of the caretaker's dismissal, and two conflicting reasons were given to justify the committee's action. First the secretary said that the dismissal was made on grounds of economy—the committee was afraid it might have to find £2O a week for the wages of Us four caretakers. If that is really the

general opinion of the committee, its members cannot lay claim to a very great measure of intelligence. The Labour Government has done some generous thing, but so far has not done anything quite as absurd as enforcing a wage of £5 a week for one hour's work a day—and that is the extent of one caretaker's employment. Second, the chairman said the dismissal was effected on grounds of inefficiency. Yet he adduced no evidence before the committee. The minutebook, according to a statement made at the meeting and not denied by the chairman, contains no record of any complaint against the caretaker during the period of the present committee's tenure. Moreover, the people who know most about the caretaker's work, the staff, both past and present, were emphatic in attesting the caretaker's efficiency and general suitability. That a committee of rational, level headed business men should ignore common sense on the one hand and the opinion of experts on the other is unbelievable. What is the real explanation? —Yours, etc., B. FAIR. December 23, 1936.