SHIRLEY SCHOOL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21976, 28 December 1936, Page 3

SHIRLEY SCHOOL

TO THE EOITOE OF TBS PHIBS. Sir,—The letter inserted by the chairman and some members of the Shirley School Committee calls for a reply. Reasons of economy, we were told, were the grounds on which the caretaker and cleaners were dismissed. A wage of approximately £5 a week was asked for in the citation from the Caretakers’ Union to the employers; but the committee has been reminded that right against this figure was the statement that anyone working less than 20 hours a week would be classed as a casual; and that casuals would be paid at the rate of 2s fid an hour. Seeing that all except one would come under this category, I would suggest that the statement respecting a wage bill of £2O a week is a ridiculous farce. After the ballot an attempt was made to plug up this hole in the argument with a charge of inefficiency, which charge was in turn proved “leaky” as soon as it was examined at the householders’ meeting. Thus the committee’s action was entirely bereft of necessity or excuse. Hence to say that I “refused” to see the necessity of this action is likewise farcical. In reply to another statement I would say that we are not concerned whether the Education Board has one voting system or six; but the committee had been told that the board regards this system as distinctly unorthodox and inequitable. It would be more to the point if the members of the committee told us why it was that at a recent meeting, when, a committeeman was elected from three candidates, this system was not even mentioned and the first-past-the-post method was adopted. This was an unfortunate lapse; for we know that while one system is probably the best for voting a candidate “in,” the other is probably the best for voting a candidate “out." It would be found interesting if we were told the reason for the inclusion of the names of two members who were not on the committee when the caretaker was elected, and who consequently have no direct knowledge of what happened. Seeing that this is a committee of nine members, it is evident that two members in addition to myself have not signified their acceptance of this letter, which is a little remarkable in view of the fact that I have been fighting this matter on mv own in committee. I am reminded of the past experience of several members. A man is judged by his fruits rather than his experience and it is noticeable that no mention was' made of a previous knowledge of this method of ballot. If it is possible to transact the committee’s business between meetings without contravening the Education Act, I would like to knovy of it, even although this action is approved at a later date. I think it is high time that the chairman and his followers realised

that they are attempting to weave a rope of sand: that their statements are not only illogical but unsatisfying, and altogether unworthy of what householders have the right to expect from those occupying such a position.— Yours, etc.. J. BRADLEY, December 26, 1936. TO THE EDITOR Of THE PKI^S. Sir, —“Parent” is merely side-tick-ing the true cause for dissensions. Let him think for a while how he would like the same treatment as the former caretaker of Shirley School. Would he think it quite equitable? Perhaps not. In the first instance, the man’s wages were reduced and his duties increased. Lately, on his catching a burglar in the school, he was sent a letter of thanks by the committee; and a short time after that came the letter of dismissal. Evidently “Parent” does not believe in helping to bear the burdens of his fellow-men. Neither does he appear to believe in teaching his children justice in practice as well as theory. The comment, “After all it is the parents who are most interested in the school,” rs merely a veiled insinuation that those who have no children have no right to be interested in children’s schools. I would like to add in conclusion that our opponents at the meeting failed to prove in any respect that their action in dismissing the caretaker was justified.—Yours, etc., C. McKAY. December 26, 1936. x SO TU EDITOR Of TIB PBBII. Sir, —The statement issued by the Shirley School Committee is on a par with the exhibition of the chairman of the committee when endeavouring to justify its actions. The statement says; “Let Mr Bradley ask the members of the committee why they did not vote for his candidate.” This is a question which the public is constantly asking the committee and which still remains unanswered. Why not let us have those reasons. I attended that meeting, unbiased, and refrained from any comment until I had heard both sides. At the opening of the meeting the chairman moved that the meeting go into committee with a view to preventing publicity, stating that evidence which might be damaging to Mr Sams might be produced. The meeting wisely turned that resolution down, and we discovered that no statement damaging to Mr Sams was produced. On the other hand we had the statement of the previous headmaster that over a period of 10 years, Mr Sams was most efficient and courteous, and that he had never had one cause to complain. The present teaching staff stated that they had never met a more efficient and courteous caretaker; and like statements were made by members of past committees. The committee’s case was that on one occasion Mr Sams refused to do additional work without payment: i.e., cut the lawns and spread oil upon the floors. I asked the chairman of the committee whether he could advance any further reasons to justify the action of the committee and he could not do so. Now, from, I think, 134 applicants for a similar position, Mr Sams is selected, and I understand a second position has been offered him. Can anyone justify his dismissal on this evidence? The committee states that one member has seven years’ and another five years’ experience of school committee work. What if they had had 25 years’ experience? It is simply side-tracking the point, which is service on a committee exercising control over Mr Sams. The committee states also: “Not one word of the schedule of duties has been altered.” The schedule of duties could not be produced; so how can one alter anything that was apparently not in existence? Reference is made also to pebple not entitled to be .present, the inference being that, if some, were present, they influenced the meeting. This is a reflection upon the chairman. A more efficient, tolerant, and impartial exhibition of chairmanship one could not wish for. Only on one occasion was an attempt made to speak by one not entitled to, and he was promptly ruled out of order. After a statement that “Mr Bradley’s lack of knowledge of school committee work is so colossal” the committee goes on to say that it has no desire to enter into personalities. It is evident that the committee is not prepared to right a wrong which is so obvious. Therefore I respectfully suggest to Mr Geary that he resign his position and offer himself again as a candidate for re-election against a nominee of. the householders. —Yours, etc., C. E. COLLINS. December 24, 1936. TO THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir, —It was interesting reading to find a letter this morning signed by the chairman and six members of the Shirley School Committee. First, I would ask, why did not the other three members sign the letter? Second, I find that one member whose signature appears has attended only one meeting and another member was only elected at the last committee meeting, and so far has not been present at a meeting this year. So much for that. Mr Bradley is to be commended for his action. It is unfortunate that the other members of the committee have not followed his example. Fancy the committee talking about it being distressing to canvass the people to attend the householders’ meeting! Was not that warranted? The meeting to be held early in January will be well advertised, so that the householders will have every opportunity of attending We are not questioning the ability of the present caretaker; but we are very much concerned over the dismissal of Mr Sams, and if it is humanly possible we are going to see that the committee’s error of judgment is righted. Yours, etc., * HOUSEHOLDER. December 24, 1936.