DEFENCE OF MR ALGIE

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26126, 31 May 1950, Page 2

DEFENCE OF MR ALGIE

EDUCATION BOARDS’ CONFERENCE MR LAWRENCE REPLIES TO MR BOX Exception to a recent press statement by the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute (Mr J. Box) has been taken by the chairman of the Canterbury Education Board (Mr A. E. Lawrence). Mr Box, whose statement was printed by “The Press” last Thursday, criticised the Minister of Education . (Mr R. M. Algie) for calling a conference in Wellington of Education Board chairmen to discuss the boards’ problems. Replying to Mr Box. Mr Lawrence, who attended the Wellington conference, paid a tribute to Mr Algie for the encouragement he had given board representatives. Mr Lawrence said the Minister had been scrupulously careful in preparing the agenda for the conference. By his helpfulness, the Minister had won a promise of the whole-hearted co-operation of the boards. “Unworthy” Criticism “During the closing stages of the conference, regret was expressed by the delegates at the untimely and almost impudent criticism levelled at the Minister by Mr Box,” Mr Lawrence continued. “This criticism was given Dominion-wide publicity. The criticism was unworthy of the teaching profession, because the Minister had made it plain that he intended to obtain the views of all other interested bodies and organisations before he framed his educational policy. He is to call into other conferences representatives of the • New Zealand Educational Institute, the Dominion Federation of School Committees’ Associations, and the Parent-Teacher Associations. “The Minister, on his part, need make no apology or offer any defence, because his eminently sound decision to meet the chairmen of education boards was prompted by a desire to do so as a preliminary to the conference of the Education Boards’ Association, and members of boards gladly accepted a muchappreciated invitation. “Things have come to a pretty pass in New Zealand when responsible educational bodies, such as the Educational Institute, think it timely and in good taste to imagine falsely that they have the right to dictate to the Minister of Education. The regrettable outburst of Mr Box smacks of professional churlishness. Limits of Discussion “The Minister was meticulously careful to seek the views of education boards on board business, and even when Mr Algie sought the of boards on the product of the scnools, he was careful not to trespass on theprofessional sphere. All he asked under this heading was: ‘Have the boards felt impelled at any time to notice and consider public criticism of our system?’ The Minister made it plain that he had officers in his department who advised him on the professional side.” Mr Lawrence condemned the statement by Mr Box that “it would seem that Mr Algie has not yet consulted his own departmental officers.” This was refuted by the presence, at the Minister’s conference with the chairmen of the boards, of the senior officers of his department, namely the Acting-Director of Education (Mr D. G. Ball), the Assistant Director on the administration side (Mr E. G. S. Ellis), and the chief inspector of primary schools (Mr F. C. Lopdell). “It is only too obvious,” said Mr Lawrence, ‘That Mr Box has rushed into print with a statement that would be repudiated by a majority of the teachers on whose behalf-he was presumed to speak. The fullest apology for having spoken in haste and in ignorance is certainly due to the Min-