School Suspension, Expulsion Issue

Press, Volume C, Issue 29600, 24 August 1961, Page 21

School Suspension, Expulsion Issue

The Christchurch Post-p-imary Schools’ Council will a?k the Secondary School Boards' Association next week to give urgent consideration to new provione in the Education Amendment Bill about jusension and expulsion of . jpils It considers that the Riccarton Hi# School board has made a sufficient cise against any change to v.arrant national considers:.on. The Riccarton board's chairman (Professor H. R Gray) gave his opinion on be implications of the -,ange In a memorandum to • :e council on Tuesday evening. Present powers were effec- ‘ vely contained in the ■aodard scheme of control >r secondary schools, pro* - ssor Ofay said. In part •his said: “The principal f tall be supreme over discipline and may suspend from . .tendance any pupil, re- : orting his action to the board at its next meeting and the action of the prinpal shall hold good until lie board has come to some determination in regard to •he matter. He shall not expel any pupil without the sanction of the board.” In practice! said Professor Gray, •he principal worked closely with the senior inspector on •he future of any such pupil, but these arrangements were informal.

It was now proposed to lay down a detailed code of procedure for such cases. Professor Gray said, but this varied the powers of the principal and board as follows: New Code The principal could suspend a pupil for one week only and within that time the matter must be referred to the board or a member nominated by the board for the purpose. Suspension could be extended beyond one week onlv with the concurrence of the board or its nominated member. There was no power to expel a pupil under 15 years of age. Effectively the discretions are removed from the principal and in practice they are vested in the senior insnector,” said Professor Gray. “I can see no good reason for varying the present law and practice.” Associate Professor A. H Hay said the Riccarton board thought the matter should be discussed by next week’s conference end sought the council's agreement to this course, even if members did not agree with the whole of the memorandum. (Extracts only are reported). Although most members

Mid they would prefer time r* ®P n « ia «r the issue. Mrs A. J- McDonald (Linwood) said she thought that the present possibility of a pupil being *W«ided for nearly a month until the board met waa undesirable. It kept the pupil in suspense too long, and by then the case could be so old that- the board became just a rubber stamp. "Net Dumped” At present it was possible » expel a pupil under 18. Mid Mrs F. O. Bennett. She could see the point of delaying such action until the leaving age had been passed, but in practice a responsible principal and a responsible board might well arrange for such a young pupil to be transferred more happily to some other school “Pupils are not dumped, whatever they may have done,” said Mrs Bennett. The amendment could reduce the present local opportunities for such adjustments. "Our experience is that the present act on this question has worked well” said the chairman (Mr W J Cartwright). "Riccarton believes that breaking up undesirable associations Can often solve these problem cases.” said Professor Flay. "The local headmaster and board will know cases much more intimately that the senior inspector,” said Mrs C. H. Perkins. "There are two fundamental issues here.” said M' - Duncan Mackay. “One is that the amendment seeks to interfere with a job being well done by the schools, and the other is that the amendment seeks to transfer from the local to the central educational authority an important responsibility. Nothing that reduces the autonomy of the local boards should be condoned.” Mr C. E. Fenwick also supported the present general rules, but suggested that special schools should be available to help pupils who could not be satisfactorily settled elsewhere. He thought a conference debate would be valuable.