Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1879.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 384, 2 April 1879, Page 2

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1879.

THE MOUNT OddK SCHOOL DISPUTE. ■■ ■■ » Probably the decision of the Education Board in reference to the Mount Cook squabble,, while perhaps the. beat course under the peauliar circumstances of the case, will have the usual effect of half measures — to satisfy nobody. It is much to be regretted that such a public scandal as this dispute and investigation should have been allowed to arise at all, and its occurrence certainly points to a serious lack, of proper organisation and discipline in regard to the Board's' teaching staff, especially when viewed in association with the dispute which also has arisen in the other Mount Cook school, and which the Board's organising oflfroer, the Inspector, professes himself unable to settle. The squabble between Mr. Eyaaiss and the Misses M'GOWAK is in itself a very trumpery affair, in whioh both sides- seem to have been more or less blameable. The dispute between Mrs. Tjlbn and Miss Divbkbui is, p,er §c, equally trumpery. They assume a serious complexion, however, when jit is considered what the condition of organisation and discipline must be, under which their occurrence becomes possible in such a shape as to demand special Board meetings and public investigations. It is quite clear that such a state of things could not exist under a proper system of management. Had the Muses M'Gowan been given plainly to understand that as Mr. Evebiss was the head master of the school- in whioh they were assistants, they must consider themselves subordinate to him, it is probable that they would have exhibited more deference to his wishes and intentions, and consequently the unpleasant relations which form the subject of 'the present difficulty would not have arisen. Similarly the difference between Mrs. Tabu and Miss Djjvereux appears to have been caused entirely by the* inspector's reluctance to part with some of his personal authority by placing either of those two ladies in the superior position ; henoe' he 'teems to have led Mrs. Tabn to believe that she was head mistress,, and indeed to haye intended her to hold; that position, ft the same time he apparently allowed Miss DkyerStj'x to suppose that she held an equal poaitwa with Mra. Tass as joint head mistress.- > Thus 1 whue Mrs. Takn justly considered heHelf the head mistress of the complete school establishment, Miss Dbvkreui claimed to be independent £e«d' mistress of *he lower

school, and not in any way subordinate to Mrs. Tabn or responsible to her, but only to the Inspector himself. Similarly it is impossible to peruse carefully the verbote and rather funny documents relative to the quarrel between Mr. Evbbiss and the Misses M'Gowan without deriving the impression that the assistant-teachers evidently deemed themselves wholly irresponsible to their immediate superior, the head-master of the school, and accountable for their conduct only to the Inspector. That such a feeling has been fostered in many instances— intentionally or otherwise— by the Inspector himself is perfectly plain from other cases which have come from time to time unpleasantly under the notice of, the public. . That of Mr. Doherty will at once BUggest itself to the memory of the public, some £600 or £700 of whose money has been thrown away as a penalty for this particular defect in our educational system, as administered by the present Inspector in his mnlttfariotis capacities as general factotum. It will be remembered that Mr. Dohx&ty -was unable to get his exact position defined, that he could never ascertain what was his real standing under the Board, and that at length he unfortunately waa aggravated into losing his temper, and giving the Inspector a handle against him, of which that officer was not slow to avail himself. It is characteristic that while Mr. Doherty was in favor, the Inspector always reported of his work in most glowingly favorable terms, in pointedly invidiouß contrast to his reckless and unqualified condemnation of Mr. Dohsbty's headmaster, Mr. Holmes, notwithstanding the 20 years' successful experience of the Utter gentleman, whereas since Mr. Dohx^ty has been out of favor no language appears too bitter for his denunciation by the Inspeotor, who has been unwise enough in his last report to state that Mr. Doheety's classes "had fallen back" under his tuition, apparently 1 oblivious of the gushing strains in which he had formerly chanted the (praises of Mr. Doherty in that same capacity and the value of his work. Mr. Doherty's merits, as we have said, were held up in pointed contrast to the alleged demerits of his immediate superior, whom Mr. Dohbbty was openly represented as being there to instruct in his duties. It is not surprising therefore 'that the assistantteacher should have been' accustomed to disregard the head-master and consider himself as directly responsible only to the Inspector as the sole fountain of authority. The experience of Mr. GpRDON as assistant to Mr. Evbriss was very %imilar^' and a difficulty in defining their relative positions arose much in the same way as between Mrs. Takn and Miss Dbverkux, materially hampering their, efficiency and ultimately >' necessitating > Mr. ' Gfoltdon's transfer to another school. Other cases' might be quoted, but those we have mentioned sufficiently indicate the grave defectiveness of Mr. Lee's system of management. No plan could be more vicious, or more utterly! subversive of proper discipline than that aasistant-teachers in a school should regard themselves as oppressed pr affronted at having to receive 'orders' iroin their head-master, or deem him as merely the teacher of the, upper j classes, and as only sharing *- joint j responsibility with themselves for the con* dition of the school. A systel^ which renders each assistant-teacher independent of the head-master, and only accountable to the Iris£ectsr direct, iraa; absurd" and,- unworkable ~ as would be" a planof nival discipline which permitted the lieutenants on board a man-of-war to disregard the orders of their captain, and obey only, instructions received direct from the Admiralty. The advantage of the system from the Inspector's point of view obviously is that it enhances his personal authority and influence. In • addition, however, to the disciplinary drawbacks we already have pointed out, there is always a danger that such a method . may introduce a most objectionable ten'dehcy on 'the part of assistants to become spies and toadies of the all-powerful and autocratic Inspector, to whose least command the Board seems irresistibly impelled to; havnj It ako has the disadvantage of lessening the respect for the head master which ought to be inspired in the pupils.' How can—they be expected to feel proper respect for the head master if they see that he possesses no real authority, especially when it is the practice of the Inspector to censure him in the presence of his pupils ? Several painful instances of this practioe of Mrr Lbb's have been made public, and will not soon be forgotten. Again, while it undoubtedly was equally wrong of Mr. Evbbiss to censure one of his assistants before her scholars, it is hard to blame him for that, seeing that he was simply following the example set him by the. Inspector, who-^-as was publicly stated and admitted by himself—on one occasion actually ordered a head-master to do a division sum before his own pupils ! The system is a thoroughly bad one, and unless a speedy reformation be effected, the utter disorganisation and practical failure of the whole educational scheme ia this district must be the inevitable result.