THE KAIKORAI SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Issue 7448, 17 February 1888, Page 1

THE KAIKORAI SCHOOL.

The report of Mr Carew, who was appointed by the Governor to hold an inquiry respecting the dismissal by the Education Board of xMr David M'Lauchlan from the position of head-master of the Kaikorai Public School, is so exhaustive and comprehensive that the questions at issue are practically disposed of so far as any facts which could be brought to bear thereupon are concerned. As to the legal point on which the School Committee have temporarily worsted the Education Board, Mr Carew very properly confines himself to forwarding to His Excellency a copy of the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Williams, which was to the effect that technically the Board had not complied with the requirements of the Act, in that they took definite action by giving Mr M'Lauchlan notice to terminate his engagement without speeial communication with the Committee ; and especially without submitting to that body the reports of the inspectors on which their decision was based. The Board would appear to have been clearly in default here in neglecting a statutory requirement; bat it must be admitted in their justification that the question of Mr M'Lauchlan's efficiency had been so long under consideration between the Committee and the Board, that

it might reasonably have been conceived that the final resolution adopted was but the conclusion of a protracted consultation. The whole circumstances, as disclosed in the inquiry, have impressed Mr Carew with the conviction that it would be desirable to amend the Act so that the appointment and dismissal of the head-master of a school should be absolutely and literally, as it is practically, in the, hands of the Education Board. Consultation with the Committee under the existing law is, at the best, a mere farce, and if committees are to have no substance of power in the matter it were better perhaps that the shadow should not be retained.

In respect to the Kaikorai School, there does not appear to be a doubt that the Board acted in accordance with their plain duty, and that the greatest forbearance was exercised in the treatment of the headmaster, as well as most distinct consideration to, and communication with, sue* cessive school committees of the district. For many years, it appears, the reports of the inspectors relative to the conduct of the school have been exceedingly unsatisfactory in respect not only to method of instruction, but discipline; and there are no grounds whatever for presuming that any unfairness or injustice has been displayed by either of the gentlemen who have examined, inspected, and reported upon the school, and who agree as to the main defects, it is hardly necessary to remark upon the absurdity of the endeavor at first attempted, but abandoned at the outset of the inquiry, to impute malice or prejudice in this matter to members of the Board. Mr Carew was very properly severe on the "rash and weak assertions" to this effect made

by Mr M'Lauchlax, who had stated in his evidence that certain appointments of assistant masters had been made " with, as " I believe, the intention of ruining the "school, and then I suffered in conse- " quence." There are no grounds, the Commissioner states, for the assertion that the dismissal was " the outcome of a long "series of acts of injustice and persecution "on the part of the Education Board and " their officers towards the school, the head- " master, and the Committee." In this conclusion every person who approaches the subject without prejudice must concur on perusal of the report. In July, 1879, according to the evidence adduced, dissatisfaction was expressed by Inspector Petrie as to the result of an inspection visit paid to the school; but this, it must be admitted, was nullified by, according the head-master, the highest certificate of competency issued under section 45 of the Education Act. Mr Petrie acknowledges that in this he committed a " grave error of judgment," and that he was induced to this by "various representations made to him by Mr M'Lauchlan himself"! If this is the ordinary 'way in -which the inspectors do their work, the sooner they are placed under effective management the better. If responsible directly to the Minister for Education they would scarcely venture on exercising such very loose discretion. In ISB2 we imd it recorded in the confidential reports of Mr Petrie to the Board that Mr M'Lauchlan's work did not yield very satisfactory results at the examination, and that " the moral tone is unsatisfactory." In June, 1883: "Mr M'Lacchlan's conduct " does not improve, . . . He taught

"several lessons in my presence with in- " different success." In May, 1884, Mr Inspector Goyen says: " Mr M'Lauohlan "has no proper appreciation of the duties " of a head-master of so large a school as "this. . . . His own methods of teach-

" ing are very inferior, and his order and " attention are but moderate." The resulte of the examination in this year (1884) were so unsatisfactory that the School Committee requested the Board to appoint a committee of inquiry. The report of this Committee, consisting of Professor Shand, Mr Elder, and Mr Fraer, was, on the whole, very unfavorable to Mr M 'Lauchlan. They considered that the remarks in the inspectors' reports were neither "uncalled for nor unduly severe," and repeated the assurance of Mr Petrie that " the instruction given "in the higher standards was not the " weakest point in the Kaikorai School, and " that the discipline and government in Mr " M'Lauchlax's classes were so lax that "satisfactory results were not to be ex- " pected." The School Committee, in a resolution subsequently passed, expressed themselves satisfied that the " past results "from the examination for the last three "years" were due to "the inefficiency" of the head-master and Mr Stott ; but they refrained from making any recommendation to the Board in consideration of Mr M'Lauchlan's long services and the hopes of improvement. In February, 1885, Mr Goyen made an inspection visit to the school, and reported that the supervision of the head-master waa "far from efficient; it is neither vigorous nor skilful." The Board aeem to have been reluctant to move in the matter; but in

December of the same year resolved that the condition of the school being unsatisfactory, "Messrs M'Lauchian and Stott "bo requested to apply for change of situa"tion within three months." At the request of the School Committee this resolution was, however, practically rescinded. In May, 1886, Mr Goykn again inspected the school and reported most unfavorably, and on this the Board decided to inform the Committee that there must be a change in the head-mastership. In deferens, however, to the expressed wish of the Committee, it was resolved to allow Mr M'Lauchxan to retain his position for six months, from the Ist July next, "in order '' that he may make a trial with the assistance "of the new first assistant now appointed." The examinations in July of the following year were not satisfactory, and the Board, therefore, instructed the inspectors to make a special inspection, which they did, and both their reports were unfavorable to Mr M'Lauchlan's personal work and management of the school. We think no other conclusion can be arrived at than that the Board were fully justified in deciding that there should be & change in the head-mastership; but before

giving notice of dismissal it is evident that they should have placed themselves in communication with the School Committee, and submitted to them the whole of the data upon which they deemed it their duty to take action. Had they done this, we feel sure the inquiry so ably by Mr Cabew would never have been required.