THE KAIKORAI SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Issue 7613, 16 May 1888, Page 2

THE KAIKORAI SCHOOL.

THE HEAD-MASTERSHIP QUESTION. THE PUPIL TEACHERS’ OPINIONS. A special meeting of the Kaikorai School Committee was held last night to consider a letter from the Education Board and other matters relating to the head-mastership. Those present were Messrs F. Wilkinson (chairman), P. Duncan, J. Fraser, W. Moir, W. Carlton, the Rev. W. Banneman, and J. S. Archer (secretary). The following memorandum, with enclosures, was laid on the table from the secretary of the Education Board ; 30th April. I have the honor, by direction of the Otago Education Board, to forward for the consideration of tho Kaikorai School Committee the accompanying copy of rcso'utions adopted unanimous'}’ hy the said Board at a meeting held on the 19th day of April, 1888, and also tho documents referred to therein. lam to request you to be good enough to lay these resolutions and documents before your Committee with the least probable delay. lam further to say that the Board will be glad to receive tho decision and advice of the Committee before 10 o’clock a m. on Thursday, 17th May. The documents enclosed were :—Resolutions of the Education Board of 10th April, 1SS8; inspection reports for 1886 and 1887 ; special reports of Inspectors Petrie and Goyen, dated respectively the sth and 9th September, 1887 ; copy of the report of Mr Carcw, Royal Commissioner. Examination reports for the years 1886 and 1887, it was stated, were already in the possession of the School Committee. The resolutions of the Board were as follows “ That the Board, having considered the examination and inspection reports of the inspectors foi the years 1886 and 1887, and the special inspection reports of Messrs Petrie and Goyen, dated respectively the sth and 9th September, 1887, resolves to consult the Kaikorai School Committee as to the desirability of removing Mr David M‘Lauchlan from the position of headmaster of the said school, and that the said Committee he requested to give their advice thereon before the next meeting of the Hoard to he held on the 17th May, ISSS. (2) That the Board shall hold a meeting on the 17th May for the purpose of considering the reply of the said Committee. (3) That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the said Committee with a copy of the said special inspection reports.” A copy of the following communication, signed by pupil-teachers ef the school, was also forwarded: — P. G, I’rydo, E q., Sccivtary Education Bnrd. Sir,— Wo, the undersigned pupil-teachers at Kailior.ai School, have i grievance which wo arc very anxious to have redressed, and we hereby make yon aware of particulars of said grievance, feeling assured that you will give tho matter ynur most careful attention. The pupil teachers’ class was formerly conducted by Mr Allnutt, and wo were thoroughly sail lied under bis teaching and management. Bat,ely, however, Mr M’Lauehlan has taken tho class him elf, and we feel a groat difference. Wo do not get enough work to do, and as we are very anxious to pars our ex iminatioiis, we feel this to bo a very great hardship. Wo would feel perfectly satisfied if it could bo so arranged that Mr Allnutt would take us in hand agi in. As wo arc at present situated, two of our number have been obliged to engage private tutors, and unless our grievance bo speedily redressed, tho nstof us will have to fnllow suit. Wailing your (avorah'e reply—We have the honor to be your most obedient servants, W. I’oiiK.iTsos M A. Iti’iD M SIIBHiIT. The Chairman having briefly stated the business before the Committee, The Secretary mentioned that in accordance with the instructions of the Committee he had requested the pupil-teachers of the school to attend the meeting for the purpose of being examined as to the letter which had been sent by three of their number. They were all in attendance with the exception of Miss Mary Mant, who had written declining to attend. A discussion took place as to the method of examination, and as to whether the reporters should he present while the evidence was being taken. It was eventually decided to call in the teachers one hy one in the order of their signatures, and that the representatives of the Press should he excluded, Mr Bannerman remarking that the Committee meetings were public, and Mr Archer observing that they should not spare the slightest pain to a staff wdio had taken such a stand—a remark that drew an expression of disapproval from Mr Duncan, Mr W. Robertson was the first of the pupil-teachers to he ushered into the room, and the chairman was proceeding to question him, when Mr Duncan objected to the chairman referring to written notes of statements previously obtained from the pupil-teachers. That document ought, Mr Duncan said, to ho put away—it had no right to he before tho chairman at all, cither for his own information or for tho purpose of intimidating the witnesses. He (Mr Duncan) objected that any party who, as they knew, was to some extent representing one side in this dispute, had forearmed himself. If the chairman persisted in keeping the paper before him he (Mr Duncan) should consider it his duty to inform the witnesses as they came in that the document was being made use of, and that at the last meeting it had been ruled out of order. After some discussion on tins point, the chairman agreed not to use the document except for his own information. Mr Robertson then, in reply to Mr Bannerman, admitted that he had signed the letter to the Board. Mr Bannerman : Was it given to you prepared ?—1 am not going to answer anything about the letter, Mr Duncan: Do you moan about its contents or the writing of it?— Anything about it at all. Mr Bannerman : Have you been advised hy anyone to take up that position ?—I said I was not going to answer anything about the letter. Mr Duncan : Did you actually write it ? That is the first question. You may as well tell the Committee, and need not he afraid. There is nothing to criminate you.—Why cannot the other pupil-tcachers be here, then, at the same time ? Mr Carlton : You did not write it under pressure?—No pressure of any kind was brought to bear on me, I looked on the paper as a petition to the Board, my employers. I thoroughly agree with what is stated in the letter. I thought that if I wore not shifted from Mr M'Lauchlan to Mr Allnutt I should be at more expense for tuition. All I want is to be pushed through so as to make my passing the examination an absolute certainty. Being further questioned, Mr Robertson said that he felt more comfortable under Mr Allnutt than under Mr M'Lauchlan. It would be necessary for the pupil-teachers to go through their total work and to go back over some of it to make sure of passing. They had been through five out of the thirteen reigns in history, and had done about thirty-one pages of the Latin prescribed fer the year. In English they had gone partly through the ‘ Elegy ’ ; and in geography they had still to do India, North America, Australia, the South Island of New Zealand, and about a third of Europe. Mr M'Lauchlan was supposed to instruct them for five hours each week. He had given about an hour and a-half for five days in tho week, and two hours on another day, Mr M'Lauchlan had never refused to assist the pupil-teachera; he always explained difficulties when asked. Witness was afraid of failing when he went up to pass—he was chiefly afraid in respect to English. They had learned the derivations of the ‘ Elegy ’ with Mr M'Lauchlan, hut had not started on ‘The Bird.’ Mr M'Lauchlan devoted as much time to the on nil-teachm as Mr Alluui't 'hj Li refeieli.ee i-> id- last evandn ithm wit i.u.-iK c. i.'>d”:»t, ’i.i'ii I ’’' 1 -vloi’.- 1

si:i, '.l:;' '■■■. v.mi',l w.is f'ui'- her advy.Ht <l .it *,!:■ i;. : i . it;;. ri.;d i.i't Him- H'. 'ii l.i; wa; m.-w. A i ■■ > could not Fay how lung it w,m since he first thought of bringim; this as a grievance before the Board. He had never complained to Mr M'Lauchlan that he had too little work. He would have time to prepare more lessons if he got them. Mr M ‘Lauchlan did not test them enough in what was done. He gave them sufficient lessons in arithmetic. The expression “follow suit” at the end of the letter witness understood to mean to follow the same plan. He had no reason for objecting to answer questions as to the authorship of the letter, and was not afraid of implicating anybody else. Mr Duncan : Did you write it yourself ? Yes, I wrote it myself. It was the outcome of a talk with the other pupil-teachers, and was in my own handwriting. Mr Biinnermiin : Did you compose it ? Mr Duncan: Is it your English?—lt is not my English. Mr Bannerman: Then it was drafted-by someone else and you copied it. Who first

presented the letter to you ?—I am not prepared to say that—at least I may say that I made up the letter mj self from what the other pupil-teachers had said about the matter. Wc were all growling about Mr M’Luuchlan’s teaching, and the letter is the joint production of us all. Mr Duncan : There is a feeling in the Committee that someone prompted you. Did you submit the letter to somebody else ?—Yes, Was the idea of submitting it to the Board your own idea, or did it emanate from others ?—lt was our own idea. No one outside the school suggested anything to me except my parents. Witness continuing: Miss Dickson and Miss Reid were the two teachers who had to engage private tutors. The burden of the pupil-teachers’ grievance was, that they found a great difference between Mr M‘Lauchlan and Mr Allnutt, It was the method of teaching rather than the amount of work that was referred to. Witness was so convinced of the seriousness of the matter that he was himself looking about for a tutor. A discussion followed as to the next pupilteacher to be questioned, one or two members objecting to Miss Dickson being called, as she had not signed the letter. Mr Carlton said no authority was given to summon any but the three pupil-teachers who signed the letter. The Secretary : I will not have my minutes contradicted. Mr Carlton knows I had to sit on him for that at last meeting, and I will do it again a thousand times. Mr Carlton : We shall have to keep this gentleman’s hair on, I see. It was eventually decided to tell Miss Dickson that she might go home. Miss Margaret Reid, the next pupilteacher brought in, said that the letter was placed before her, and she signed it of her own free-will. She declined to say who put the letter before her. She had seen the letter once before the occasion on which she signed it. She declined to say who wrote the letter, or whether she had consulted the other pupil-teachers before signing the letter. Witness got through her last examination under Mr M'Lauchlan, and had not failed in any subject. She had two quarters’ tuition under a private tutor in 1886, when Mr M'Lauchlan was the teacher, but had no private tutor in 1887, when under Mr Allnutt. She had made no complaint to Mr M'Lauchlan. So far as she knew, the letter did not emanate from anyone outside the school. She had been over a fair proportion of the year’s prescribed work, but what she objected to was that the work was not thoroughly done. In grammar she had lately been going over work that was set for the Fifth Standard. Mr M'Lauchlan had been giving easier lessons than would be given at any examination—easier than she had at her first examination. If the pupil-teachers went on with the easy work they had now they would never pass any examination. The work was not properly tested. The work in English was not satisfactory ; and in arithmetic, when they took their sums to Mr M'Lauchlan, he explained them by algebra, and witness did not understand the explanations, for she had not been through the equations—she had only gone through the simple lessons in algebra. She had not told Mr M'Lauchlan that she did not understand his explanations; he knew that she was not advanced in algebra. What was meant by the letter was that the pupilteachers were not getting the class of work that was required for the examination. What they got was much too easy, and took no time to prepare. Mr Banncnnan: Did Mr M'Lauchlan carry on the work according to the prescribed rules ?—ln arithmetic the work was far too easy. Some of the sums he gave me were those that I gave to the Fifth Standard. Mr Bannorman : That is not an answer to my question. I have known a university student

Mr Duncan : Floored. Mr Bannerman : unable to answer a question that a boy of nine or ten years old might be expected to answer, Mr Moir: How do you explain your statement that you could not understand Mr M'Lauchlan’s explanations, and that the work was so easy that it wanted no preparation ?—lt is the proportion and practice in arithmetic that I say that I could do without help. I have to take up the whole subject of arithmetic, which includes stocks and everything. Witness continued : Mr M'Lanchlan gave the pupil-teachers ten or eleven hours in a week. In English she had been doing ‘The Traveller,’ and out of 348 lines had finished IG9 at the time the letter vvas sent in. No one outside the pupil-teachers was consulted about the letter ; and witness’s declining to say who wrote the letter was not because she was afraid of implicating somebody outside the school. Witness had never passed such a good examination as that for which she had studied under Mr Allnutt.

Miss Margaret Sheriff also declined to answer questions as to how the letter came to be written. The subject she believed she was deficient in was arithmetic. She did not in every case understand Mr M'Lauchlan’s explanations, but did not always tell him that she did not understand them. Mr Allnutt’s explanations were clear and easily remembered. The reason she had for signing the paper was that she wanted Mr Allnutt back. Up to the time the letter was written witness had not done a fair proportion of the year’s work prescribed by the Education Board. The letter was not written by any of the school staff, but witness declined to say whether the rough draft was written by any of the pupilteachers. Mr Allnutt had charge of the pupil-teachers when witness applied to be admitted.

At this stage of the proceedings, Mr Carlton suggested that the business for which the meeting was called was the discussion of the inspectors’ reports. The Chairman : Yes, and this letter.

M r Carlton thought that consideration of the letter might be allowed to stand over until the Committee made arrangements about the inspectors’ reports. Mr Bannerman could give no decision in regard to the questions they had received from the Board until he had heard what Mr M'Lauchlan had to say. He would like to sec whether the statements of the pupilteachers were borne out by Mr M'Lauchlan, He (the speaker) had not found out whether the idea of writing that document originated with these young people Mr Duncan said that the Committee were bound to conclude that the complaint originated from among themselves. Each one had said that the reason for subscribing to the letter was because of the great difference between the teaching of Mr M'Lauchlan and that of Mr Allnutt.

Mr Archer : Supposing this letter was the result of a consultation among the pupil-teachers, what could be their reason for refusing to say who wrote it ? Mr Duncan : Just that esprit de corps which I hope will always be found in the school, and which I should be sorry to see broken down.

Mr Bannerman said that the refusal to say who wrote the letter proved to his mind that there was something to keep back as to the authorship of this proceeding. Mr Carlton : All this discussion is entirely out of order. Mr Archer: Not so.

The Chairman said that it was their duty to hear what the head-master had to say in answer to the charges preferred against him. Tim ('ommittfe would not he in a ■ iTitiou vii judge without that, even as-

■■■. t : .-t, : .ie j-.t'ei emaiiaicd w holly and :;oie!y Jnmi tin, witmssev The best tiling the Committee could do would be to place the letter in the head-master’s hands and ask him what he bad to say to it. He could not agree to any other course. It was the old story over again of condemning Mr M'Lauchlan without allowing him to be heard.

Mr Carlton moved that the letter be referred to Mr M'Lauchlan, with a view to getting a reply from him for consideration at next meeting. Mr Bannerman would suggest to add these words to the motion: “That the Board be advised that the Committee have not had time to complete the inquiry.” After further discussion it was decided that Mr M'Lauchlan should be summoned for immediate examination, and being called in, the petition. o£ the pupil-teachers was read to him.

In reply to questions, Mr M'Lauchlan said that he had always taken the pupilteachers’ instructions into his own hands

with the exception of 18S7. The reason that \ he changed it in 1887 was that he wished to make the salary of the first assistant larger, thinking thereby to keep a better first-class assistant. When Mr Allnutt wrote about the appointment witness gathered from his letter that he desired to increase his salary by taking the pupil-teachers, and after his appointment it was agreed that he should take them. At the end of the year Mr Allnutt thought there would be a change in the head-mastership, and that the new comer would take the pupil-teachers; therefore he resigned them. Witness did not sec his way to let him resume charge of them this year. Witness had given twice the time, and more, to the pupilteachers than the regulations prescribe. He gave them twelve hours a week, and as nearly as possible the work that he had given in the same stage in former years. At the same time it was quite possible that the three teachers who signed the letter might do more work. A boy or girl was qualified to bea pupil-teacher after the Fifth Standard. Miss Sheriff had passed that two and a-half years before she became one. She was two and a-half years ahead of the starting point. The syllabus gives certain subjects, and it was witness’s duty to teach them in certain stages. He considered that in most of the subjects the pupil-teachers were well ahead of their work at this stage, and in none of the subjects were they behind. In literature, the work was half done; in Latin, it was almost completely done, thirty-two pages being finished out'of thirty-six ; and the history work was well in hand, there being only five or six reigns to finish out of thirteen. He spoke of the condition of the work at the present time. In arithmetic, he recommended the pupil ■ teachers to devote all the time they could to the textbook, and told them to take as many sums as they could each evening. Sometimes he had the sums worked out again when mistakes were made, but not always. In his judgment there was always sufficient work allotted to the pupil-teachers. He gave them a time-table for the different stages. That time-table was so arranged as to complete the prescribed work for the year and to leave time for revisal. That time-table was not given to the pupil-teachers ; they knew nothing about it. Of course he tested the pupil-teachers; every lesson tested the previous one. He had treated these pupilteachers as he had always treated pupilteachers, and he had had a fair average of passes. As to getting outside aid, that was not a rare thing ; a great number of pupilteachers in Dunedin did the same thing. He had got pupil-teachers through the same work over and over again without outside aid. He had gone beyond the syllabus both in time and subjects. If he found any of his pupil-teachers loss cflioicnt in one subject than in others, he devoted more attention to that one subject. Ho never knowingly allowed an arithmetical question to pass unsolved. There were no questions missed to his knowledge, but the arithmetic was not wrought out in class, it was done at home, and would be so until the Latin was finished. Mr Carlton ; You don’t acknowledge that this petition is duo to any shortcoming on your part ?—I believe somebody has got at them, and got them to do that. The thing is a conspiracy. Witness, continuing, said that he did not believe that there was any anxiety in the pupil-teachers’ minds that they would not pass. He did not think that the lad Robertson would be able to know much of his (the speaker’s) teaching. Mr Carlton: Don’t you think that these young people arc old enough to say whether they arc likely to pass or not ?—I do not think that they are able to judge whether they arc likely to pass at the expiration of ten months.

Witness continued that he thought they were in a position to compare between his teaching and Mr Allnutt’s teaching. One system of teaching might suit a certain person better than another system. He could not say whether Mr Allnutt’s teaching was different to his. The pupil-teachers were well ahead of their work. There had been no change of any kind in his teaching previous to the writing of the letter. He knewnothingof the letter until the other day it took him by surprise. He did not know that Mr Allnutt was exceptionally qualified to teach pupil-teachers ; he did not think he was.

Mr Carlton : Then how do you account for his pupils passing with flying colors ? Mr M'Lauchlan: Read those [handing over a bundle of five examination papers slu-wing the passes of Mary Mant, Mary Dickson, Margaret Sheriff, William Robertson, and Margaret A. Reid on the 20th of January last], Mr Carlton having looked through the papers, Mr Archer remarked that after his perusal Mr Carlton did not seem inclined to say anything more about flying colors. Mr Carlton : But they passed, any way. Mr Duncan : Do you think that these young people were honest in writing the letter ?—I do not. Do you admit that when they wrote it the fear of not passing was in their minds ? I do not. Mr Banncrman : Suppose that they had that fear, would you not consider them justified in writing the letter ?—No. I consider that they should have first come to me and then to the Committee. Mr Duncan : That is simply a question of procedure. Further questions having been put, Mr Duncan observed that he came there unprejudiced. Mr M‘Lauchlan : Do you expect me to believe that, Mr Duncan ? Mr Duncan: Yes. Mr M'Lauchlan: Well, I believe it as much as I believe that letter, Mr Duncan : Well, all I can say is that that is a very discourteous remark ; it shows a want of courtesy and a want of common sense; and I think that even Mr Bannerman will admit that it is so. Mr M'Lauchlan, continuing, said that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have given more work. He had had a deal of experience—a quarter of a century—in school teaching, and had never before heard of such a course being adopted as the writing of this letter. He considered it a breach of discipline. Mr M'Lauchlan having retired, Mr Bannerman said: I suppose we must come to some conclusion on these matters, and I move as follows The Committee having considered the documents forwarded by the Board and the request of the Board that the Committee advise it as to the desirability of removing Mr D. M'Lauchlan from the head - mastership of the Kaikorai School, request the Board to furnish the Committee with a report by inspectors, other than in the Board’s employ, of inspection and examination showing conclusively the present state of the school and the work done by the head-master, as upon the reports furnished by the Board, and in view of the expressed desire of the householders in the Kaikorai School district, whom the Committee represent, to retain Mr M'Lauchlan’s services, the Committee cannot do otherwise than advise the Board to refrain from taking any steps towards removing the head-master, Mr David M'Lauchlan.”

In speaking to the motion the mover urged the desirability of obtaining an independent report, and presented a long list of reasons in support of his argument. It was, however, asserted by one or two of the members that the matters set forth in the document prepared by Mr Bannerman had not yet been sufficiently inquired into to warrant the Committee in forwarding them to t he B lard as ascertained facts, and it was therefore, agreed that Mr Bannennan’s reasons should not he sent to the Board. Mr Muir seconded the motion.

Mr Duncan was not prepared to suppoit the motion. A section of the old Committee had clamored for an inquiry, and the decision of Mr Carew must bo regarded as final. The first duty of the Committee was to consider the interests of the school, and that duty would not allow them to advise the retention of Mr M‘Lauchlan as head-master. There was a want of organisation, as they had seen that night, and there was a want of faith in the headmaster on the part of the pupil-teachers. Mr M'Lauchlan might be a thoroughly amiable gentleman, but he evidently had not the controlling power necessary in a school of that size and did not fulfil the idea, of efficiency as prescribed by Rule 17. As to the pupil-teachers’ action, unless the Committee came to the conclusion that they were absolutely dishonest they must believe that there waa in the pupil-teachers’ minds

a dread that they would fail, and that therefore they were bound to take the step they did. He would move the following as an amendment:—“ That the Committee, having considered the letter of the Board of the 80th April, 1888, and the various documents accompanying it, resolve that the removal of Mr M'Lauchlan from the position of head-master of this school be agreed to, and the Board be advised accordingly.” Mr Carlton seconded the amendment, and in doing so said that the charges that there had been wire pulling to oust Mr M ‘Lauohlan were unworthy of any respectable man. Neither Mr Duncan nor himself had any benefit to reap by ousting Mr M'Lauchlan, but there was a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction in the district—(Mr Archer : “No”)—and many thought it would be well to have a change. Mr Archer spoke briefly in favor of the motion. Mr Fraser said that Mr M'Lauchlan’s testimonials were such as not one of the inspectors could have obtained, and instanced the results of the examination of a number of Mr M'Lauchlan’a old pupils. Mr Moir thought that it was reasonable to ask for an entirely unprejudiced report, and considered that the present state of the school could not be discovered from a report made nine months ago. Mr Wilkinson was convinced that it was as useless to expect the present inspectors to give an unbiassed report as to expect them to fly. Either they had been misled by a conspiracy amongst the staff, or they had grossly misrepresented the state of the school. He knew perfectly well that some of the statements made in the report were false. Some of these things had been taken no notice of by Mr Carew, and his decision was simply a resumA of Sir Robert Stout’s address. He (the speaker) was not biassed in Mr M'Lauchlan’s favor, but he was satisfied that the letter emanating from the pupil-teachers had not been composed by one or all three of those who had signed it. The only fault he had with Mr Bannerman’s motion was that it did not go far enough. Mr Bannerraan replied at some length, and on being submitted to the vote the motion was carried by 5 to 2, Messrs Duncan and Carlton constituting the minority. Mr Bannerman then moved “ That the Committee reserve till next meeting con sideration of the pupil-teachers’ letter.” He did not believe it had emanated from them spontaneously. This was carried by 5 to 2, as against an amendment by Mr Duncan to the effect that the pupil-teachers, in writing the letter, believed that they were not being pushed forward sufficiently. A short discussion ensued as to how the resolutions of the Committee should bo reported to the Board—whether they should be sent on simply as the finding of the Committee or as the ©pinion of the majority, it being ultimately decided to inform the Board of the precise result of the voting. Mr Archer gave notice of motion for next meeting as follows “ That the dismissal of all the teachers be considered by the Committee.” The meeting broke up at a quarter to one o’clock this morning, after a continuous sitting of five hours and three-quarters.