EDUCAT, ON BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 9707, 16 May 1895, Page 2

EDUCAT, ON BOARD.

The meeting of the Board to-day was attended by Mr H. Clark (chairman), the Hon. J. MacGregor, M.L.C., Dr Stcnhouse, MeEßrs J. Green, M.H.R., M. Cohsn, D. Borrie, and A. M'Kerrow. APPOINTMENTS. The following appointments were confirmed • -W. E. Bastings, head-teacher, Waiareka, vice ■i raser, left the service ; Rose M. Davey, headteacher, Tomahawk, vice Fitzgerald, promoted; Alice Annett, held teacher, Hawea, vice Green promoted; Mar,a S. Pietsch, head-teacher Kawarau, vice Fowler, left the service ; Jemima Masters, head-teacher, Nevis, vice South, left the service; John S. Teunanr, fi.st assistant, High street, vice Johnson, transferred; Jessie Cairns, ihii.l assistant, High ftreet, vice Cameron, left the servic ; Jessie H. Rutherford third assn-tint, Caversh.m, vice M'Ewan, pro'motcd; John R. Wallace, fourth assistant, Civersham, vice Don, promoted; Ada H. D>«nes. fourth assistant, Oamaru North, tic•ihomson, promoted; *.iizabc:h J. Gardiner fif-.li assstant, Oamaiu North, new appointment ; Jane H. Thomson, seventh assistant, George street, vice M'Donald, deceased. PUPIL-TKACHEES. The following pupil-teachers were appointed • -Either May Ferry, Kaikorai; Harriet Cuthbert Meikle, Arthur street; Margaret Sampson and Robert Hugh Stable*, Gr°en Island. RESIGNATIONS. 1 he following resignations were accepted : W. E. Bastings, head-teacher, Coal Ceek ; D Pearson, head-teacher, Totara; Jane H. Thomson, mistres?, Papakiio; John S. Tcnnant, second assistant, High street; Jessie Cainis fifih assistant, High street ; Jessie H. Rutherford, fifth assistant, Cvcrsham. 'JHE (JUEai'ION OF NIGHT SCHOOLS. ,x?\ l * W " J " Habens > Education Department, Wellington, viote:—"l have the honor, by direction of th-j Minister of Education, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th of March, and in reply to say that, though ih? Minister is favorably deposed towards night schools if they arc really continuation schools •ling higher work than that of the primarjschools, or if the pupils being backward are too old lor the primary schools, he is however of opinion that the Education Act, 1877, does not authorise expenditure on night schook out of IJoml funds', and he is not prepared at present to move for an amendment of the Act in this respect." Mr Cohscn thought they should bo content in the meantime to encourage the movement that had been started, and if it answered the expectations of Mr Thomson and those behind him they thould ask the Minister to reconsider his determina'.ion. Mr Guken suggested that the Board should de r er consideration of the matt r, so that if they again moved itf*it they would not have to begin dc novo. The letter was received, and consideration was deferred. INSPECTION AMU EXAMINATION OK SCHOOLS. Concerning Mr MacGrcgorV motions, passed at last nv.oting, respecting the inspection and examination of Fchool?, Mr W. J. Habens, Education Department, Wellington, wrote : I have the honor, by direction of the Minister of Education, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd of April, and in reply to say that the words if possible" in the first regulation relating to inspection way be taken to suggest that where economy requires it the inspection niav take place at the same visit as the examination. I here can be no doubt, however, that in small schools the inspector's advice mav be of very greatservice to the teacher, and that there is very Tittle time for it on examination days. With respect to the second resolution, the Minister is of opinion that changes that have been made of late years have removed-most of the objections that could be alleged against the individual pass system, and that he is not prepared for the radical change proposed by your Board. The letter was received. SCHOLARSHIP REPORTS. On the motion of Mr MacGregor it was resolved—" That the Board receive the quarterly report of the rector of the Boys' High School on the Board's scholars, and resolve to intimate to Scholar that if his next report be not much more satisfactory his scholarship will be withdrawn, and that the attention of Soholar be directed to. his report." GENERAL. Accounts amounting to £6,408 18s 8d were passed for payment. It was agreed, in accordance with the request from the Educational Institute, to send out the usual circular intimating that the meetings of the Institute would be held on the 10th, 11th, and 12th July, aid further to grant the use of the Normal School to the. Institute on those days for their meetings. The following persons were appointed to act on the under-mentioned committees on which the full number of members was not elected at the annual meeting of -householders: -Gimmerburn, Anthony Paterson; Sawyers Bar, W. Hamm; Teaneraki, F. Kelk and R. Wilson; Waikoikoi, J. Crawford, G. M'Kay, J. M'ColL The School Committee at Nevis wrote insisting on the schoolmistress living in the residence provided for her, and the mistress wrote asking that, as sjie lived with foer parents two mil<»s

from the school; site should not be compelled tit take up her residence |n the house.—The Board decides that, under the circumstances, it was unreasonable to aik the schoolmistress to live fa the residence, although as a rule they thought t)sat teachers should if "possible opoupylho housps provided for them, f . " ™ The chairman 4 the Matakanul meeting of householders havtog refused tp receive nominations for the Committee after thelßth April, the election was deo'ared invalid, and ft froB) election was ordered for the 10th jjfy, a

When this mattercame up the following letter from tnspeotor FttsgcralS was read i—ti£tXoU^lH 40 tho marks on the Fourth Standard diotation papers. As the matter is of considerable Import' ance I do so in writing. * Tho blue marks are the teacher's, the red ar« mine. The former wore made while the exami* nation was going on. the red on the Monday fol* lowing white travelling from DunedTn to ria* Swamp. A blue line below a word means that the word is unquestionably an error in shelling. A cross means that a word is omitted, and U to be reckoned at error in spelling. A circle round a word means that it is wrong. The examiner would not count it against the Bcholar, but re« serves it for the decision of the inspector. The blue number at the bottom is the teacher's estimate of the number of errors: the red number at the top is the inspector's estimate. It is not a question of honest marking The teacher intended the inspector to re-examine the papers. Although Mr Fraser said he only looked at the papers and marked a word here and there, it is not a question of veracity. It is simply a question of temporary incapacity to observe with accuracy on the part of the examiner.—l am, etc., W. S. Fitzgerald. The report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the case was as follows t

Ihe Board, at the meeting on April 18, resolved lhat a committee of the whole Board (i.e., as many as can conveniently go) leave town by 3 p in. on Friday, April 26, to proceed from Oamaru to .Y\ aiareka; inquiry to commence at the schoolhouse at 9 a.ni. on Saturday; Mr Fraser to be advised of time and date of inquiry ; inspectors to be likewise notified."

In accordance with this direction Messrs Borrie, Uilien, Dr Stenbouse, M'Kerrow, and the Hon. Mr MacGrcgor met at Waiareka on Saturday, April 2,, and there took a quautity of evidence (appended hereto). A further sitting was held in a ™ rd s otnce at Duuedin on the evening of April 29, when additional evidence (also appended hereto) was taken. Your Committee, having carefully considered , ™ ole of the evidence, now beg to report—- -- That there is no evidence whatever that " the three meetings of Committee were occasioned not by consideration of the report but by disagreement among themselves"; but it is established that three meetings of Committee were held at which the advisability of asking for a change of master was discussed. At the first of these meetings an informal understanding was come to on the subject, but it was uot till the third meeting that the Committee resolved to send to tho Board the resolution set out in their letter of October 12, and the resolution was agreed to unanimously. I* is. however, quite clear that the \\ aiareka School Committee never intimated to Mr l'raser their intention, nor gave him ail opportunity of making any explanation. 2. That, asset out in Mr Fraser's letter, the Waiareka School was closed for a considerable portion of the school year, and the inspectors in their report to the Board acknowledge that the school was closed for almost one-third of the year, and to this circumstance may br> ascribed much of, but not »11, the unsatisfactory answering in the present examination." 3. As to Inspector Goycn's manner at the examination, Mr Fraser alleges; . . . "it would be well-nigh impossible to get children to make a good appearance even after a whole year of hard work in the face of the sarcasm and invective to which they were subjected." . The Committee finds,'in the face of the con* dieting evidence, the charge of harsh manner, sarcasm, and invective is not proven. The Com' mittee is bound to add that it acquits Mr Goyen of any wilful departure from his usual manner of conductinghis examinations with a view to prejudice Mr Fraser and his scholars. 4. With regard to Mr Fraser's complaint of the examination m spclliug, wc find that the ex* planation given by Mr Fitzgerald shows that Mr Goyen had nothing to do with the examination of the spelling, and that although on the face of the report of the \\ aiareka School as compared with school \ explanation was uccessary, the explanation shows that there was good reason tortile difference aud that Mr-Fitzgerald showed that he had ample reason for assigning the marks as htt did.

5. \\ith respect to Mr Eraser's complaint that only a few questions were asked in the history of Standard 111., while in Standards IV. to VI inclusive (divided into two classes) Mr Goyeu did not examine at all, the Committee finds that it is abundantly proved that Mr Goyen examined only one class in history, although he himself says in this case at least two should have been examined and that he left the school under the conviction that he had examined two classes. It was lilted in extenuation by Mr Goyen that the omission could not have occurred if the usual schedule of "class and additional subjects" had been forthcoming, and the evidence of himself and Mr Fitzgerald, which was not refuted by Mr I;'raser, went to show that in Mr Eraser's presence the list of class and additional subjects was gone through, and the inspectors allowed to leave the school in the belief that all of them, except drill, had been examined.

f A se ?Kf y! at when Mr G °J' eh wrotc the letter ot the J/th December he was still under the impr jssion that lie had examined the two classes, and he seems to have held this opinion up till the time lie heard the evidence of the children at Waiareka. He then frankly acknowledged that he must have been under a misapprehension, and must have examined only one class. Taking all the circumstances stated above into consideration, we think that Mr Goycn should be reproved for not taking every care to see that all Hie subjects were thoroughly examined, and for reporting to the Board as if he had made a thorough ex-mination in history. We believe, however, that Sir Goyen's statement in his letter to the Board of 17th December, to the effect that he had no doubt that he had examined more than one class in history, was made by him in good faith. We further think that Mr Fraser is not free from blame in not at the time calling the inspector s attention to the omission. b. As to the examination in science, reported on as moderate," Mr Fraser complains that it was of a perfunctory character, and did not occupy more than four or five minutes for the whole of his (Mr Eraser's) room. The Committee is of opinion that the weight of evidence is in favor of Alrlrasers allegation that it was brief and perfunctory.

,/. As to the allegations that " poetry and exorcises were not examined in the mistress's room," ther e . ' s , a direct conflict of testimony on this point, Miss Andrew asserting that no poetry was examined and nothing taken in the nature of what she considered disciplinary exercises, while Mr Goycn asserts with equal positiveness that she was frequently absent from the room, and that taese exercises were taken, though he does not actually say that be examined either Standard I. o - JI. m her absence. Miss Andrew, howover, denies positively that she was absent from her room while any of her classes were being examined. Here again Mr Goyen relies on his notes ; but m his letter of December 17 (in reply to Mr Eraser's allegations) he makes it plain that only one of the two classes was examined in Poetry. The Committee think that it was Miss Andrews duty to have called the inspector's attention to his emission to examine her classes. In view of this conflict of testimouy the Committee leaves it to the Board to say what findir.g (if any) should be based on such evidence. 8. That in the opinion of the Committee the explanation given by Mr Goyen as to the terms fair and very fair" with regard togeographv, and as to the application of the terms "good" and satisfactory" in the annual report, is sufficient. 9. As to the complaint of Mr Fraser that the inspector, in examining the Third Standard in grammar, went beyond the requirements of the syllabus m asking the pupils to parse a relativo pronoun, to give its " antecedent," and to state whether it was "singular" or "plural," Mr Goycn, in his evidence, gives a flat denial to the allegation. On the other hand, it is clear that on the day of the examination Mr Fraser complained to the inspector of a certain question put bv the latter being outside of the requirements or' the standard; that the attention of Miss Andrew, who was present during the examination, was directed to the fact, which formed part of a letter she was penning to her sister, also a teacher, and that she commented on it; and that Mr Fra-cr himself, considering the question put to his class to be unfair, wrote the same evening the draft of a'letter to the Inspector-General, in which he raised the question of the inspector's right to put such question. Therefore, the weight of evidence is in favor of Mr Fraser's contention that bucli question was put to the class; and Mr Goyen, in his evidence, admits that it was beyond the requirements of the Third Standard syllabus, if it were put.

lu. In regard to the note book question, the Committee is unable to reconcile the two directly opposite statements or to account for the conflict of testimony in regard to this matter.

The Chairman moved the adoption of the report. Mr M'Kerrow seconded the motion. The reasons of the various members who dissented from certain parts of the report wero read as under :

I wish it recorded that I voted against the omission from clause 7 of the paragraph which apportioned blame to Miss Andrew for not informing the inspector of his omission to examine in certain subjects, and that I disagreed from the decision of the Committee not to report on the note book" incident.—Mark Cohen. I record my dissent from clauses b and 7, and from the Committee omitting to report on the note book incident.—William M. Stenhouse. I record my dissent from the first paragraph being deleted from clause 7i.—Donald Borkie. I record my dissent from the whole report with the exception of clauses 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and partly 9. J. MacGregor.

The following paper was read by Mr MacGfregor : I agree to findings Nos. 1, 2, 4 6, 8. and partly 9, but, as I have not' been able to accept the report as a whole, it becomes incumbent upon mo to state my conclusions and the reasons for them. I have grouped all the complaints and charges under four heads: (1) That Mr Goyen's manner and demeanor in conducting the examination were i-uch that the children could not be expected to do justice to themselves or to their teacher. (2) That Mr Goyen had reported on some subjects in which he had not examined. (3) That the examination in some of the subjects history, geography, and science —was perfunctory. (4) Thai the examination and report were unfair. With regard to the first complaint, we have on the one side, in addition to the evidence of Mr Fraser, that of Miss Andrew and eight of the pupils of the higher classes (children of from twelve to fourteen years of age); and on the other

side, in addition to the evidence of Mr Goyen, we havo that of tlio threo members of the (resigned) Committee. I attach little importance to the opinions of the members of Committee, for the isimple renson that they were obviously looking and waiting for ground* to justify thorn in pirry)ng out their determination ta get the timber jomoyeclj The evidence I attach most importance W la that of Miss Andrew. An attempt made by one or the Inspectors to show that on the examination day sho was not In ft fit stato to note with mww ev,ortta«fiM what wus coins on pom. flletoly faUod. MvHtasmruid, for tlio pujposo of firovimr this, produced (Rotation papers whlah. ho told, had been oxamlnod and marked by Miss Andrew, and which showed that Miss Andrew, In marking error*. had t passed ovdr a number of them, thus proving what a state of perturbation she must have been in. But, unfortunately for }[)' Fltagerold'a nttompt to discount the value of Miss it turned out that It was not Miss Androw, but Mr Fraser, that had marked the papers. A3 will appear later on, another attempt to discredit Miss Andrew as a witness was pqually futile. Accepting, then, as I do, ailss Andrew's evidenco as reliable, I can come to no other conclusion than that, In conducting the examination of Mr Fraser'sclasses, MrGoyon must have shown snappishness and impatience in his manner and speech and austerity in his rtemoanpr; that his utterance was, and probably habitually is, too rapid for the examination of Children, especially country children ; that generally the examination must have been so Conducted as to disconcert and frighten many of the children and that consequently it is impossible to say that the examination was so conducted as to do justice to the pupils or the teacher. Mr Goyen has assured us that in his conduct of the examination no showed nohe of these traits, ahd that he was kind and considerate to the children. Now I do not suggest, and I do not believe (and in this I agree with the Commi-tee), that " Mr Goyen wilfully departed from his usual manner of conducting his examination with a view to prejudice Mr Fraser or his scholars." I assume that'Mr Goven Was (luito unconscious of the faults of his manner, inis merely shows that Mr Goyen cannot judge of his own manlier. There is nothing of which a man is less fitted to judge. Ihe charge that Mr Goyen had reported to the Board on three subjects-history (of .Standards IV., V and\ [.), poetry, and disciplinary exercises-! consider clearly and corclusively established. With regard to the "history,'' the evidence of Mr Fraser and the pupils is so convincing tlm\ although in his reply to Ml- Fraser's charge Mr Goyen had said that he had not the least doubt that at least two of the four classes had been examined, ha now admits that he must have been y-rong. The Committee has accordingly found this part of the charge established. Now, to my mind, the charges ds to poetry and disciplinary exercises are proved with equal clearness. Mr Goyen says in his reply that the poetry must have been heard, for otherwise his notes must have disclosed the omission, but he appears to have been equally confident with regard to the history, and fie has had to admit on tile evidence that he was .Vi'ong In December, wheii he wrote his answer to Mr Erasers charges, Mr Goyen seems to have been p?rfcctly satisfiedlthat his notes were qiiite trustworthy ; but now one of the points in his defence is that his notes had not been taken on the proper official form, and the implication seems to be that in consequence of the absence of I jus. form he may have omitted some of the subjects. Clearly Mr Gdycn cannot avail himself II it™ ar ßuments. He cannot say at one time that he is certain he must have examined in Certain subjects, for otherwise bis notes must have shown the omission, and then, in order to meet a suggestion of negligence, set up the defence that mistakes were apt to occur on account ot the absence of the proper form. The Committee; strange to say, also adopts this view, and makes Mute allowance for the absence of the usual schedule form. The Committee have declared their inability, in consequence of the conflicting nature of the evidence, to arrive at anv conclusion on the question whether poetry and disciplinary exercises were examined. What is the evidence, then, which the Committee considers so evenly balanced 1 On the one side there is the evidence of Miss Andrew, who asserts po-itively that there was no such examination; that she noticed it at the time and spoke to Mr Fraser about it, and that on seeing Mr Coven's report not long after she commented to Mr Frafer on the fact that Air Goyen had reported on subjects in which he had not examined. She a';o says that in order that there might be no possibility of mistake she asked the children about it. Now the Committee finds that Mr Goyen asserts with equal certitude that he did examine them, and that Miss Andrew was frequently abreat from the room during the examination. Now I cannot believe that Mr Goyen intended to commit himself to a positive assertion either that he examined on tliese subjects or that Miss Andrew was absent during there examinations What Mr Goyen says in bis reply is that poetrv must have been heard, for otherwi.-e his notes must have shown the omission. Mr Goyen did not then profess to be able to state that he bad examined, but merely argued that he must have examined, for if he had not his notes must have shown it. And yet the absence of the piwcr schedule for notes is set up in extenuation of the carelessness shown in neglecting to examine in history in certain standards. I a-k Where is the conflict of testimony? There is none ; for v." have merely an attempt to meet a positive and circumstantial declaration with a llim;;v argument. P.ut with regard to the attempt made to meet tlis part of the charge by means of a statement that Miss Andrew was frequently out of the room during the examination of her classes, and the suggestion that she may have been out when poetry and disciplinary exercises were exanimed Miss Andrew positively denier, that she was out rjf the room when ally of her clas-es were "x-------ainined, Now, l cannot believe that Mr Goj-en intended to assert positively the contrary. I should be sorry to think that, he was capable'of it for from the nature of the case it is to me incredible that, 111 the absence of any special reason for taking notice, Mr Goven would venture to make a positive assertion at this distance of time on such a point How the majority ot the Committee can attach anv weigat to Mr Goyen's suggestion (for I cannot bring myself to reg: ml it as anything more), while finding, as they do, on the subject of grammar that a positive assertion of Mr Goven was proved to have been incorrect, to say the least, I cannot understand On this point Mr Fitzgerald tries to help a lame dog over a stile" with the s'atement that he believes that while he was busy in the other room, ami when all was quiet and the door shut, lie heard and distinguished Miss Andrew's gentle footstep in the lobby while Mr Goyen was examining her classes. I cannot think the Committee can have attached any weight to this suggestion, for t again decline, out of consideration for Mr Fitzgerald, to treat it as anything more. I conclude, then, that the charts as to "history," "poetry," and "disciplinary exercises are clearly established, and I accept the evidence of Miss Andrew and Mrs Fraser as unimpeachable, and I consider their veracity has. been conclusively established ihe Committee, while finding the" charge proved with regard to history, seeks to shift some of the blame to the teacher for not pointin" out the omission. I fancy this do trine will surprise some of our tea.-.hers. MrlGoyen and Mr Fitzgerald say that they distinctly recollect goingover the list of subjects in Mr Fraser's presence for the purpose of making certain that all had been taken, and that Mr Fraser never hinted that there had been any omission. Assuming that this statement is correct, in going over the class subjects in the schedule, of which "history" is one, the question would bo merely whether 'history" had been taken, not whether Stand irds J-our Five, and Six had been examined in history and Mr F laser's charge is that tliese students had not been examined. " History " had been taken 111 one standard. Mr Fraser says he had never heard of the system of sampling classes by taking half; would it have been his duty to point out that only two had ben examined if the fact had been that two were examined? lint suppose two had been examined, and Mr Fraser, not being aware of the method of examining by samples of classes (not pupils), had pointed out the omission of two classes, would he not have run the risk of getting snubbed. The rinding of the Committee that it was Miss Andrew's duty to have pointed out the omission is entirely gratuitous, for it is not suggested that she was present when the schedule of subjects is said to have been gone over. Miss Andrew stated frankly that she had never heard "I such a doctrine before. Tf we are to declare that it was her duty to point out the omission, are we also to presume that it should have occurred to her that there was a possibility of an inspector getting into trouble through her neglect? I am quite unable to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to how the inspector came to report on subjects in which he had not examined, and I am not prepared to accept Mr Fitzgerald's suggestion that Mr Goyen, in transcribing from his notes, must h-'ve mixed up the Waiareka and the' Flag Swamp notes. And I do not think Mr Goven adopted tht3 explanation. But for the fact that Mr Goyen is so positive that his notes, if they had been preserved, must have shown these subjects as examined I should have been inclined to the explanation that his notes showed nothing at all as to these subjects ; that Mr Goyen, being convinced that he must have examined in them and had forgotten to make a note, was guided by his general impression as to the state of the school in reporting on tho.-e subjects. But since the explanation is not open to us I am quite at a loss how to judge the quality of Mr Goyen's offence. Judged by its consequences it is no doubt serious, for it must shake very much the confidence of the Board, the teachers, and the ' community in the Board's inspectors, and in the system of inspection generally. As for myself, I have never set much store by our system of inspection, apart altogether from the 'personnel of the inspectorate. I come now to the charge that the examination in science, history, and geography was insufficient ns a test of the work done. The most serious charge under this head is with regard to science, and the majority of the Committee have found that in this subject it was " brief and perfunctory." It is admitted that history was insufficiently examined. It will be noticed that all those subjects are class subjects, and that the subject of poetry, which is said to have been overlooked, is an "additional subject," and I am inclined to think that the examination in the class and additional subjects, excepting grammar, mental arithmetic, singing, needlework, and comprehension of language, must have been insufficient, and in some cases even perfunctory. This is in my opinion the key to the solution of the question of the reporting on unexamined subjects. With regard to "grammar" and "comprehension," it seems clear that Mr Goyen at this examination had made a specialty of them. The Committee had found that in grammar he had exacted from Standard 111. the work prescribed for Standard IV., and his method of testing the comprehension of the language seems to have been quite new to Mr Fraser, although, if we are to judge by Mr Goyen's explanation, it was apparently a good one. I come now to the complaints I have placed under the fourth head—unfairness. With regard to two of them, I concur in the finding of the Committee —spelling and the application of the terms " fair" and "very fair" and "good" and "satisfactory" —although in both cases explanation was necessary. I think in the case of spelling" Mr Fraser should have accepted the explanation at once. In the other case it was not so simple. In a good many other points, however, as well as generally,

I consider it clear than tho examination was not a fair test of the school either as to how much the children had learned or as to how they had been taueht. Taking the subjeots separately first, it must be admitted that the examinations in history ami grammar were unfair—the one in consequence tf wing insufficient n d the other by reason of exqess, "HUtoyy'' i> markgd '• moderate" and ' grw)niHr" , 'iiifevipr," itqannot h 6 contended that that is fair, Mr Fmsor oomplafug, and wjth catiso, of a fpeolftl doment of unfairness Jn tho grammar" examination, in that exosßrtvo tteninmln wore made upon hU pupils In tho jircsenoo 0; fhveft. mrnhm at Committee, who wero Booking grounds for Ma dUffllaaftt,, la science" the examination fa pvovsd to liftVp been perfunotory," and the result in reported na moderate," I cannot help thtnkltijt that in this subjeet tho examination whs specially unfair. The teacher hud given spooial attention to it, ana had spont lomo money in setting diagrams because he had devoted special study to the sub. 'ect. It is oven, possible he may have known more about it than tho inspector! he scorns to havo shown on the spot dissatisfaction on aeoount both of the porfunctprlness of the examination as a whole, and the Inspector closing the Muminatlon with what he considered an absurd and unintelligible question. The inspector protests that he ca not have put the question complained of, because, as stated by Mr Fraser, it would nd' nuttedly have been a stupid question. But the syllogism is not by any means clear to me. The result of the science examination was reported as moderate," and this was obviously unfair. Mr i raser also complains that in the report usually sent to Committees there is nothing to indicate that allowance should be made for the fact that *he school had been closed during about a third of the* year; In the report intended for the Board (but which, in factj the Board never sees except in special cases) and for the teacher, reference was instde to this fact, and a statement was made to the effect that this would account for some, but not all, of the bad answering. The inspector was informed at the opening of the examination that the three members of CoiLinittee present were seeking cause against the teacher, and that should havo led the inspector to see that the import Was fair in this re-pect. If I alii correct in the Conclusions I have MT.v-ed at, it follows that tho examination as a whole was not such as to do justice to the school, and that the report is in manv points unfair. Jjut 1 do not believe that Mr Goyen was consciously oi' deliberately unfair. I cannot help thinking, however, that through some cause, Mr Goyen must have proceeded to the examination of that school in the expectation of finding it in a not very satisfactory state. Mr Goyen says he bad not seen Mr Petf'e's report. He did know that the school bad been closed for a third of the year. He knew that the Committee, or some of them, were dissatisfied j ana he probably knew that Mr Fraser was giving some attention to other pursuits; and it is not unlikely that all tliese considerations led him to expect somewhat unsatisfactory results, afid this may have led him to be perfunctory and hasty and to take a good deal for granted. I believe this accounts for most of the unfairness of the report. \\ hatever the cause, ther'tj Is no doubt Mr Goyen was remiss in the execution of his diitl— an in* specter's work is in its nature such that it tends to pass into routine. I attach less importance than some other members of the Committee to the reporting on subjects not examined, because in my opinion the quality of the fault depends upon the 9KO ammo, and as to this lam not clear. To my mind the defence set up in answer to the charges is a more serious matter than the charges themselves. This makes me regret exceedingly that tho Board refused to adopt the suggestion I made at an early stage (in December), that the whole matter should be allowed to drop, in the hope that Mr Goyen and Mr Fraser might come to i»,n understanding after mutual explanations. On this charge, Which is generally considered as the most serious of all, the majority of the Committee have reported that they have been unable to arrive at any conclusion on account of the conflicting nature of the evidence. To arrive at this position the Committee must have found, as indeed they have found, that Miss Andrew's positive declaration that Mr Goyen did not examine is countervailed Vy 1111 equally positive declaration by Mr Goyen that he did examin*. Now, I cannot, because of the inherent improbability of Mr Goyen being able to make a positive affirmation on such a point and for the reasons I have stated above, believe that Mr Goyen intended to make any such positive affirmation. If I believed that he did I should be constrained to admit that I could not believe him, and to arrive at the conclusion very reluctantly that he should not continue to hold his position in the Board's service. How the Committee can say that Miss Andrew's evidence is countcrbalarced by Mr Goyen's after their ilnding as to the grammar I cannot understand. As I stand alone it is not for me to make rceommendations to the Board, but I am prepared to state my conclusions .-hould occasion arise. The report as appealing above embodies several additions and corrections.

Air Cohen, Dr Stenhouse, Mr Borrie, and the chairman gave jcasons for suppor ing tin- rtpoit. A vote being taken, Messrs Cohen, M Kerrowi and Borrie, Mr Stenhouse, and the Chairman gave their support !o the motion for the adoption of the reio-t, and this was carried, Mr McGregor dissenting. The Board rO-e at 4 p in., to resume at 7 p.m.