EDUCATION BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 9708, 17 May 1895, Page 2

EDUCATION BOARD.

The meeting of the Board yesterday waa attended by Sir H. Clark (chairman), the Hon* J. MacGregor, M.L.C., Dr Stenhouse, Messrs J.: Greeu, M.H.R., M. Cohen, D. Borrie, and A.' M'Kerrow. THE WAIAREKA TKOUBLK. The following paper was read by Mr MacGregor : I agree to findings Nos. 1, 2, 4, G, 8. and partly 9, hut, as I have not been able to accept the report as a whole, it becomes incumbent upon me 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 such that the children could not be expected to <lo 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) That the examination and report were unfair. With regard to tho 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 have that of the three members of the (resigned) Committee. I attach little importance to the opinions of the members of Committee, for the simple reason that they were obviously looking and waiting for grounds to justify them in carrying out their determination to get the teacher removed. The evidence I attach most importance to is that of Miss Andrew. An attempt made by one of the inspectors to show that on the examination day she was not in a fit state to note with accuracy or calmness what was going on completely failed. Mr Fitzgerald, for the purpose of proving this, produced dictation papers which, lie said, had been examined and marked by Miss Andrew, and which showed that Miss Andrew, in marking errors, had passed over a number of thorn, thus proving what a state of perturbation she must have been in. But, unfortunately for Mr Fitzgerald's attempt to discount the value of Miss Andrew's testimony, it turned out that it was not Miss Andrew, but Mr Fraser, that had marked the papers. As will appear later on, another attempt to discredit Miss Andrew as a witness was equally futile. Accepting, then, as I do. Miss Andrew's evidence as reliable, I can come to no other conclusion than that, in conducting the examination of Mr Fraser's classes, Mr Goyen must have shown snappishness and impatience hi his manner and speech and austerity in his demeanor; 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 he showed none of these traits, and that he was kind and considerate to the children. Now, I do not suggest, and I do not believe (and in this 1 agree with the Commutee), 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 Goyen was quite unconscious of the faults of his manner. This merely shows that Mr Goyen cannot judge of his own manner. There is nothing of which a man is less fitted to judge. The charge that Mr Goyen had reported to the Board on three subjects-history (of Standards IV., V., and VI.), poetry, and disciplinary exercises—l consider ctearly and conclusively established. With regard to the " history," the evidence of Mr Fraser and the pupils is so convincing that, although in his reply to Mr 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, he now admits that he must have been wrong. The Committee has accordingly found this part of the charge established. Now, to my mind, the charges as 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 he has had to admit on the evidence that he was wrong. In December, when he wrote his answer to Mr Fraser's charges, Mr Goyen seems to have been perfectly satistiedlthat his notes were quite 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 this form he may have omitted some of the subjects. Clearly Mr Goyen cannot avail himself of both arguments, lie cannot say at one time that lie is certain lie must have examined in certain subjects, for otherwise his 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 some 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 any conclusion on tho question whether poetry and disciplinary exercises were examined. What is the evidence, then, which the Committee considers so evenly balanced ? On the one side there is the evidence of Miss Andrew, who asserts positively 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 Goyen's report not Ion;: after she commented to Mr Fraser on the fact that Mr Goyen hud reported on subjects in which he had not examined. She also 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 absent 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 these subjects or that Miss Andrew was absent during these examinations. What Mr Goyen says in his reply is tliat poetry must have been heard, for otherwise his notes must have shown the omission. Mr Goyen did not then profess to be able to state that he had 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 proper schedule for notes is set up in extenuation of the carelessness shown in neglecting to examine in history in certain standards. I ask Where is the conflict of testimony? There is none ; for we have merely an attempt to meet a positive aud circumstantial declaration with a ilimsy argument. But with regard to the attempt made to meet this 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 examined, Miss Andrew positively denies that she was out of the room when any of her classes were examined. Now, I cannot believe that Mr Goyen 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, in the absence of any special reason for taking notice, Mr Goyen would venture to make a positive assertion at this distance of time on such a point. How the majority of the Committee can attach any weight to Sir Goyen's suggestion (for I cannot bring iiijvelf to regard it as anything nioic), while finding, as they do, on the subject of grammar that a positive assertion of Mr Goyen 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 statement that he believes that while he was busy in the other room, and when all was quiet and the door shut, he 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 I again decline, out of consideration for Mr Fitzgerald, to treat it as anything more. I conclude, then, that the charges as to "history," "poetry," and "disciplinary exercises" are clearly established, and I accept the evidence of Miss Andrew and Mrs Eraser as tm'inijieachable, and I consider their veracity has been conclusively established. The Committee, ?.yliile finding the charge proved with regard to history, sec-lit to shift some of the blame to the teacher for not poinding out the omission. I fancy this do-.trine will surprise some of our teachers. MrlGoyen and Mr"Fitzgerald say that they distinctly recollect going over 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 theje !;ad been any omission. Assuming that this statement is correct, in going over the class subjects jn I he schedule, of which "history" is j one, the question would bp merely whether j " history " had been taken, not y/hetjier Standards Four, Five, and Six had been examined jn history, and Mr Fraser's charge is that these students had not been examined. " History " had been taken in 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 been examined if the fact had been, that two were ! examined? But suppose two had been ex. amiued, 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 finding of the Committee that it w?.s Miss Andrew's duty to have pointed out the omission \U entirely gratuitous, for it is not suggested f3id.t was present when the schedule of subjects is said toiavo been gone over. Miss Andrew stated frankly "thai had never heard of such a doctrine before. If we sr.e to declare that it was her duty to point out the' omission, are wo also to presume that it should have occurred to her that there was a possibility of an inspector getting Into trouble through her neglect? 1. am quite unable to arrive at any satisfactory c.o#eludon as to how the inspector came to report on subjects jn which he had not oxaminod, and I am not prepaid Jo accept Mr Fitzgerald's suggestion that Mr <>Qye«, in transcribing from his notes, muse have niixc'd un tho Waiareka and the Flag Swamp note-., And Ido'nofc thbvk.Mr Govon adopted this explanation, Rut for itSe face that Mr Goyen is so positive that his notes, if they had ,i:een preserved, must have shown thoiie subjects ;&s,C,<4mined I should have been inclined to the explanation that his notes showed nothing at all as to fchese'sufyectn; that Mr Goyen, being convinced that he must &aye examined in them and had forgotten to make 2. note, was guided by' his general impreasjon as"-to jtlio state of the school in reporting on those subjects. But since the explanation is not open to usTahi (iuite at a loss how to judge the quality of Mr Goyen's offence. Judged by its consequences it' is no doubt serious, fpr 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, - A* mr myself. I have never set much store by oirr.system of im snection, apart altogether from the personnel of .'theiwspectorate. I come now to the clrarge that the in science, history, and geography was insufficient as a test of the work done. The most serious charge under this head is with regard to science, and the majority of the Committee liave 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 pf 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 i 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 nad found that in grammar he had exacted from Standard Hi: 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 Goyeu's explanation, 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, L 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, 1 consider it clear than the 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 taught. Taking the subjects separately first, it must be admitted that the examinations in history and grammar were unfair—the one in consequence of being insufficient and the other by reason of excess. "History" is marked "moderate," and •grammar" "inferior." It cannot be contended that that is fair. Mr Fraser complains, and with cause, of a special element of unfairness in the "grammar" examination, in that excessive demands were made upon his pupils in the presence of three members of Committee, who were seeking grounds for his dismissal. In | science" the examination is proved to have been perfunctory," and the result is reported as 'moderate.' I cannot help thinking that in this subject the examination was specially unfair. The teacher had given special attention to it, and had spent some money in getting diagrams because he had devoted special study to the subject. It is even possible he may have known more about it than the inspector; he seems to have shown on the spot dissatisfaction on account both of the perfunctoriness of the examination as a whole, and the inspector closing the examination with what he considered an absurd and unintelligible question. The inspector protests that he caunot have put the question complained of, because, as stated by Mr Fraser, it would admittedly 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 1< raser also complains that in the report usually sent to committees there is nothing to indicate that allowance should bo made for the fact that the school had been closed during about a third of the year. In the report intended for the Board (but which, in fact, the Board never sees except in special cases) and for the teacher, reference was made 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 wns informed at the opening of the examination that the three members of Committee present were seeking cause against the teacher, and that should have led the inspector to see that the report was fair in this re pett. If lam correct in the conclusions I have amveu at, it follows that the examination as a whole was not such as to do justice to the school, and that the report is in many poiuts unfair. But I do not believe, that Mr Goyen was consciously or deliberately unfair. 1 cannot* help thinking, however, that, through some cause, Mr Goyen must have proceeded to the examination ot that school in the expectation of finding it in a not very satisfactory state. Mr Goyen says he had not seen Mr Petrie's report. He did knowthat the school had been closed for a third of the year. He knew that the Committee, or some of them, were dissatisfied ; anu he probably knew that Mr Fraser was giving some attention to other pursuits; and it is not unlikely that all these considerations led him to expect somewhat unsatisfactory results, and this may have led him to be perfunctory and hasty and to take a good deal tor granted. I believe this accounts for most of the unfairness of the report. \\ liatever the cause, thore is no doubt Mr Goyen was remiss in the execution of his dutv—an inspector's work is in its nature such that it tends to pass into routine. J attach less importance than some other members of the Committee to the reporting on subjects not examined, because in my opunou the quality of the fault depends upon the «/((« annuo, and as to this lam not clear. To my mmd the defence set up in answer to the charges is a more serious matter than the charges themselves. This makes me regret exceedingly that the Board refused to adopt the suggestion 1 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 an 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 by an equally positive declaration by Mr Goyen that he did examine. 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 1 believed that lie 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 counterbalanced by Mr Govon's after their finding as to the grammar I cannot understand. As 1 stand alone it is not for me to make recommendations to the Board, but I am prepared to state my conclusions tliould occasion arise. The report as appearing above embodies several additions and corrections.

Mr Cohen, Dr Stenhouse, Mr Borrie, and the chairman gave reasons for supporting the report. A vote being taken, Messrs Cohen, M'Kerrow, anil Borrie, Dr Stenhouse, and the. Chairman gave their support to the motion for the adoption of the report, and this was carried, Mr MacGregor dissenting. The Board rose at 4 p.m., to resume at 7 p.m.