NOT A LITTLE FUSS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3563, 1 July 1912, Page 2

NOT A LITTLE FUSS

MR ANDREW’S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE EDUCATION COMMISSION. CONSIDERED BY THE H.B. EDUCATION BOARD. SPIRITED REPLY BY THE CHAIRMAN.

By Telegraph—Special Corresponcit.il u NAPIER, June 29. At the Education Board meeting this morning Mr W. Morgan, member of the northern ward, directed the chairman’s attention td the evidence given by Mr Andrew, of Te Hapara School, before the Education Commission.

Mr Whittington replied that the matter had been brought under his notice, and ho. had framed the following reply:—“My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report of the evidence given by Mr P. Andrew, secretary cf the Te Hapara School Committee before the Commissioner. His remarks with reference to the Board are so' misleading that I feel it my duty to draw your attention to his j misrepresentation of facts or ignorance of his subjects. He states ‘the Association of Poverty Bay School Committees has been formed largely as the result cf general dissatisfaction among the committees in the district at the administration of the Hawke’sßay Education Board.’ This dissatisfaction surely cannot be caused by financial considerations as a statement tabled by me last year I proves that the Poverty Bay schools I have been more than liberally treated in the distribution of the Board’s funds during the last- six years. He goes on: “Taking their own. school at Te Hapara as an instance', it was erected 18 months ago, when an attendance of 150 was assured at the outset, but it (the Board) only provided for about 140.” As a matter of fact the new school erected by the Board 18 months ago provided accommodation for 185, surely a failmargin? Again, “The construction of tlie.neiv school had been faulty and : defective, and showed the need of a ; standard plan by expert architects,” j and “the committees suggestion for j a new additional building had been I vetoed.” The committee not being j expert architects the veto of their sugj gestion for an additional building j might reasonably have been expected. ! The Te Hapara School was erected according to a sketch plan prepared by Chief Inspector Hill, who, from his long and varied experience, might ■well be expected to know the requirements of an up-to-date school. The addition now being erected is also being carried out according to his suggestion. Mr Andrew further says, “In one room, oblong shaped, the blackboards are placed on a dark wall facing the length of the room instead of on the light wall facing the windows across shortest dimensions.” This re- ; mark shows that Mr Andrew, apart | from misstating the facts, does not | know what he is talking about. I j liave looked on the plan and find that i in every ro-om hyloplate blackboards | are erected on the wall opposite the windows, and having also the side light—an ideal to work by. Two smaller rooms are 24ft by 22ft. These are furnished with dual desks, so that even if the rooms were longer than i they are in proportion to width the boards are correctly placed—the recognised proper position for blackboards in rooms furnished in this manner is at this narrow end. The headmaster has stated that in his opinion the position of the blackboard 1 could not be improved. Referring to defective chimneys Mr Andrew, states; “After considerable correspondence with the Board and a lot of red tape routine, work was put in hand.” 1 I have looked up the correspondence and find that on 21st Julv. "1911, Mr Andrew reported a telegram that the chimneys were dei fcctive. The same day the matter was placed in the hands of the Board’s foreman for attention". Next day the committee reported the defect by letter, and stated that the committee had decided to experiment with „ono chimney. The letter was considered by the'Board on the 27th July, and oh the 31st the committee was informed that the foreman already had the matter in hand. Next day Mr Andrew wired that the chimney was very satisfactory, but others were in want of attention. On the same clay lie was informed that instructions hadbeen given to make similar alterations to the .remainder of the chimneys. All this' was within ten days of the defect being reported hero. Somo delay took place as the workman who was instructed to undertake work could not immediately put it in band, so that some three weeks elapsed before the work was completed. Referring to the staffiing of the school he infers that the Baord had not kept the school fully staffed.' He ’states: “His committee had gone I carefully through the tables and cul--1 dilations of re-staffing and grading

under the Education Act but were not yet ablo to understand them or learn j with a certainty what staff they were entitled to.” Of course not, it was ■ not the committee's, business, but it | was the business of the Board officials, ■ who have kept the school staffed at j all times as liberally as it is possible under the Act. Referring to the unsatisfactory state of the committee’s finances he states: “The local Board has a large credit balance, but it was very hard to get them to part even for necessities, except on £ for £ basis, and often not then.” Mr An- j drew is probably not aware that the ; Board balance is, according to the Inspector General, insufficient to cover the Board’s liabilities for rebuilding worn-out schools. A fire in two of the Board’s largest old schools would absorb the whole of the Board’s balance available for building purposes. But as regards To Hapara his school has been erected 18 months. It cost i the Board £2lO 14s 8d over and above \ the Government grant. This sum | had to be provided from tho Board’s | maintenance fund,- not a penny of which had been received on account of Te Hapara School. A glance through tho files shows that most numerous applications of this committee have been granted in full. Referring tortlio matter of appointment of teachers he says : “At present when a good position was going a lot of wirepulling and canvassing went on which was degrading to tire teaching profession and members of the Board were not always disinterested in the appointment.” Hero again Mr Andrew is wrong. The Board sends forward I to the committee the names of only j one applicant before that reeommend- ‘ ed . by the! Inspector. | Replying to Mr Kirk, lie is reoprted : to have said : “His committee had been | ignored by the Board in making an 1 appointment. The recommendation of tho committee had been turned down and the teacher appointed without their being consulted.” On no occasion has this Board during the past six years permanently appointed any teacher without first consulting tho committee. Mr Andrew’s remark probably refers to the appointment of a. teacher to carry on work during the absence of a teacher on leave. This could only be regarded as a temporary appointment. A good deal of correspondence took place with the committee regarding this matter, and as the Board’s letters are in nearly every case headed ‘relieving teacher,’ it was made quite plain that the appointment was not a permanent one. The committee have this month forwarded a solicitor’s opinion that unless the appointment was a temporary one the Board had no right to make it without consulting the committee. This appointment could net be other than a temporary one, as according to ia? judgment given in a recent case against the Marlborough Board a Board has no right to limit the time of any appointment other than a purely temporary one, which is limited to three months. In this case the' committee recommended a temporary promotion of a junior assistant holding aDS certificate. The Board informed the committee that on the rei commendation of the Inspector a teacher of much longer experience and holding a D2 certificate would be appointed. The Board’s reasons for so doing were further fully explained to Mr Andrew over the telephone.. This matter was not considered by tho Board as the Board has at all times entrusted its chairman with the duty of finding relieving teachers. A huge amount of correspondence (tabled) had been carried on this month in connection until the appointment of relieving teachers. Tho salary proves that this is a matter which cannot he dealt with in any other way. As in Ms evidence Mr Andrew stated tho position should go by merit only and m cases of equal merit by seniority, the appointment of a more experienced teacher should have liis approval. I maintain that the Board did consult the committee, though as a matter of courtesy only, for on the 15th i March the committee was informed whom the Board had asked to accept the position. The committee then had an opportunity of lodging any objection if it so wished to the appointment of such a teacher.

Mr Morgan said that lie was pleased to hear the chairman’s statement, but thought that the question should bo pursued further. He would move: “That when the Commission visited Wellington the Board should take an opportunity of giving evidence in contradiction.” Mr Roach seconded the motion.

Mr Darton was of opinion that the To Hapara School had been better treated than any other school, but the teacher and chairman had gone out- of their way to cause friction between the school and the Board. He did not favor Board members going to Wellington to controvert the statement of a biassed person. He was satisfied the Board's conscience was clear on the matter He would move as an amendment: “That the chairman’s statement should be sent to the Commission.” The Chairman endorsed Mr Darton’s remarks, and it was decided to forward the chairman’s statement to the Education Commission. It was further resolved that the chairman and secretary be sent to Wellington to place their views on education generally before the Commission .