SOME REMARKS ON MR TANORED'S LETTER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6536, 7 February 1882, Page 6

SOME REMARKS ON MR TANORED'S LETTER.

TO THB BDITOB. | Slß,~When I read the roporfc of the proceedinga which took plaoe at the annual meeting of the householders of the Weßt Ohristohuroh school district, I was somewhat surprised that Mr Tanored had made the statement attributed to him. I was willing to believe that there was an error in the report, as the report of a speeoh does not always, in every particular, convey the exact meaning of the speaker; but when Mr Tanored in his letter which appeared in your paper to-day, acknowledged the correctness of the report, I felt moved to say something on the subjeot. Mr Tancred is not satisfied with the present Education Act because he affirmß the Committees have not sufficient power, and the Board of Education has too much; and he gives as an instance that a Committee oould not dismiss a teacher though the oonduot of that teaoher might offend the moral instincts of the whole district; even though the parents thought him so bad an example to their children that they preferred withdrawing them from instruction altogether rather than have them contaminated by the bad influence at work there; and that the Board would uphold the teaoher unless some specific act of immorality could be established by legal proof. I shall reoucto this instance before I finish this letter; meantime, I wish to show wherein the present system differs, if there is a difference, from the Canterbury Eduoation Ordinance, 1864, an Ordicanoe whioh Mr Tanored was instrumental in passing, and whioh he, as Chairman of the Board of Education, administered for a number of years. The 16th clause of that Ordinance gave the Committee power "to seleot teachers; " but mark the power conferred on the Board.by the 17th clause: "'So appointment of any teaoher shall be deemed valid until suoh teaoher shall have produced to the Board a certificate of qualification from Her Majesty's Committee of Privy Council on Education, or from an Inspector of Schools, and such other certificates of fitness as shall be required by any regulation of the Board. And no teaoher shall be dismissed, or any reduction made in his. salary after being onoe fixed, without the sanction of the Board previously obtained." How was it that Mr Tanored approved of that ordinance whioh conferred suoh power on the Board ? The ordinance empowered the Committee to levy rates and charge school fees.. The Board was appointed by the Superintendent, and was independent of' the Committees altogether. The present Board is eleoted by the Committees, and the cost of education is no longer a charge on the district. What is the difference between the Ordinance of 1864 and the present Education Act with respeot to the appointment and dismissal of teachers ? By the Act of 1877, the Board can appoint and dismiss teachers, " provided that the Committee may recommend teachers to the Board for appointment and may also recommend the suspension or dismissal of any such teaoher ; but no appointment, suspension, or dismissal shall take place until the Committee have been first consulted."

Now, what is the practioe at the present time ? A Committee advertises in the publio papers for a teacher, and haying received applications recommends a teacher for appointment; and I believe the Board, in all cases, appoints the teacher so recommended, provided he holds a certificate of competency, and there is nothing known to the Board against his personal fitness. So much for the appointment. A Committee, if dissatisfied with a teacher, can recommend his dismissal; and it is possible, a Committee, by a bare majority of one, may recommend his instant dismissal, not for immorality, but merely in consequence of a local quarrel; (can Mr Tancred say suoh has not happened r) and I think we may be certain, if the Committee had the power, instant dismissal would take place. Dismissal carries with it a heavy penalty. A teaoher is suddenly deprived of the means of earning a living for his wife and family, and he goes forth a degraded man. The years he has spent in his profession have actually unfitted him to follow successfully any other business; and what hope oan he have in applying at a merchant's office for even a junior clerkship when he is known as a dismissed teaoher? Therefore, the power of dismissal is, very wisely, vested in the Board, a body entirely free from local prejudice; and I think it will be found on enquiry that a recommendation for the dismissal of a teacher has frequently arisen from a quarrel where both parties were somewhat in fault —incompatibility of temper in faot—and the case has been met by the teaoher receiving three months' notice that his services would be dispensed with, which notice gave him time to look out for another situation, &nd have his services aooepted by some other Committee with whom he eventually established friendly relations. With respect to the instance given by Mr Tanored, I am firmly convinced such never ooourred and never will ooour. The members of the Board would become fools or worse before sueh an instance as he supposes could beoome a faot. ■ * • ! I see by the papers that some of the Committees—three, I think—have expressed an opinion that they should have more power; but the precise nature and extent of the power desired have not been defined. All is vague and shadowy. I therefore venture to suggest that Mr Tancred, who has been so many years engaged in educational matters, and is deservedly looked upon as an authority, should give notice to the Board of Education of his intention to move resolutions embodying the alterations he thinks necessary in the present law. When those resolutions are tabled, the publio will know exaotly what changes he would wish to have made; and when the resolutions are discussed, his arguments and those of the other members of the Board will be duly reported, and considered by the public—l am, Ac, SUJTOBTER OF THE PBHBENI SYSTEM. OhristohnToh, E«b. 4.