COMPLAINTS AGAINST TEACHER.

Northern Advocate, 27 August 1919, Page 2

COMPLAINTS AGAINST TEACHER.

ENQUIRY BY COMMITTEE

Last night the Whangarei School Committee met to hear certain complaints against one of the teachers of the Whangarei school. In opening the proceedings the chairman (Mr F. Cutforth) stated that there was nothing in writing before them to consider and neither of the complainants were present to state their case. He felt that the proceedings should be discussed in committee as little good could come of having it made public

Mr iS. Walker submitted that they were there as the representatives of the parents and it was their duty to sift the matter to the bottom and show the public that they were doing their duty. He would refuse to discuss the matter in committee, as in h s s opinion it would do a great deal of good if freely ventilated.

Mr Moore stated that there was considerable talk about it by the public, and the only way to stop it was to have the facts fully published.

Mr Organ contended that as so much had already got into the press the report of the enquiry should also be published He deprecated anything in the nature of secrecy and thought all such discussions were better if fully ventilated.

Mr Lovatt contended that if the meeting were taken in committee members could discuss it more freely.

Mr Organ said the press were welcome to report anything he had to say.

The chairman called for a division as to whether the proceedings should be conducted in committee. The chairman, and Messrs Lovatt, Sargent,, and the Rev. Clark voted for, and Messrs Walker, Moore, Organ, Marwick, and Hopewell against.

The chairman then ruled on the division that the enquiry should be an

open one.

He called upon Mr Moore, whom he understood possessed certain evidence, to state it.

Mr Moore first wished to ask Mr Ramsey if he had interviewed Mr Harris (the teacher complained of) with regard to the complaints. He (Mr Moore) stated that they came first from the children and originale-i out of burglary charges made against certain boys. After the last committee meeting he had asked certain parents if they would allow their boy to make a statement to him about the matter, and the parents consenting the boy said:

First of all a knock came at the door of the 6th standard class room, and another boy and he were told they were wanted in the office. The charge was then read over to them. On going back to the class, Mr Harris asked: "Have you got it in your -yt><»l.-»fe f" annonmng.anr-cmmmojas-^Hlfl-boy said "yes." "Would you like to read it out?" the boy answered "No." At dinner time the other boy and he were told to remain behind a while, when they were asked all particulars. In the afternoon Mr Harris got all the 6th Standard in the class room and, shut the door. He then got their summonses and read them out. Then addressing the class room he said: "I suppose you don't like being ' with criminals. You ought not to be seen speaking to them in the street." To the boys he said: "This will reflect on you all your lives, and you won't be able to get a job again. If any of you were my boys and you brought a thing like that home I would kick you out straight away. If Mr Voice heard about it he would not trust you any more. Do you collect any money for Mr Voice? You will be criminals all your lives. I would advise you to leave the school straight away. And if I was acting headmaster I would kick you out. I will write and tell Mr McGregor all about it. If he was here he would kick you out." Mr Moore then said that when this case came before the Court the charge against these two lads was dismissed, and Mr Voice, one boy's employer, . was on hand to speak as to the boy's good character. "Naturally," said Mr Moore, "the parents were indignant, and if the teacher wished to say anything h<> should have taken the boys aside." Mr Organ said that if the statement was a fact Sgt. Cassells ought to be notified that summonses should not be served on children in school, but on their parents. Mr Walker said he wanted to hear no more discussion on the matter. He wanted to know if Mr Harris had made the matter right with the parents^ Mr Ramsey (headmaster) said that i he was under the impression that j the matter had dropped entirely. The J first notice he had of it was when the mothers came to the school. Mr Harris then acknowledged his mistake and promised tojput the matter right, that he would speak to the boys and would unay what he had said in the class. JMr Ramsey left it to Mr Harris to Jnake his statement as public as he lmd made the charge, Mr H'aVris askef him (Mr Ramsey) to say that he J; Mr Harris) had the consent \f thef parents of both boys to use t%ir «ames and say that everythingWajs alright. Mr Cutfo|p thought that quite enough had o|en said. He was sorry, the thing hft«|Come forward. Mr Walklr Md the least said :he soonest meflded!wlis idea in having the meetin* an opmone was not that there should be coflfanns of it in the papers, but that it should be aired and the public shown that the coin mittee were doing their duty. j The secretary reported that there was another complaint, but he understood that it had been settled.

The Rev. J. R. Clark stated that he felt it was a committee's duty to try to keep matters running smooth ly in the school and not to encourage complaints. It was an easy matter for teachers to make a slip. They had a very difficult task to perform. He felt it wrong in principle for individual members of a committee to receive complaints against teachers, j In his opinion a complaint should first be made to the headmaster, and if a satisfactory settlement could not be effected with him then it should be in writing to the committee. He would move that in the future all complaints be made in writing and that individual committeemen refrain from taking them. Mr Hopewell, while agreeing, with Mr Clark, felt it was the duty of the committee to vindicate Mr Ramsey's position. Mr Organ felt that in introducing Mr Ramsey's name they were weakening the position. No member of the committee should hold a brief for Mr Ramsey nor anyone else. They were there to administer justice to all. He supported Mr Clark's contention that complaints should first be made to, the headmaster, and if he could not deal with them, then it became the committee's business.

Mr Marwick opposed the motion on' the ground that a scholar might not feel inclined to make a 1 complaint to the headmaster about any teacher in the school, and it should be quite optional for ithait .child's parents to make a complaint to the members of the committee, but such complaint should be in writing. He moved as an amendment that "0 complaint be considered unless it was in writing.

Mr Walker supported Mr Marwick They were there to see justice done to all, but complaints should be in writing. He did not think it was always right to send these complaints to the headmaster. Every household er should have the right to make a complaint to a member of the committee. It was, in his opinion, a parent's first duty to go to the headmaster, but a great number of parents would not do this and in such cases they should be able to speak to the committee.

Mr Hopewell contended that the proper procedure was to put complaints in writing to the committee.

Mr Organ said that plenty of par ents would make verbal complaints when they would not commit themselves to writing.

Mr Moore considered he had done his duty in this case, and if it had not been for oil poured on the troubled waters there might have been a' court case.

Mr Clark submitted that Mr Moore had done his best, but he still felt that the matter might have been smoothed over by taking it to the headmaster first.

I Mr Moore said that everyone sympathised with the teacher, but no one said T word for the poor boys who had been branded as criminals before being convicted in court. If the boys had belonged to him there ing-

The motion was then withdrawn* and Mr Marwick's amendment was carried unanimously.