MR. GRANT AND THE TEACHERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9268, 2 August 1893, Page 6

MR. GRANT AND THE TEACHERS.

--»-- ■■ — At the meeting of tho Board of Education, yesterday, Mr. Wilding moved tho following resolution : —"That in acknowledging receipt of a communication from the Educational Institute, directing this Board's attention to a letter signed by Mr. A. ('rant, and published in the Star of the 21-st ultimo, this Board would wish to express its strongest disapproval of that gentleman's conduct in making grave charges (by implication) against, certain head teachers in the service of the Board, without first taking steps openly to prove the truth or falsehood of such gross statements." Mr. Wilding said that this was the third time that, lie had had to speak on the subject. He was sorry that the letter had been written. If Mr. Grant had any charges against the teachers he should havo brought; them before the Board. The letter Mr. Grant had written was calculated to do more harm to the service than anything they could do at their meetings. Ho heartily moved the resolution standing in his name. Mr. Miiik thought that Mr. Grant should be heard before any further discussion took place. Mr. Grant said lie had said nothing whatever derogatory to teachers as a body, nor did his letter contain anything derogatory to all tho head teachers or necessarily to any large proportion of them. The term "many" may imply fewer than a dozen, or it may mean more than a score. He asked if there was a body of '250 professionals or tradesmen in the colony among whom there are not several individuals with whom greed or too great love of gain was not a motive power? lie had stated that tin; accounts of quarter's stationery handed in by some head teachers were suppressed, and ho upheld that the disgrace attached to these was the greed they indicated. They were supplied mostly by town teachers. He stated that a large proportion of them were disgraceful. If they were not, he risked that they might be published. He said it. was not unusual for a head teacher to charge Is 3d for what cost him 9d. He had bought copy-books for .CI a gross, and if he paid for them within the month he receiveds per cent, discount. Vet the teachers charged .'5 1 per book. Mr. Irani, produced other books, for which he had paid lid, that some teachers charged the children Is (id and Is 3d for. His statements, ho said, spoke for themselves.

Mr. Coopei: said he did not understand tho resolution, lie agreed with it in spirit. He declined, however, Co vote in favour of the resolution, because ho considered it nonsensical. Ho did not expect Mr. Grant to take stops to prove the falsity of his own statements. They had no right to assume that they were mis statements. He believed Mr. Grant acted in a bona fide manner in what ho considered the best interests of education. Mr. Grant, had, however, committed an irregular proceeding in writing to the press. Mr. Cooper suggested that tho resolution might ba modified.

Mr. Luke remarked that Mr. Grant was not. correct when lie spoke of the greed of the touchers. Of his own knowledge ho knew that some teachers lost money by supplying these books. They bought drawingbooks at tills a gross, and sold them at G'l each. He thought Mr. Grant had gone out of his way in making these charges. Mr. Lambk thought that such charges as these against head teachers would causa the pupils to show less respect for them. Mr. t'ooi'KK moved the following amendment to Mr. Wilding's motion, "That the Hoard considers that charges which affect the characters of teachers ought not to be made by a member of the Hoard through letters published in tho public press, but should be brought by each member before the Board in order that full opportunity can be afforded to the teachers affected to defend their character."

Mr. Wii.dinc said lie would accept the amendment. He did not see tho absurdity in his motion that a member had spoken of, but then of course ho was not a trained legal intellect. The only object ho had in view was to have the matter fully ventilated.

Mr. Grant in reply said his objection to the amendment was that letters written by teachers appeared in the Press commenting upon the actions of members of the Board. Ho thought that this should not bo allowed.

Mr. Cooper's anicndmenb was then pub and carried.