CITY SCHOOLS COMMITTEE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12000, 24 June 1902, Page 3

CITY SCHOOLS COMMITTEE.

THE NEW ELECTION. f *•! —- \ OLD .COMMITTEE RE-ELECTED. A meeting of city householders was/held in St. James' Hall last night for the/election of a schools committee. It will b* remembered that the committee elected in April last resigned in a body soon after tha election, in order to show their dissatisfaction with the action of the Board of Educatiin in connection with the appointment of iko teachers to city schools. There were aboit 70 householders present, and Mr. Arthur Rosser was called to the qhair. {

Mr. John McLeod, chairman o: the retiring committee, explained the position of affairs. Bo said the committee considered that by their resignation they were making an effective protest against the action <$. the Board of Education. It had bean stated that he as chairman of the committee, lad an interraw with the chairman of the Btard of Education. That was not the ease, He went to the office of the Board of Edication and explained to the secretary that hi had called entirely for information, and that his visit was quite unofficial. He met tie. chairman of the Board of Education there, and learned nothing but what he knew befare, except that in discussing the claims of th» candidates for the position of mistress at Bertsford-street school he compared the merits of one candidate who had 22 years' service with the merits of another who had 7j ytars' service, and the chairman of the Board if Education confessed that the name of the teacher with the shorter period of service was sent on by the Board of Education to the School Committee through favouritism. Much had been made of the fact that Miss Mcllhone, whom the committee wished to be appointed to the position of mistress, bad at present the same salary as she would be 'entitled to as " mistress," viz., £160. He knew that all along, but he also knew that the position now held by Miss Mcllhone did not entitle her, according to the scale, to that salary, and that another Board might come along and reduce her salary. With regard to the question of sending a deputation of the committee to discuss the matter with the Board, he knew that the Board had a resolution on its books that they would not receive deputations, and he did not care to risk being Snubbed. The question that arose was whether the committee was consulted. In the first place the Board decided that the mistress of a school shall be the infant teacher, which was never contemplated by the Act. Then when the position of mistress at Beresford-street became vacant the committee recommended Miss Mcllhone, but the Board after calling for applications, sent along four names to the committee, not including the name of Miss Mcllhone, although she was an applicant. He considered that a committee representing the parents of 3000 children should receive more consideration than that. The headteacher of the Beres-ford-street school in a recent letter to him, as chairman of the School Committee, said: " I regret very much that the Board of Edu- . cation have not given Miss Mcllhone the position of mistress in this school. There is no one in the profession more capable and none certainly more entitled to the position than Miss Mcllhone." In his annual report, on the work of the school for the year ended March 31 last, the headteacher of Beresfordstreet school said: "My staff, one and all, have worked diligently throughout the year, and have shown real earnest interest in their work and in the wellbeing of the school as a whole; conspicuously so Miss Mcllhone, whose moral control of and influence with all the girls of the school are quite features of Beresford-street, and in this respect I am grievously disapointed that she has not been made mistress." The chairman of the Board of Education had stated that two years ago the headteaoher 'of Beresford-street stated that Miss Mcllhone's energies would be wasted by giving her charge of the infants. Well, he had seen the headteacher on that point, and Mr. Hart's explanation was that since he wrote the letter referred to by the chairman of the Education Board Miss Mcllhone had managed several large gatherings of very young children with great success, and he had come to the conclusion that Miss Mcßhone woidd bo mast successful as an infant teacher. He (Mr. McLeod) was of the same opinion. He left it to the householders to say whether the committee was fully consulted. There were 14 applicants, all qualified according to the regulations laid down •by the inspectors, and he maintained that the representatives of the householders were quite as capable to choose a teacher as any Select Committee of the Education Board. He maintained that the whole 14 names should have been sent along as was done in the case of the Hikurangi school, about the same time. Turning to the question of Chapel-street school, Mr. McLeod said it was represented to the committee by the headteacher that, the first-assistant in this school should be a female teacher. Previously female teachers had been singularly successful in the school, and the committee thought that should be continued, hut the Board appointed a male teacher. The City Schools Committee represented the largest number of parents represented by any committee in New Zealand, and he considered they deserved better treatment than they had received. It had been said that the school committees elected the Board of Education, but in that election the small committees had nearly as much voting power as the committees who had a large number of children under their charge. He recently looked over a page of the education report, which had on it 28 committees. Allowing them the minimum number of votes the 28 committees would have 140 votes, and they represented 1014 children in average attendance, while the City Schools Committee, representing 3000 children, had nine votes.

The Rev. Father Patterson said he believed many thousands in the city were really shocked at the action of the Education Board. He considered that the committee was slighted at p. time when they were doing excellent work on behalf of the householders. The Boards of Education should be done away with altogether; the committees really did the work.

Mr. P. .T. Nerheny moved, "That this meeting having heard the report of Mr. MeLeod, records its thanks and appreciation of the services of the retiring committee." He defended the action of the committee, stating that they were fighting a battle against the Education Board, which other committees in New Zealand were shirking. The Rev. Father Patterson seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.

The Chairman then called for nominations, intimating that the following had been nominated in due form according to the Act: —■ A. H. Chappell. P. Crowe, R. Findlay, John Gordon, E. H. Healey. Jno. McLeod. E. H. Montgomery, John Preston, Wm.Sherson, and Thomas Wright No further nominations were made, but one householder asked the chairman to rule whether Mr. Thomas Wright was eligible as a. candidate. Mr. Wright was on the platform, and maintained that he was eligible, but in answer to questions he stated that he had resided in Eden Terrace till a week ago. when he removed to Franklin Road. The chairman then ruled that as Mr. Wright had not been three months resident in* the district he was not eligible as a candidate, and there being only nine candidates remaining he declared them duly elected. The new committee is composed of seven of the members who resigned, with Mr. John Gordon and Mr. E. H. Healey to take the places of Mr. P. Mackay and Mr. Carl Westpbal, who did not seek re-election, the former on account of his election as a member of the Education Board, and the latter on account of having undertaken the secretaryship of a friendly society, which will make considerable claims upon his time. Mr. McLeod returned thanks on. behalf of the committee foi the confidence of the householders, and the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman.