MOUNT ROSKILL SCHOOL HEADMASTERSHIP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12608, 24 June 1904, Page 3

MOUNT ROSKILL SCHOOL HEADMASTERSHIP.

-,'■ ; -~* —■ —' .»■" —- i; MR. o'doxoghue's appeal. A coubt of 1 appeal,. under the Teachers' • Board of Appeal Act, was opened ; at the Auckland Education Board's office yesterday ; morning, to hear the appeal made by Mr. D. O'Donoghue against his dismissal from the , headmastership of the Mount Roskill school. , Mr. Blomfield, S.M., presided, and sitting with him were Mr. Hugh Campbell, representing th« oard of Education, arid Mr. P. E. Baume, representing the Educational Institute, who lodged the appeal. Mr. G. L. Peacocke appeared on behalf of Mr. O'Donoghue, and Mr. V. Rice (secretary) for the Education Board. Messrs. F. J. Ohlsoii (president) and C. H. Plummer (secretary) watched the proceedings on behalf of the Educational Institute.*'" ' ', ■" ''~ ~'""'; "The statement of appeal. and also the reply were read. • Mr. Peacocke inquired if it was intended to permit evidence on matters that, had occurred 20 years ago, and the Court decided that anything occurring at that time had been condoned by the Board in reappointing Mr. O'Donoghue, and therefore the evidence would be confined to incidents since that date. ~"',':,;; : /;'' : ''. ■ " ' t _ Mr. Peacocke pointed out that the Mount Roskill School Committee had not asked for the appellants dismissal, but only for an exchange of teachers. The Board, he argued, had tailed to properly consult the committee as provided by law in regard to the dismissal, : which was therefore illegal. ; Mi. Rice interposed that that contention was not embodied in the statement of appeal, arid further if there had been no dismissal there -was no need for the Court to sit, nor was there any necessity for the appellant to be present. p, •- Mr.,, Peacocke argued that the evidence submitted to the School Committee by the Board was partial,' and that dismissal had been made without giving the appellant a fair opportunity , of defending himself.' The whole trouble, he said, had been caused by; the inspectorial staff, who had been guilty of a breach of the regulations. The time for the annual examination in 1901 was advanced at least two and a-half months, and this unexpected • advance caused disorganisation in the school, for - which the headmaster could not be held responsible., The curtailment of the year affected the two following years, and, no allowance was made, as, there should have been, by the inspectors for the sixth standard, nor did they make mention of the curtailment; therefore, Mr. Peacocke argued that the Board was misled by the reports from the inspectors. He commented strongly on the circumstance that two secret reports were made by Messrs. Petrie 1 and Mulgan on November 6 and November 14 respectively, which the appellant did not' have an opportunity of seeing till the 14th mat., and he drew attention to the fact that these reports were made just prior to the consideration by the Board of a motion to ; dismiss the appellant from the Mount Roskill school. .-••;-.,:- : --,.--';- The first witness called was Donald Petrie, chief inspector to the Education Board. ; Questioned by Mr. Peacocke, he said . he .examined the Mount Roskill school in August, 1902, and formed the opinion that the school on the whole was distinctly unsatisfactory. That opinion was not expressed in the report to the Board in so many words, because the report was made on a prescribed: form, and ■ it was wrong for an inspector to i go outside the form prescribed by the Department. The matters he included in his ; report to the Board tended to show that the school : ; ;w m unsatisfactory. - v He said he saw no occasion; to mention the curtailment of the year to flie Board, because he had made allowance in several directions. The appellant was made aware of the intention to ! curtail the year, which was done to remedy an evil that had arisen. lie believed the arrears of work in 1901 could easily have been made up within' the year. In some schools'; , by reasonable exertion ; on the part of the■ teachers this was done, and there was a good deal of evidence that the work was got through within twelve months. - He did not I > think the regulations compelled an inspector 1 : , to give a teacher twelve months to N get , through a standard's - work. ■ Inspector Pur- : die had been instructed to make an allowance in connection with the Mount Roskill school, but witness could riot say personally whether any allowance was made or not; .■■■.Replying-.to Mr. Rice, witness f said the examination report of 1901 was the best out of ■ three. In -; 1903 he made allowance in reading, dictation, and geography. An inspector's report showed the tone of the school, while the examination report showed what the teacher bad done. Mr. Bagley, chairman of the Mount Roskill School Committee, approached the, witness in regard; to ; the appellant's removal from that school. He behoved •;".. the i teacher • could -ii have i done much better work during 1901, 1902, and 1903 than the examination reports showed, and he believed }. the \ parents 'had \ good ; grounds for dissatisfaction. 1 The loss of SO days in 1901 did not excuse the result' in 1903; the work: should ■• have been I overtaken in 1902. , In ! arithmetic the sixth standard passes in 1902 averaged 2.7, and in 1903 0.8. \ He , knew of no, other ; school of ; the standing: of 'Mount Roskill where ;. the results were so " low. : '■} v Vincent Rice (secretary) was called, '. and :said, he sent' to the Mount Roskill School Committee the correspondence he was instructed to, but I not all the correspondence received on the subject. :.^-v....•:' f --:'- • • Alexander Boyd, late member of the Mount Roskill School Committee, said two of : his ', children had passed ; through 'the school ' while Mr. O'Donoghue had been in charge, but he had seen nothing; in connection with t the latter' conduct to cause witness to think ' '• he was . unfit to bo , master. The committee was not informed of the curtailment of the year in 1901,: and Mr. O'Donoghuei com-: plained to the committee about the matter. At one time there was a serious epidemic of * measles in the distriot, largely affecting the , attendance. Mr. I O'Donoghue had frequently ! worked after hours. To Mr. Rice; Mr. O'Donoghue. had attended committee meetings, and had been ordered to leave the room. \'i ;> 'f. : , . Percy G. Andrew,-a resident, of Mount ' Roskill, said from; what he knew parents in • the district were satisfied with the instruction their children ; had; been ' receiving. , I Denis O'Donoghue, appellant, in his evi- [ dence, said the 1901 examination was held earlier than usual, and the inspector, Mr. I j Purdie, did ; not make ; any allowance in : the i sixth standard. Promoting : children who ; ! were not fit for the next' standard was justifiable on the ground' that ; it would be'; hold- : ing children back only because they were not j fit through losing a quarter of their work. ' j That procedure imposed much 5 harder work; on witness, and also utterly, disorganised ' the school work. He was; not allowed > to comI plete his refutation of; the allegations made against him, and the inspectors' reports and circumstances were not fully considered by the Board, the committee, or the inspectors. i Neither Mr. Petrie nor Mr. Mulgan reported anything unsatisfactory after the examinations of 1902 and 1903. ' The conditions undes. which- the 1903 examination was held were bad. Four classes were seated promiscuously in the same room, and 'while one class was doing written work another was being heard in reading, and there was continual loud din. To this cause he attributed ; the failure of some of the pupils to correctly do the work set them. >j » . Mr. Rice subjected appellant to a' lengthy cross-examination. He denied leaving the school during school hours. School was opened punctually, and he did not remember anyone ever, calling on him to open the school ai:ter . the time , for the opening had passed. : It was utterly false that he frequently left the Royal Oak Hotel under the influence of drink. ~; , . ■• - '■■■ - v H. J. Greenslade,- member of the Education Board, said, candidly speaking, he did not think appellant had been given a fair opportunity of answering the charges made against . him. He ;i heard reflections made . against the character of appellant, ' and ia 1 consequence- voted for his removal, but sub- ' sequently learned'he had been misinformed, I and voted the reverse way. ■ ' , , .:-? j This completed the evidence for the ap- 1 pell ant. • ■ •■? ] In onening the rase for the respondents", ( Mr. Rice stated what had been the Board's 1 action since the dismissal of appellant. He J contended that th© appellant's contract with . the Board wag legally terminated under sec- j tion 47 of the Act, and argued that consul- ( tation with the school committee on the 1 matter was unnecessary. He outlined the < evidence it was proposed to tender. -' 1 Edmund Cam-obeli Purdie. inanector in the ' employ of the Board, said in .1901 he made J allowance both in the examination and in , bis report, excepting in arithmetic in the ] sixth standard and capes where no allow- i anoe was necessary. He reported the re- : ;'i suits to be quite satisfaetorv, as the examin- < ation was ante-dated. The 1901 examin- ! ation was more satisfactory than the two .] subseouent ones. - ; To Mr. Peacocke; The discipline was not, , good. He heard appellant give a series of i lessons..and few.better he bad not heard; : therefore, he thought the results of the I school should have been better, providing ] the lessons were kept up to the same pitch. 3 Edward Mulgan, M.A., an inspector, who < examined the Mount Roskill school in \ 1903. said he found irregularities 'at the school at ; that time. < The result of the examination ' was not satisfactory. He did not recollect , a ■ noise at: that examination calculated to disturb the r w * I '*' A *

■ '' ■ » —— ' To Mr. ■ Peacocke: .There; was oral work while other pupils; wire doing arithmetic, but it was a usual 1 practice. It would be better if they were not compelled ■to carry ■ on the oral work; it would make a difference, to the scholars doing the written work. ' At twenty minutes past ten p.m. the Court adjourned till ten o'clock thin morning.