EDUCATIONAL MUDDLE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4419, 27 July 1901, Page 4

EDUCATIONAL MUDDLE.

Certain members of the Wellington Education Board have made a direct attack upon their Chief Inspector, Mr Robert Lee. When Mr Leo was before the Teachers’ Salaries Commission giving evidence, he made certain statements concerning the doings of the Board, and these statements seem to have grievously offended some of its members. Under cover of a pretext, Messrs Robertson and Young, supported a motion for his dismissal, but the chairman sagaciously interposed, and that proposition was withdrawn. Not so the motion by Mr A. W. Hogg, M.H.R., who moved “that a full inquiry into tee charges made by Inspector Lee against the Board relative to the appointment of teachers and pupil teachers be made forthwith, and that the proceedings be open to tne press.” It is not questioned that Mr Hogg acted in a straightforward manner in taking this course, and in inducing the Board to hold such an inquiry. Nevertheless, the motion has the appearance of harshness, and the purpose in view, would have been served if the Board had simply asked ait Lee to set forth in writing instances to substantiate the statements he made be* fore the Commissioners.

Under the circumstances, the strictures passed upon the Chief Inspector were intemperate. It was apparent that members were annoyed because their methods had been exposed to the Commission by Mr Lee. Mr Hogg tells us now that Mr Lee never raised his voice in protest against the procedure employed by the Board in the appointment of teachers. But when Mr Lee was before the. Commission he declared that the “system employed was haphazard,” “the appointment of teachers was taken by the Board practically into its own hands, and when it suited the inspectors were consulted.” Indeed, in reply to Mr Hogg himself, the Chief Inspector, said he had “told the Board face to face in a certain case that it bad not made the best selection from the applicants for the position.” Notwithstanding 'Mr McCardle’s affirmation that “Mr Lee haa sedulously refrained from giving a lead to the Board in matters of appointments,” the Chief . Inspeqt_or is doubtless able to supply instances wherein the Board has .disregarded the advice of its inspectors. If teachers were free to speak, they could make revelations that would astonish the public. The members of the, Board must know that some time ago the head teachers of Wellington waited on them to protest in' effect against the system of making pupilteacher appointments, and it is only a month since another of the Wellington Board’s inspectors, Mr T. R. Fleming, informed Mr Hogg, as chairman of the Teachers’ Salaries-Commission, that “the system of selecting pupil teachers in the Wellington district had been had. Il had been improved in the city, hut it still was unsatisfactory in the country.” Was the improvement due to the protestations of head teachers in the city? And is the unsatisfactory state in the country at present due to the transference of incompetent teachers- from the city

to country schools, owing to the personal influence exercised by members of the Board, contrary to the advice of the inspectors? Mr Hogg, Mr Young, Mr Blair, and other members of the Board ought to be able to answer these questions.

It will appear to many that the subject of the Board’s inquiry ought not to be so much the accuracy of Mr Lee’s charges, but its own competency. Why, Mr Eobertson, who proposed, as a member of the Board, to dismiss Mr Lee, has actually impeached the Board’s ability to manage its affairs on business-like lines. He informed the Commission that ‘'the Wellington Board had last year for the first time learnt through a change in the method of book-keeping that some of its funds had gone towards the maintenance of a fashionable Bohemian quarter.” What does this mean? We know that the Board has for years made good a deficiency of £I7OO per annum in connection with the Technical Education School, but that cannot surely be regarded as a “fashionable Bohemian quarter.” Mr Eobertson went further. He informed the Commission that the Board had violated its own regulations and thereby had incurred an expenditure of £I2OO a year more than it should have done. “The Board frequently broke its regulations,” wore the words of Mr Robertson; and when Mr Le© declared that “if he had had his way, there would nave been no departures from the Board’s scale,” then Mr Robertson’s confession that the Board “frequently broke its regulations” in this connection may he taken as evidence that the Board made laws it had neither the will to obey nor the force of character to alter.

The moral effect of the Board’s! mismanagement and th© “financial muddlemont” into which it lias allowed its affairs to drift has had a deplorable effect upon education throughout Wellington district. An inquiry into tho affairs of the Board ought to bo made by a judicial tribunal. An inquiry into Mr Lee’s charges against the Board, by the Board,.cannot he regarded as judicial, since, from the speeches made by members, some of them are prejudiced. If members are convinced that Mr Leo has made statements contrary to fact before the. Commission, it is competent for them to bring an action against him in the Supreme Court for perjury, as the Commissioners Act provides. If this is not done, Mr Lee’s- statements stand as truth, and any other action of the Board against him for having made them will have absolutely,no weight with the public. If the Board, in a repentant mood, wishes' to inquire into its own lapses from duty, all may bo well. If it resolves in good faith, to reduce its staff of inspectors, or to abolish the office of Chief Inspector, the people may not grumble, But, according to present appearances, the Board is not acting in good faith or with a single eye to the public good and the efficiAt administrar tion of the education system. It had better pause and consider.