TRUANT OFFICERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5598, 26 May 1905, Page 6

TRUANT OFFICERS.

THE WELLINGTON DISTRICT. A sub-committee of the Wellington Education Board yesterday recommended, in regard to the distribution of the duties of the truant officers:—“After a careful consideration of the needs of the district, we recommend that in spring, after the required notice to the officers at Pahiatua, Masferton, and Greytown, the whole district should bo placed in charge of one officer.’’ Mr Hogg said be entirely dissented from the report, maintaining that good work had been done by the truant officer round about Masterton. He moved that the report be referred-back to the committee. Mr McDonald, in seconding the motion, concurred with the remarks that had fallen from Mr Hogg. Mr Feist, before agreeing to tho report being referred back to the committee, desired to hear an explanation from tho secretary as to what was done in Otago. Mr Field said he could not help feeling at variance with tho report. He understood that it had been drawn up by tho chairman, secretary, and the Board’s two inspectors, and ho would like to bear their views on the matter. The Wellington educational district was far too large for one man to work. The chairman. (Mr J. Robertson) pointed out that it was strange that at Eketahuna, wbere there was no truant officer, in three months the attendance had been as good as it had been at Masterton, where an officer was constantly at work. The Board had 152 schools. Gne truant officer in Otago had 220 schools to look after; Canterbury had 200 schools. Southland 170, and Wanganui 170, so that really tho Board’s truant officers had fewer schools to attend to than the officers of other districts. Mr Hogg withdrew his motion in favour of another submitted by him, “That the truant officers in Masterton and tho Wairarapa te each paid £SO a year, on the understanding that they visit the several schools within their respective districts.’’ The chairman questioned the wisdom of such a motion, which involved increased expenditure. Ultimately, the matter was referred back to the committee for reconsideration.