TRUANCY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5603, 1 June 1905, Page 3

TRUANCY.

I’A KENTS BEFORE THE COURT. TWENTY CONVICTIONS. John Hi neon, Truant Inspector to :ho Wellington Education Board, proceeded against twenty-six persons in tho Magistrate’s CoTirfc yesterday tor failing to send their children to school. Convictions wore recorded in twenty cases, tho minimum line, 2s(withcosts), boing inflicted ia all instances but one. The total lines amounted to £2 (is, and the costs to £7. In most cases the child’s mother appeared to answer the charge, although tho act makes it compulsory lor tiio father to appear. Tho inspector pointed out to tho presiding Justices that it was usual for tho Bench to allow tho mother to attend, as tho father would in many cases'bo subjected to monetary loss if ho had to appear. In the majority of cases tho plea of nob guilty was entered. Many wore tho excuses made by tho mothers for failing to send their children to school. One woman’s excuse was that her boy was not taught anything but how to “give cheek”—-this at ■i.ho Mount Cook school! She said the boy was fourteen; that ho went mes’juges in tho mornings, and in the evenings sold papers. Tho inspector maintamed that tho boy was thirteen, and ho asked for an adjournment in order to find out definitely, if the hoy was fourteen, ho explained, the Education .Board could not control him. In another case tho child concerned was tliirtecn years of age, and had not passed the Fii*st Standard. Tho mother (dated (indignantly) that her girl had boon in tho Second Standard—but had fxxnv pub back again. The inspector said tho girl’s mother had informed him that if ho insisted on the child attending school, she would withdraw hor altogether. She had only attended thirty-four out of sixty days. Ono person’s excuse for not sending her child to school was on account of tho wet weather. Tho inspector showed tills to bo a very lame excuse. Ho said that allowance was made for wet days. It was shown that one child, eight years old, had been going to school for over twelve months, and had not yet passed a standard. Tho inspector pointed out, in onecase, where the parent denied, tho continued non-attendanco at school of her child, that tho headmasters wore nob likely to make mistakes, inasmuch as attendance affected their salaries. A flagrant case of truancy was that of a Syrian hoy, cloven years old. who had not passed out of Standard I. It was shown that ho had only been at Hchool five out of eighty-six days. In only one instance did tho inspector pre&s for a substantial lino. This was in the cose of Thomas Hill, who had been convicted on two previous occasions. His child had practically not been at school for the post four weeks, and a fin© of os, with costs 7s, vas inflicted. I

Some time ago I>r McArthur ruled 'hat a separate information must bo laid for each week that the required attendance was nob made. This had not been done in the cases quoted *bove, as the Education Board does not care to deal too harshly with offenders. One of tho presiding Justices pointed out yesterday that if teparato informations were laid, the fines in some cases would amount to oounds.