EDUCATION BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8555, 25 July 1889, Page 4

EDUCATION BOARD.

A special meeting of the Education Board was held yesterday at 2 p.m.; present—Mr H. Clark (chairman), Hon. T. Dick, Dr Hislop, Messrs M. Fraer, J. Green, J. W. Jago, and J. Macgregor. The object of the meeting was to consider the following letter from Mr D. White:-

Dunedin, July 22,1889. •' Sir,—At tbe request of the Kducatiou Board, I avail myself of the opportunity of making a statement regarding certain words used by me at the reo»nt meeting of the Educational Institute of Utogo. Before applying myself to what appears to me to be the precise meaning of the sentence to which the board directs my attention, I may, perhaps, bo permitted to state the circumstances under whicli it was made. Though not tearing directly on the object and purpose of this letter, these circumstancei yet tend to throw light on the whole subject, and may enable the board to judge of the significance to be attached to the remark to •which the boaid takes exception. I have always taken the deepest interest in the board's administration in the matter of appointing teachers. I think I am right in saying that every resolution of tbe institute that has been p.issed from time to time with regard to the appointment of teachers was originally drafted by me. The board will, therefore, see that I have had good reason for showing special interest in tbe systems it has adopted in the discharge of this important function. Tbe recent dissatisfaction of the board, tugetber with an increasing want of confidence on tbe part of teachers in the working of the system, as well as the marked absence of harmony between school committees and the board in this matter, all Induced me to do what I could to draft out what nppeared to me the best method of appointing teachers. Some time before the institute meeting I gave considerable attention to the methods adopted in France, Germany, Great Britain, America, and the colonies. I thought to see it that knowledge would aid me in coming to a decision on tbo merits or demerits of our own system. I had then no idea of bringing the matter up in the institute. I committed my conclusions to paper with the hope that I should be able to make use of them in some vay when occasion offered. It seemed to me that I must accept the educational machinery of our Education Act, and I looked at no part of it with any hostile feeling. 1 satisfied myself that my knowledge of the systems, that lind been tried by the Otago Board was iully and" fairly accurate. I was thus enabled to speak with some authority on tho question. The Committee of Management of the institute thought it advisable to discuss the whole matter at our annual meeting. Members of the board thought it would be a wise thing to get the opinion or the teachers on the subject, and at the meetiuj; of the institute I moved for the appointment of a committee to consider the matter. A large and representative committee, some 13 or 14 members, selected from the different branches of the institute, including head masters and assistants, met twice, and after full discussion unanimously adopted certain resolutions, drawn out by I myself, which were afterwards submitted to the institute. Having given the subject some attention, the committee agreed that 1 should take charge of the reiolutions at the public meeting, I happened to mention incidentally lo a friend of mine connected with the press that I intended speaking on. the appointment of teachers—a question In which he is most keenly Interested—and he kindly offered to send a reporter;to give a full repoit. I mentioned this fact to other members of the institute, bo thawif they intended speaking they would know exactly what was to be done. My speech -was a viriual reproduotlonof my written uotci, and what I Baid was said deliberately, and with the idea that it would be published. The speech as reported by the Daily Times of July sis not a verbalim one; itdoes not contain all that I said, but bo far as it goes it Is perfectly accurate. It seems to me that if a part of a speech is to be rightly understood, especially when that speech is made on any plan or with connected arrangement, any particular sentence must be viewed, not only aB an independent clause true or untrue in itself, but it must also be considered in the light of preceding aud subsequent passages. I therefore wish to point out what line of thought I was pursuing wbfn I epoke in the way indicated in my notes. I spoke first of the past system. By the past system I meant a system carried out by the board in accordance with the terms ot a resolution proposed by myself and carried at the Dunedin branch of the institute some time ago, to the effect that before making a selection of names lo seiid down to committees the board should fix on a certain rank below which all should be excluded, and that this rank should be determined in each case 'by the importance of the appointmc-nt under consideration. In my remarks 1 pointed out that this system had not been consistently applied. Members of the board gave me ample evidence On that point. Members of the board had said that in the past system appointments had been largely influenced by buttonhollns, that the system hid been n haphazard one, and that "under the past they knew there had been Injustice. I took these wordsasreferringtoasyttem, and to the operation of a system, and lv ray speech I aho spoke of a aystem and of the operation of a system. I then pointed out what bodies were concerned in carrying out any system of appointments, and referred to the difficulties that we may expect to ' encounter in trying to secure an impartial administration. These powers obviously were, I taid, (1) the officials of the board; (2) the Kducition Board; (3) the school committee. In proposing any schvme I remarked that these were all to be taken into consideration. The best system would be that which wonld most succß."Sfulty exclude tho possibility of favouritism or injustice In everyone of the three sources of iuiluenceor power. 1 discussed boards and the officials and their undefined powers and school committees in a perfectly general war, without any particular reference, mid wjowtd that the possibilities of unfair Influence wen) numerous. I then sought to show that the system of appointing teachers aocordlng to rank, wlien invariably adhered to, was h system that would tend to lessen tha facili- i ties for injustice and favouritism. With that Bystem I wished to contrast the_present or three-name system, and peluted out wherein the one «as preferable to the other. Having given tho subject a great deal of unbiased consideration, I was able to discuss this subject in all its bearings. I then referred at length to what I considered the inherent defects of the system the board had adopted, apart altogether from its results in actual operation, making it very clear, I think, that any system of appointing teacherß which fixes a definite number (three or five) for selection is a wrong one, because it gives prominence to the idea of persons rather than claims and qualifications, and this, I pointed out, would open up st once opportunity and facility for favouritism. I looked at it ns a theoretical system. But I did more than this; I had also to consider the system in its practical aspect, as administered by the officials, by the board, by the sohool committee. I discussed " What about the three-name Bystem ?" both as an abstract «ystem and as a practical system of appointing teachers, and under both systems I thought it very unsatisfactory. When I had vividly in view not only the possible, but what appeared to me to have been the actual effects of this system of appointing teachers, I said "It appears to me to be a gross system of favouritism from beginning to end." It is a Byatem that offers facilities for favouritism when looked at theoretically ; it is a system under which favouritism has been at work. This was the general attitude of my minrt to tha whole system when I uttered the sentence, " It appears to me to be a gross aystem ot favouritism from beginning tp end." Now, I submit that anyone who does not look at this particular sentence in the full light of this knowledge will fail to understand its full meaning or Intention. But the sentence has, of course, ah independent meaning of Its own, as well as its meaning when taken In coherent relation to previous sentences What meaning has it? In tbe first place, I said "It appears to me." That is, I have expressed my opinion on the appearance of certain fants and principles in connection with a particular system of appointing teachers. Then, feeling some amount of indignation, I said it was a " gross " system. Further, I used the words " gross system." I spoke of a system of appointing teachers and of bodies concerned In administering the system — viz, the officials, the board, the school committee. I said it was a system of " favouritism." I spoke of favouritismjis it affected the teacher, injustice as it affected the bodies carrying out the system either in the way of error of judgment, imperfect consideration, or personal bins or influence. Ido not profess to define injustice or favouritism further than to say that tho Teachers' Classification scheme, sanctioned by the Education department and recognised by the board, is a publicly recognised test of a teacher's qualifications. In. my opinion the three-name, system disregards this, and sets up a different and varying test of teachers' claims to consideration. As a result of suoh a system, In the actual administration by officials, by the board, by the committee, there is, it appi-ars to mo, evidence of favouritism somewhere. I did not fay where. In order to show that this is the meauing of this sentence I ask the board to look at tha very next sentence—viz.: " His opinion was that that'had been the effect of this system, and that it Would continue to be the effect of the system unless it was altered." I spoke throughout of what appeared to me the effect, tbe results of a system. I also added the final words " from beginning to end,"whioh were intended by. me to mean that the injustice or favouritism did not appear to me to be confined to a single case; there appeared to be more cases than one. Certain

cases were Bet before roe, but knowing the difficulty of proving wrong intention or wrongmotive Ido not Intend to give them. Nor is it necessary for my case. All I said waß that it appeared to me to be so. Having now referred fully and fairly to the meaning and interpretation of my wordß as reported in my speech, I feel it due to myself to say someUiinf! regarding the board's action with regard to them which seems to me to be somewhat irregular: On t he evening of the day before the public meeting ni the board, I received a letter from the boara covering certain resolutions to which I shall now refer. .

" 1. That although the board recognises the right of its teachers, in common with other memberß of the community, to express their opinions regarding any lint of policy that may be adopted and followed by the board in the administration of school affairs, yet the board in justice to its members and the position they occupy, cannot allow that teacherß in the employment oi the board should in their public utterances call in question the honesty ofpurpose and integrity of conduct of the members of the board in their performance of the official duties devolving upon them." - ■

This resolution lays down what is evidently intended as a general direction to teachers regarding their public utterances. This is legitimately within thefunetlooi of the board indealing withits servants. If this is a rule of general application, however, then in a matter that so nearly concerns the privileges of teachers in their liberty of speech, ought there not to be Borne public notification to this effect ? If, on. the other hand, thiß expression of opinion is only Intended to apply specifically to myself, then it should not, I respectfully submit, take anjtbingof a retrospective nature. However, supposing that such a rule were in existence, I hava to submit that in anything I have eaid I am clearly within tha bounds of the rights and duties this principle would impose. The essential words of the whole paragraph are "a line of policy." Quite so. I dißOussed throughout a system or line of policy, and what appeared to me to be the inevitable effect of any such system. I draw. attention to the italicised words towards the end of ;the paragraph, and in reply say that the only member of the board to whom I referred was Mr Mucgregor, and of him I said in my speech: VMr Mucgregor bad broughtthematter up —the three-namn system-in the Education Board, and the motion he proposed had stirred up great opposition. It was prompted by the best motitet." "2. That in the opinion of the board certain words attributed to Mr White In the report above referred to are of a most objectionable character, as they plainly and unmistakably impute to the board a oovuse of conduct of a most improper find unworthy nature."

As this decision expresses the meaning which the board attached to my words before it gave me an opportunity of saying what my words meant, I am lully of opinion tint the board will vow see its way to a reconsideration of the whole matter. With

regard to the third paragraph, I wa» simply requested to answer it in the affirmative or in the negative, which I did. I understood that the only part of the board's letter of the 17th July to which it was competent for me to refer -was the direct question in the third" paragraph, but at the urgent instigation of the co-menibtrß of a deputation that was to wait on the board, I agreed to call attention to the circumstances under which the board arrived at its decision. The whole of this statement is a reply to the board's second letter, dated July 18,1889. The whole aim and purpose of my speech was intended to aid the board in the solution of a difficult question. No ODe with any common sense would ever do anything to lessen the estimation in which he is held by his fellow workers; End for my own part I am not consciouß of having said anything in my speech derogatory to any body of men. 1 know what respect for official superiority means, and I also know what is due to my own character and reputation. I therefore hope that what I have said does not appear evasive j I trust I am not Induced under the semblance of having the courage of my opinions to maintain an attitude that is indefensible.—l am, yours respectfully, D. White,

Mr Fbaeb thought the matter should be discussed in committee, as there was sure to be a deal of conversational discussion, which could not take place in open board. He moved in that direction. He would as soon see the meeting in open board as in committee, but in committee greater scope was given for considering the matter.

Mr Geeen seconded the motion, and did so for tbe purpose of giving the board an opportunity of going oarefally into the question. Mr Jago felt disposed to have the question discussed in open board, but he would not oppose the motion. ■

The Chairman agreed with the motion, not because there might be something said in committee that should not be published,but because being in committee members could talk to one another in a general way.

The motion was put and carried, and the board then went into committee. - ; .

On resuming in public, the Chaieman moved the adoption of the following resolution, which had been carried in committee:— " That Mr White's reply to the resolution of the board is evasive and unsatisfactory, and that ho be requested to Eay definitely whether he meant by the use of the words referred to in the boaro'a resolution to charge the board with favouritism."

Mr Dick moved as an amerdment —"That, inasmuch as Mr White has stated that his remarks referred to the system and not to the board, and also has stated that he is nob conscious of having said anything in his speech derogatory to any body of nieo, this board aeceptß his explanation." ■_■

Dr Hislop seconded, pro forma. The amendment was lost, and tbe notion on being put was carried, Mr Dick being the'only dissentient. ' . ■ . The board adjourned at 3.50 p.m.