THE WAIREKA INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10362, 17 May 1895, Page 4

THE WAIREKA INQUIRY.

FINDING OF THE EDUCATION BOARD. At the meeting of the Education Board yesterday the report of the committee of tbe whole upou the charges preferred by Mr P. B. Fraaer, formerly head master at Waiareka, against Mr P. Goyen, one of the board's inspectors, was submitted. Prior to the presentation of the report, the following letter was read :— : Diiueiun, Hay 13. _ fair.—li ou asked me to explain the pur.-orl of I the mail's on the Fourth St-xndard dictation papers. As the matter is of considerable importance 1 do so in writing. The blue marks are (he teacbnr'e, the red are mine. The former were made while th<; examination was going on, tbe red on the Monday following while travelling from Dunedia to iHag I Swamp. A blue line below a word means that the word is uuciuesriotiably an error in spelling. A cross means that a word is omitted, and is to be reckoned an error in spelling. A circle round | a word means that it is wrong. The examiner would not count it against the scholar, but reserves it for the decision of the injector. The blue number at the bottom is the teacher's esti- ! ruate of the number of errors ; the red number at ' the top is the inspector* estimate. It in not a ! question of honest marling. The teacher in- i tended the inspector to re-examine the papers, i Although Mr Frascr said he only looked at the j papers and marked a word bora and there, it is I not a question of veracity. It is simply a qucs- j tion of temporary incapacity to observe with ! accuracy on the part of the examiner.—l am, &c, j W. S. Fitzgerald. ] The report of the committee was then read, J and was iv the following terms :— '' The board, at the meeting on April 18, resolved —"That a committee of the whole board (i.e., as many as can conveniently no) leave town by 3 | p.m. on Friday, April 23, to proceed from O.\ioaru Ito « aiureka ; inquiry to commence at the school-

iLw?SV- m- on Saturday; Mr Fraser to be " Iti accordance with this direction Messrs Borrie, I Jte^Jr Stenhouse- M'Kerrow, and the lion »- A* .f j«Gre ?or mot at'Wiiiweka on Saturday,----•wJwf'/l there toolc a <l»antity of evidence •^appended hereto). A further sitting was held in In!^°* l' ds, office at Dunedin on the evening of hTretoTVas tal-edditi °nal evidence (also appended »T l l?vi r having carefully considered the whole of the evidence, now beg to report:- -,- Tuat tnere is no evidence whatever that " the three meetings of committee were occasioned not oy consideration of the report but by disagreewent among themselves " ; but it is established ■?• i S CG meetings of committee were held at which the advisability of askiu;- for a change of master was discussed. At the first of the.<e meetings an informal understanding was come to on the subject, but it was not till the third meetin" that the committee resolved to send to the boa-3 the resolution set out iv their letter of October i-, auu the resolution was agreed to unanimously klh ls-Aowev«rr, quite clear that the Waiareka ocbool Committee never intimated to Mr Fraser their intention, nor gave him an opportunity of nmkiug any explanation. ■ •w •i £ s set ont ia Mr Eraser's letter, the Waureka School was closed for a considerable portion of the school year, and the inspectors in then-report to the board acknowledge that "the school was closed for-almost one-third of the year anu to this circumstance may bo ascribed much oi, out not all, the unsatisfactory answering in the present examination." • Af- to Jpspector.'Goyea's manner at the examination, M r Fraser aUt , gcs . "itwould be well-nigh impossible to get children to make a good appearance even' after a whole year 'of hard work in this facarof the sarcasm and invective to which they were subjected.1' Ihe committee finds, in the face of the conflicting evidence, the charge of harsh manner sarcasm, and invective is not proven. The committee is bound to add1 that it acquits Mr Goven of any wilful departure'from his usual manner of cpnrtuctiDK his examinations with a view to prenuiic« Mr Fraser and his scholars. . .4. With regard to Mr Fraser's complaint of the examination ,n spelling we find that the explanation civen by Mr Fitzeerald shows that Mr troyen- had nothing to do with the examination of the spellm?, and that although on the faca of the report oft he Waiareka School as compared with scnool A. explanation was necessary, the explanation shows that there was good reason for the difference, and that Mr Fitzgerald showed that iienaa ample reason for assignius the marks as he 5. With respect to Mr Fraser's complaint'that only a few questions were asked in the history of Standard lU, while in Standards IV to VI inclusive (divided into two'classes) Mr Goyen did not examine .it all, the committee finds that it is .abundantly proved that 51 r Goyeu examin-d only one class in history, although he himself says in ?. aS! f \ eaf tIVO slloultl have been examined, and that he lett the school under the conviction that; he had examined two classes. It was urged in extenuation by Mr Goyen that the ■ •mission could not have occurred if the usual Echeiinleof "class:an* additional subjects" had At S-. minf' and the ev>dance of himself ana Mr Fitzgerald, which was not refuted by Mr Fraaer, went to show that in Mr Fraser's presence i-iie ust of class and additional subjects was Roue through, and the inspectors allowed to leave the school in the belief that all of them, except drill, had been examined. . ..-■-; 1 Mr Goyen wrote the letter of the 17th December he wai still under the impression vhat.he had examined the two classes ■:?, P m»£ Sev lls'£ o-hh ave h<*l'thiß opinibn up till the time he heard the evidence of the children at Waiareka. He then- frankly acknowledged that tie nmst have been under a misapprehension, and must nave examined only one class. taking all the circumstances stated above into re^vSf bn' V^ nktha* Mr Goyen should be leproved for not taking every cars to see that all ■the subjects were thoroughly examined, and for reportmir to the board as if l, e had made a tnoipush examination" in history. We believe, however, that Mr Goyen's statement in his letter to the board of 17th December, to the effect that he had no doubt that ha had examined more than fSrt °lai:Siu history, was made by him in good ia-.th We further think that Mr Fraser is not free from blame in not at the time calling the inspector's attention to the omission. ■ (j. As to the examination in science, reported on as moderate." Mr Fraser complains that it was Wir? p,e,rfml?t''ry character, , 4 nd d-d not occupy mow than four or five minutes for the whole of his (Mr Frier's) room. The committe» is of oF UMr Uir that *h«r ieW' of e-denceis in fa^ou perfimcto^" "atl°n " WaS briaf *ad 7. As to the allegations that "poetry and rnnn Cl" e + \ Wer? «<* °xa.nined « the misfes's th? LS'u' 15 a di lreGt conflict-of testimony on this point, Miss Andrew asserting that no poetry V { a3;S"T d aad "^ing taken in the nauue whib tr 6 conßldel: e d--:di M ipiiu»ry exercises. tW JI G"y-:u asserts W uh equal positiveness ■ ™dtW rt S (rP -^e^y ab?ellt from the room, -ma that thiwe exercises, were taken, though he &™i T° tUa T y- Sl y •*>?* he «*»«nW either standard I or II m. her absence. Miss Andrew however, denies positively that she was aS from bey room whil, my of her classes were being examined Here ag*in Mr Goyen relies on v < ? V vut IU, hIK lstter of "ecornher 17 (in wpiy to Mr 1.,-ajcr's allegations) he makes it plain th»t only n lle of the two .classes was examined in poeity, In.v le w of this conflict of'testimony SWi 1-^. I*ll^1 *11^ l fc t0 the board t0 w i evideuc? ' BUy) S- °uld be based 0Q suc'l ai^s^^s^r^rs^ ciVnt f ltisfactory" in the annual report, is suffi-_-9. As to the complaint of Mr Fraser that the inspector, in examining, the Third Standard in grammar, went beyond !the requirements of the syllabus in aakin s the pupils to parse a relative pronoun, to give its "antecedent," and to state whether it was >'singular" or "plural," Mr toyeni in his evidence, gives a flat denial to the allegation On the other hand, it is clear that-on the day of the examination Mr Fraser complained to the inspector of a certain question put by the i^fj 'ifS °«tside of the requirements of the standard ; that the-attention of Miss Andrew who wasi present during.the examination, was I directed to -he fact,'which formed part of a letter | she was penmry; to her 'sistar, also a teacher, and that she commented on it; and that Mr Fraser ■nmself, considering the question put to his class to be_unfair, wrote the same evening the draft oif a letter to the Inspector-icsneral, in which he raised the question of the inspector's right to nut ? ucn question ■Pherefprfe. the weight of evidence is in favour of Mr Fraser's contention that such question, was put to the daas • and Mr Goven in his evidence admits that it w^s beyond the requirements of the Third. Standard syllabus if it were put. ' * The Chairman supposed ife devolved upon him, aa chairman of -the commit) se Mr MacUrkgor interrupted to ask a question as to tho proper procedure. He was a member of the committee who did not concur m the report, aud wished to move a separate reporft. ■ The Chaihman supposed the proper course would be to move an a-nendinenfc. Mr MacGkbqoh submitted it should be treated as an Addendum to the raport. The Chairman- said all the members of the committee except Mr MacGregor had signed the report, but Mfssrs Cohen," Sfcenheuse, and Borrie had indicated tha,fc there were certain clauses which they did not quite agree with. Mr HacGhegou said he could not sgcee to the report, and since he had uofc signed the ropoib he was, he thought, entitled to hand in a report of hia own. Mr Cohen said thst was surely not so. Mr MacGregor was entitled to record his reasons for not assontiog to the report. The report came to the board as the report of a majority of the committee, and it,.was open to Hr MacGre'^oiyor himself, to stats the passages he did aob agree with. After' further discussion, The Chairman said Mr MacGregor was very muca in the sains position as the others who had signed the report and had entered in the minute book their dissent from certain portions of the report to that th'.-.y might comment upon those particular cUnses, and, if they so desired it, move amendments upon them. Sir Gjieen :Do I understand that five gentlemen have signed the report, three of whom have reserved their right to move amendments ? Blr Cohen : Undoubtedly. Mr Grbejj : After all, then, the report is the report of only two ? Dr Stknhousk said each separate clause in the report was carried by a majority. _ The Chairman said the report baa been signed by five members, who, with the exception of himself, were present at the taking of evidence both sit Waiarelca and at Dunedin. He was not prerent when tho evidence was taken in either cass, bnt he had been there for the past three nighfce looking over the evideuca, and he signed the report; because hs fell; compstect to do so. It now devolved upon him, as chairman of the committee, to move the adoption of the repott. Ho would only ssy taat this whole case kitd been most carefully considered by the committee, and that a large smount of time had beeu devoted to the matter— both fco the takiug of evidence and to weighing t.he evidence with a view to coming to a. decision. Ths report was based npon a letter from the teacher dated the 19 th of November lust in which -gray« charges were made against Inspector Gcyc-n, about the way in which tho esamiuation of the school was conducted. The committee had come vo a conclusion on esch charge nwde by the tjaeher, but they did not go into anything other than in j that letter, and their conclusion was arrived ;at after a very full, careful, and painstaking j inquiry. Mr M'Kereow seconded the motion' for the adoption of the reports. II; was agreed that the following records of dissent ba appended to tha roporfc :— I wish it recorded that I voted against the omission from clause 7, the paragraph which apportioned blame to Miss Andrew for not informing the inspector of his omission to examine in certain subjects, and that I disagreed from the decision of t.he committee not to report on the ' notebook" incident.—Makic Cohbn. j I record my dissent from clauses 5 and 7, and j from the committee omitting to report on the I "notebook" incfrle&t.—Wat. Jl\ Stenuouse. J I record my dissent from the first, paragraph being deleted from clause 74—Donald B>.;-.iue I record m>- dissent from the whole report, with the txceptiou of clauses 1, 2, i, 6,8, and partly 9.— J. MacGregoh. Mr MacKks-soe subsequently read ths following paper setting forth his reasons for dissenting from certain portions of the ! report:— I agree to nndiegs numbered 1, 2, 4, C, 0, and I p.irtly !!, bufc^l have not buen able to accept the ! repott as a •.■*lio!« it becomes incumbent upon me 1 t.O state my cvmuiii'-ions a.nd the reasonr, for them. ' I have grouped all the complaints and charges i under four heads-(l) That Air Goyen's manner '

and demeanour in conducting the examination were such that the children could not be expscted ™ m -lU^ lC£ to or to their teacher. W lhat Mr Goyen had reported on some subjects in which he had not examined. (3) That the examination in some of the subjects—history geography, and science—was perfunctory (4) iha.t the examination and report were unfair With regard to the first complaint we have on the one side, in addition to the evidence of lir Srassr, that of Miss. Andrew aud eight of the pnpib of the higher classes-children of from 12 to 14 years of age; and on the other side, m addition to the evidence of Mr Goyen we have that of tbe three members of the (resigned) committee . I attach little importance to the opinions of the members of committee for thp simple reason that they were obviously, looking and waiting for grounds to justify them in carry, ing ont their determination to get the teacher removed The evidence I attach most importance to is that of Miss Andrew. An attempt made by one of the inspectors to show that on the examina. tion day she was not in a fit state to note with i accuracy or calmness what was going on completely failed. Mr Fitzgerald, for the purpose of proving this, produced dictation papers which he said had been examined and marked by Miss Andrew, and which showed that Miss Andrew in marking errors, had pissed over a number of them, thus proving what a state of perturbation she must h»ye been in. Bat. uufortunately for Mr lntzseralds attempt to discount ths value of Blia» Andrew's .testimony, it ■turned out that it was t,ot Miss Andrew, but Mr Fra.er, who had marked the papers. As will; appear later on another attempt to discredit Miss Andrew as a witni-ss was equally futile. Accepting, then as I do. Miss Andrew's evidence as reliable, I can come to no other conclusion than that, in conducting the examination of Mr Frier's classes, Mr Goyen ■nni*t have shown srjappighness and impatience in his manner and speech and austerity in. his demeanour; that his utterance was, and probably habitually is, too rapid for the examination of children, especially country children: that generally the examination must have been so conducted as to disconcert and frighten mauy of the children and that consequently it is impossible to say that the (jxaaiination was so conducted as to do justice to the pupils or the teacher. Mr Goyen has assured us that in his conduct of the examination ! he showed none of these traits, and that he was kind and considerate to the children. Now Ido not suggest, and I do not believe (and in this I agree with the committee), that "Mr Goyen wil- i fully departed from His usual manner of conduct- I ing his examinations with a view to prejudice Mr 1' rassr or his scholars." I assume tint Mr Goyen was quits unconscious of the fruits of his manner ihis merely shows that Mr Goyen cannot iudtre of his own manner. There is nothing of which a man is less fitted to judge. The charge that Mr Uoyen has raporred to the -board on three subjects in which he did not examineviz., aistory (of Standards IV, V, and VI) poetry, and disciplinary exercises—T consider clearly and .-conclusively "established. With re . gard to the " history," the evidence of Mr Fraser and the pupils is so convincing that, although in his reply to Mr Fraser's charge Mr Goyen had said that he had not the least doubt that at least two of the four classes had been examined he now admits that be must have Iven wrong' ihg committee have accordingly found this part of the charge established. Now, to my mind I the charges as to poetry and disciplinary exer- ! cisc 3 are proved with equal clsarness. Mr Goyen says in his reply that the pce",ry must have bsen heard, .or otherwise his notes must have disclosed the omission ; but he appears to have been equally confident with regard to the histoiy, and he has had to admit on the .evidence that he was wrong. .In December when he wrote his answer to Mr Fraser s charges,, Mr. G'>j~eu seems to hive been-perfectly satisfleM that his notes'were quite trustworthy; but now one of the points in his defence is that his note 3 had not beon taken on the proper official form, and the implication seems to be that in consequent of the absence of this form he may have omitted some of the subjects. Clearly Mr Knyen cannot avail himself of both arguments. . He cannot say at one time that he is certain he must have examined in j certain subjects, for otherwise his notes must have ! shown the omission, and, then, in order to meet a suggestion of negligence, set up the defence that mistakes were apt to occur on account of the absence of the proper form. The committee strange to say, also adopt this view, and make some allowance for the absence of the usual schedule form. The committee have declared their \nability, in consequence of the conflicting muure of the evidence to arrive at any conclusion on the question whether poetry and disciplinary exeicises were examined. What is the evidence, then, which tbe .committee consider so evenly balanced? On the o D e side there is the evidence of Miss Audrew, who asserts positively that there was no such examination, that she noticed it at the time and spoke to Mr Fraser about it, and that on seeing Mr Goyen's report not long after she commented to Mr Fraser on the fact that Mr Goyen had reported on subjects in which he had not examined. She also says that in order tbat there mirfit be no possibility of mistake she asked the children about it Now the committee find that Mr Goyen ass°rt> with equal certitude that he did examine them, and tnat Mies Andrew was frequently absent from the room during the examination. Now T cinnot b«lieve tbat Mr Goyeu intended to commit himself to a positive assertion either that he examined on these subjects or that Miss Andrew was absent during these examinations. What Mr Goyen rays in his reply is that poetry must have been heard, for otherwise his notes must have shown. the omission.' ■Mr Goyen did not then profess to b« able to state that he had examined, but merely argued that he must have examined, for if he had not his notes must have shown it. And yet the absence of the proper schedule for notes is sst up in extenuation of the carelessness shown in neglecting to examine in history in certain standards. I ask, Where ia the conflict of testimony? There is none; for we have merely an attempt to meat a positive and circumstantial declaration with a flimsy argument. But with regard to the attempt made to meet this part or the charge by means of a statement that Miss Andrew was frequently out of the room <lurmg the examination of her classes, and the suggestion that she, may have been out when poetry and disciplinary exercises were "examined Miss Audrew positively denies that she was out of the room when any of bar classes were examined. Now. I cannot believe that Mr Goyen intended to asaert positively the contrary J should be sorry to think that hi was capable of it for, from the nature of the oase it is to me incredible that, in the absence of any special reason for taking notice, Mr Goy-m would venture to make a positive assertion ut -.bis distance of time on such a point. - How r,hy majority of the committee can attach aiiy wsi^lit to Mr Goyen's suggestion (for I cannot bring myself to regard it as anything more) while finding, as they do, on the subject of grammar, that a positive assertion of Mr Goyen was proved to have been incorrect, to say the least,! cannot understand On thi3 point Mr Fitzgerald tries " to help a lame dog over a stile" with the statement that he believes that while he.was busy in the other room, and when .all was quiet and the door shut, he beard and distinguished Miss Andrew's gentle footstep in the lobby while Mr Goyen was examining her classes. I cannot think the committee can have attached any weight to this suggestion, for I again decline, out of consideration for Mr Fitzgerald, to treat it as anything more. I conclude, then, that the charges as to "history," "poetry," :uid "' disciplinary exercises" arecUarl'y established, and I accept the evidence of Miss Andrew and Mr Fraser is unimpeachable, and I consider their veracity has been conclusively established. The committee, while finding the charge proved with regard to hiatoty, seeks to shift some of th« blame to the teacher for not pointing out the omission. I fancy this doctrine will surprise some of our teachers. Mr Goyen and Mr Fitzgerald say that they distinctly recollect going over the list of subjects in Mr Fraser's presence for the purpose of making certain that all had been taken-,, anil that Mr Fraser never hinted that there had been any omission. Assuming that this statement is correct, in goi:ig over the class subjects in the schedule, of which " history " is one, .the question would be merely whether history had been taken, not whether 'Standards IV, V, and Vt had been examined in history and Mr Fraser's' cbarge is that these students had not been examined. " History " had been taken in one standard. Mr Fraser says'he had never heard of the system of sampling classes by taking half: would it have been his duty to point out that ohly two had been examined if the fact had been that two were examined ? But suppose two had been examined, and. Mr Fraser, not being aware of the method of examining by sample? of classes (not pupils), bad painted out the omission of two classes, would h« not have run the risk of getting snubbed ? The lidding of the committee that it was Miss Andrew's duty to have pointed out the on.ission is entirely gratuitous, for it is not suggested that she was present when the schedule of subjects is said to hay« besn goue over. Miss Andrew stated frankly that she had never beard of such a doctrine before. If we are to declare that it was her duty to point out the omission, are we also to presume that it should have occurred to her that there was a possibility i of an inspector getting into trouble through her neglect? lam quite unable to arrive at any satis- I factory conclusion as to how the inspector cam* to rcpors on subjects in which he had not examined, and I am not prepared .to accept Mr Fitzgerald's suggestion that Mr Goyen in transcribing from his notes, must have mixed up the Waiareka and the Flag Swamp notes. And Ido not think Mr Goyen adopted this explanation. But for the fact that Mr Goyen is so positive that his notes, if they had been preserved, must have shown these subjects as examined I should have been inclined to the explanation that his notes showed nothing at all as to those subjects; that Mr Goyen, being convinced that he must have examined in them and had forgotten to make a note, was guided by bis general impression as to the state of the school in reporting on those subjects. But since the explanation is not open to 113, I am quite at a loss how to .fudge the quality of Mr Goyen's offunce. Judged :by ita consequences it is no doubtserious, for it must shake very much the confidents of the board, the teachers, and the community in thu board's inspectors, and in the system of inspection generally. As for myself, I have never set much store by our system of inspection, apart altogether from the personnel of the inspectorate. I come now to the charge that the examination inscience, history, and geography was insufficient; as a test of the work done. The mo3t serious charge under this head is with regard to science, and the majority of the committee have found that iv this subject it was " brief and perfuuetovy." It is admitted that history whs insufficiently examined. It will be noticed that all those subjects are class subjects, and that the subject of poetry, which is said to have beea overlooked, is an "additional subject" and I am inclined to think that the examiuation in the class and additional subjects, excepting grammar, mental arithmetic, singing, needlework, and comprehension of language, must have beea insufficient, and in some cases even parfunctory- This is in my opinion the key to the solution of the question of the reporting on unexamined subjects. With regard to "grammar" end " comprehension" it seems clear that Mr Goyen at this examination had made a specialty of them. The committee had found that in grammar he had exacted from Standard 111 the work prescribed for Standard IV, and his mathod of testing ths comprehension of the language lijems to have beuu quite new to Mr Fraser, although, if we arc to judgu by Mr Goyen's explanation, it was apparently a good one. I come now to the complaints I have placed under the fourth head—unfairness. With regard to two of them, I concur in the finding of the committeespelling aud the application of the terms "fair" und " very fair " and " good " and "satisfactory "— , although' in both cates explanation was necessary. I I think in the case of " spelling" Mr Frasur I 1 should have accepted the explanation at once. In I the other ease it was not to simple. In a good many other points, however, as well as generally,

I consider it clear that the examination was not a 1 fair test of tbe school either as to how much the 1 children had learned or as to how they had been taught. Taking the subjects sunaratoly first, it I must be admitted that the examinations in history 1 and grammar were unfair—the ona in consequence of being insufficient and the other by reason of excess. "History" is marked " moderate," and : "grammar" "inferior." It cannot be contended I that that is fair. . Mr Fraser complains, and with ! cause, of a^special element of unfairness in the ' grammar" examination, in that excessive demands were made upon hia pupils in the presence of thre.o members of committee, who were seeking grounds (or his dinmUsal. In "science" tho fxa initiation is proved to havj been "perfunctory," and the result, is reported as "moderate." [ cannot, help thinking that in this subject the examination was specially unfair. The teuciier had givsii hpccial attention to it, and had spent some mouey in getting diagrams because he had devoted special study to the subject. It is even possible he may have known more about it than tUe inspector; he seems to have shown on the spot dissatisfaction on account both of the perfuuetoriness of the examination as a vvhole, and the inspector closing the examination with what he considered an absurd and unintelligible question. The inspector protests that he cannot have put the question complained of, because, as stated by Mr I'raser. it would admittedly have been a stupid question. But the syll-.fiism is not by any means clear to me. The resulr, of the science examination was reported as " moderate," and this was obviously unfair. Mr Eraser also complains that in the report usually sent.to committees there is nothing to indicate that, allowance should be. made for the fact that the school had baen'closed'during about a third of the year. In the report intended for the board (but which, in fact, the board never sees except in special cases) and for the teacher, reference was made to this fact, and a statement was made to the effect tuat; thig would account; for some, but not all, of the b.-id answering. Tbe inspector was informed at tlie opening of the examination that the three mcinb«rs of committee present were seeking cause against the teacher, and that should have led the inspector to see that the report was fair iii this re >pect. If lam correct in the conclusions I hava arrived at. it follows that the examination as a whoU was not such as to do justice to the school, and that the report is in many points unfair.. But Ido not believe that Mr Goyen was consciously or deliberately unfair. I cannot help thinking, however, that, through some cause, Mr Goyen must have proceeded to the examination of that school in the expectation of fiudins; it in a not very satisfactory state., Mr Goyen says be had not Sfen Mr PetnVs report. He did not know that the school had been closed for a third of the year. He knew that the committee, or some of them, were dissatisfied: and be probably knew that Mr Fraser was giving some attention to other pursuits : and it is not unlikely that all these considerations led him ti expect, somewhat unsatisfactory results, and tbi3 may have led him to be perfunctory and hasty and to take a good deal for granted. I believe this s.ccounts for most of the unfairness of the report. Whatever the cause, there is no doubt Mr Goyen was remiss in the execution of his duty. Au inspector's work is in ifcs;.natui-3 such that it tends to pass into routine. I attach les3 importaucs than some other members of the committee to the reporting on subjects not examined, because in my opinion the quality of the fault depends upon the qtw nnimo, and as to thia lam not clear. To my mind the defence set up in answer to the charges, is a more serious matter than the charges themselves. This makes me regret -exceedingly, that.-the board refused to adopt the susgestion I made at an early stags—in. December,—that the whole matter should ba allowed to drop, in the hope that Mr Goyen and Mr Fraser might come to an understanding after mutual explanations. Un this chsrge, which is generally considered as the most serious of all, the majority of the committee have reported that they have been unable to arrive at any conclusion on account of the conflicting nature of the evidence. To arrive at this position the committee.must have found, as indeed they have found, that Miss Andrew's positive declaration that Mr Goyen did not examine is countervailed by an equally positive declaration by Mr Goyen that he did examine. Now, I cannot, because of the inherent improbability of air Goyen being able to make a positive affirmation on such a point, and for the reasons I have seated above, believe teat Mr Goyen intended to make any such positive affirmation. If I believed v.hat ke did I should be constrained to admit that I could not believe him, and to arrive at tbe conclusion, very reluctantly, that he should not continue to hold his position in the board's j service. How the committee can say that Miss ; Andrew's evidence is counterbalan-ed by Mr Guyen's after their finding as to the grammar £ cannot understand. As I stand alone it is not for me to make recommendations to the board,' but I am prepared to state my conclusions should occasion; arise. The Ghairmak : Do you want that to bs appended to th« reporb ? Mr MacGrbgor : Yes. The Chairman : I don't think you can add it to .tbe report except a3 a speech in opposition to the report. ._ Mr MacGuegor: I doa'fc cars what you call it.. Ibis an addendum to the report. It contains my conclusions, and my reasons for my conclusioDS. . .• , Mr Green said the chairman had already ruled that Mr MacGregor's report could be received, and the same had been placed on the table. Therefore that question could not uoivbe discussed. Tha question of the adoption of the report wesnow the only question before the board. Whenever the report of the committee appeared if; must appear with Mr JHscGregor's report added, otherwise there would be a. record of the difsenta of the other members and not a record a'i his dissent. Ifc was tacitly agreed that Mr MacGregor's report should be appended to the report of the committee. Dr Stenhodse said it was undoubtedly a facb that when the report was signed it was considered by the committee to ba incomplete. The committee had not given any deliverance on the case as a whole, and their opinion was that that should be left to the eDtire board. The committee had not bsen a committee of the whele board. He, therefore, thought it was quite competent for the board to add to or eliminate from the report. Ha fdlb ifc necessary to make Borne comments on this moabpainful case. If any good could come out oE the inquiry it would be in thi3 way: After the great length of tima the board hxd devoted to the inquiry and the pains they ha,d taken with it, the humblest teacher in tueir service must feelthat ths* hoard had a fraternal interest in all their teachers, and that even-handed justice would be meted out to everyone in the service of the board; The inquiry might do good also if it pointed out to the inspectors tbe extreme ca:e that was nccsssary to carry on'the work of inspection and examination. He thought it necessary to say a word or two upon what led up to the inquiry, for the reason that it accounted for the attitude Mr Fr-isarhad taken up. He need not paiut out to the board that his attitude was very determined and hostile to tbe inspecDor. The explanation of that to his (tbe speaker's) mind was easy. Thsy knew that a hosrile inspection report had been sent in ia regard to the school. Mr MacGkegob : By Mr Petrie, yon mean ? Dr'SiENHOusE: Yes, by Mr Petcie, He proceeded to say that the board also kaew that the commit.'cc had acted so far upon the report as to intimate to Mr Fraser that if tha nest reporb was not a better one they would ask for a change of toacher. That was enough to put any teacher's back up ; especially as the report to which be (Dr Stenhousfe) had referred was couched in language that no inspector should have adopted in allndiog to the inspection of the school to the board. Xhe report was to a very great extent couched in the language of irony. Mr Fraser had two facts before his mind on the morning of the examination. He was to a, certain extent in a suspicious frame of mind, and was prepared to narrowly watch the attitude and bearing of the inspector during tha whole otthe examination. That was nob an attitude for a teacher to assume when he met an inspector who was to examine his school. It, however, accounted for Mr Fraser fiitdicg so much fftulb with the inspectors manner, acid thinking that it was nob the manner tba.s the inspector had previoosly adopted. Having heard the evidence of the children, the committeemen, and Miss Andrew he had no hesitation in acquitting Mr Goyen of any intention of departing from his usual manner. Mr Fraser not only wished the board to believe that Mr Goyen's manner v?as barsh, but that it was wilfully harsh. Ho (Dr Stenhouse) accounted for that by the attitude of suspicion with which Mr Fraser met Mr Goyen on the morning of the irjspectio.u. He, unlike Mr MacG/regor, attached very little importance to what children said six mouths after tbe inspection, nor yet did he attach much weight; to what the committeemeu said, because they were hostile to the teacher, and it was a very difficult thing for anyone to sic in judgment upon a man's nwnuer. All men were subject to change,- and there might have been a little difference in the manner of Mr Goyen on the occasion in question; but that was not sufficient to call for strictures from the teacher or from the board. He felt ifc was a very paltry charge to make against anyone. In ragard to the second finding, it would bs remembered that in the opinion of tbe committee Mr Goyen had not rmcle sufficieul allowance for the length of time during which the school had been shut up. He was told that would go in the nummary at the end of the report. He looked upon vhe omission of the examination iv certain subjects as not of very serious moment; but iia certainly thought that there should be such a relationsbip bstween teacher snd inspector that when the teachers obsorved au omission on the port of the inspectors, as they both admitted th=y had, they should have called Mr Goyen's attention to tha matter at the time. At all events, when they did not do / so, they should be debarred from bringing it up afterwards as against the inspector. As to the examination in science, hs (Dr Btsnhousa) thought that tbe examination was nob such ss it t-honld have been. It consisted only in asking questions upon one or two subjects, and he considered that the examination was a perfunctory one, and he hud uo hesitation in saying so. He voted agaiu.st No. 7 finding, as he held that it was distinctly proven that poetry, disciplinary exercises, and object leusons were not examined. He held that was as distinctly proven as the omission of history. The most serious complaint, iv his estimation—and he could nob find any excuse for it —was that the inspector reported to the bonrd sn certain sublets tbat he had not examined. That curtainly tended to destroy ! tbe confidenco rof the board in the fair- ■ ness or carefulness of the inspector.

' SPRING BLOSSOM TEA, j

IHe thought also that the board should come to some finding on the complaint as a whole. He would like now to refer to a matter which had been made very little of. Mr Fraser ehilleng'.d Mr Goyen (o prodnce his notebook. Mr Goyea maintained th*t ha had no notebook, and Mr Prater and Miss Andrew were confident that he had. Regarding' that matter, he was going to move ia'coulmittte that the following clauseibe inserted id the report: " In regard to the notebook question, tbe committee is unable to reconcile the two directly opposite statements or to account for the conflict of testimony.ia respect to this mattsr." He cettainly thought some reference should be made to the matter ia the report so as to show that the committee had considered that as well as the other matters of the inquiry. Mr Cohkn thought the matter of the notebook was one of quite an large a magnitude as any other that tbe committee pronounced an opicicu upon, and it was only fair to say that Mr Fra?er regarded it in that light. It was one of. the material matters in regard to which he called upou the board to decide as between himself and Mr Goyea. The committee had an absolute statement made by Miss Andrew that in >he schoolroom Mr Goyen used, not a atrip of paper as he alleged, but a notebook, in which he put the conclusions at which he arrived on the examination of certain classes. The importanca of that statement and the proof of it could not be denied. The committee were driven to this conclusion : that if they believed 'Miss Andrew and Mr Fraser they must assert positively that what Mr Goyen stated was not true in regard to this matter; because it was impossible to believe that a man could make such a mistake as to imagine that strips of blue paper were not different from a notebook. On the ooe hand, Mr Fraser and Miss Andrews -testitted as positively as it is possible for two persons to testify, that Mr Goyen had a notebook; and, on the other hand, Mr Goyen was positive that on no occasion' did he use a notebook when he examined a school, and Ihit, in the absence of the usual schedules on this particular occasion, he used a piece of blue paper. Mr Goyea was also supported to (■bis extent: that Mr Fitzgerald ssid when Mr Goyen made up his report hs saw him using the slip of paper. He moved—" That the clause read by Dr Stenhouse be added to tbe raoort " The motion that the clause be added, on being put, was carried on the castiugvote of the chairman. Mr Cohen moved—" That the following be added to clause 7, after the:words 'was examined in poetry,' 'the committee think it was Miss Andrew's duty to call the inspector's attention to hi* uaglecfc to examine her class's '" In jpsaking to the motion hs said the board ougot to have treated-Mr MacSregorV "extraordinary " document as a speech. . It, however, had got upon a record of tuenroceedino-s as what it claimed to be—a reason of disssnf In that document Mr MacGregor maintained that Miss Andrew could not be held blarasble iv regard to not calling the inspector's attention to an omission on his part, because no rule or regulation laid the.duty upon a teacher to do so, and because it would not be right: to place her ia' such' a. position as might afterwards cause an inquiry into the inspector's conduct Now ho (Mr. CohenV contended that the. object of testiust the knowledge of a school was to satisfy the minds of parents and the public generally ttwt the instruction given in the school was efficient. But how could it ba contended thatthe mspestion was efficient if certain subjects were passed over with thefullkuowledgecf the teaphsr, and how could it be said that that inspection was a full arid houeat one? To his mind it was an omission of duty on the part of the inspector to neglect to examine classsa, and r.u equally grave omission on the part 06 the teacher to allow the neglect to pass unchallenged. Miss Andrew's explanation with regard to omitting to call the inspectors attention to his omission to examine her class because two of the children ■were nerv to the school, and were not prepared for examination, was the flimsiest of excuses. .Therefore.the committee, in holding Mr Fraser accountable in.regard to his omission to call the inspector's attention to his not having examined iv history, should also hold Miss Andrew blamable for allowing the inspector to go away without examining her class. If the coir a >ittee wished to be consistent, they would holu both blamabie. Dr Stenhouse seconded the motion. Mr MacGregoh wouldnot have felt it necessary to speak but, for what he believed to be a preversiqn of tbe evidence. Mr Cohen had said that :MisH Andrew had set up as an excuse for not mentioning the omission of the inspector to examine hsr class was that there were two children in the class who were nawcomers and wece not, prepared. That was not correct. Miss Andrew had set that up as her reason for noticing that the inspector 'had not examined the class. ' ' ' ' , ; The addition was carried, Mr MacGsegok dissenting. On the motion for the adoption of the report as amended, Mr MacGregolj repeated his opinion that the board had committed'a very great mistake in having undertaken to adjudicate on this exceedingly difficult subject.;:.-.'He- Was more convinced than ever that ha was right -in proposing that the question should be relegated to a magistrate, and the report, which was on the point of being adopted, showed conclusively that the board had added one more to its numerous mistakes in this matter. It would be admitted, he thought, that the report, was an admission on the part of the majority 6t the members of the board that they had uot been able to arrive st any conclusion on certain of the charges because of t v.e conflicting nature of the evidence brought before them, and it would be admitted' also than those were the very charges which most of the members considered were the most grave of all that were made, and the position was that after ail this trouble and expanse the report iuffc the mo3t important questions of all still undecided, and confirmed his warning that it would bs of such a nature as to be tntirely unsatisfactory to the teachers, the community, and all concerned. The report wa«i> an admission iv every line and in every word of the incompetence of the board and of the mistake the board made in insisting in constituting themselves the judges in this matter. It was quite true that magistrates every day declared themselves unable to come to any conclusion, but it was known that a majority of the members of the board constituted themselves judges—they had themselves undertaken to adjudicate on a matter which they could have relegated to a proper court to, adjudicate upon. There was one point which he felt constrained to refer to, and that was that one member of the board who did nob attend the inquiry, who did not hear the evidence, took a very active, important, and leading part in arriving at the report and in adjudicating upon this question. That member wrs the chairman of tbe board. The speaker felt it his duty to refer to this matter, because he considered it should not have happened. He considered it an improper and wrong thing for any member of the board —just as it would be a wrong ■ thing for any judge—who had not heard the evidence to takfi a part in adjudicating upon the case: DrSTENHopsE: What if the judge read the j evidence ?.....' '■ ■ *. | Mr MacGregob said Dr Stenhouse wag simply showing his own ignorance when he made that suggestion. .If he could not say anything wisijr than that it was better for him to hold his tongue. He inado no suggestion that the chairman had not acquainted "himself with the evidence to the best of his ability to come to a proper conclusion. . Prom his knowledge of the evidence the chairman bad shown that he had studied it carefully, but the speaker still maintaiaed that no member of the board should take a part in arriving at tie finding of the committee who had not heard the evidence. MrGraoa had expressed to him some doubt as to whether he (slr Green) should take a part in the proceedings of the committee, as he had not been present at the taking of the evidence, and he was sure that memb-r would bear him out when he said that he (Mr MacGregor) impressed upon him that it was his duty to attend if he was well enough, but it was equally his duty not to' take any part beyond listening—(Mr Geeen: "That is quits correct."),—so,.that when the matter came beforo the board h% might be able to exercise his discretion. The chairmin bad thought proper to adopt a different course, and it was perfectly open to him to hold his own opinion as to his duty; but the speaker held a very stroDg opinion upon the question and considered himself bound to draw attention to it, the more especially as after the appointment of the who'e board as a committee of inquiry had bsen agreed to he interjected a remark that it would be a highly improper thing for the chairman and Mr J. F. M. Fraser, who had signed the remarkable report which had been presented to the board, to take any part in ' the proceedings at this inquiry, and he might bs mistaken, but he certainly understood the chairman, to say there was not the slightest occasion for any alarm on that point as h'j hsd no iuteation of tskiiig any part. The repoto whs one in which the speaker did t:os concur, but it was unnecessary tor him to I enlarge on the reasons stated by him in the nil-ni rJindnia attached to tbe report. Mr Cohen- contended that Mr MacGregor's memorandum was not anything in the nature of what could properly be called a disseutieat report, inasmuch as it did not. challenge the conclusions of the committee to which it took exception, and did uot give the reasons for so dissenting. Mr MacGregor had contended that there wss sufficient feeliag and sufficient prajudsjment of tbe ease on the part of certain members of the board to preclude them from arriving at a righteoiiK judgment upsn the case. For himself he paid that the proper persons to determine whether hs was competent to sit on a case of this'kind were those who sent him there, and until he waß shown that he had forfeited taeir confidence he challenged the tight of anyone to say that he was not competent to sit on a cabs of that kind. He had done at that board bo act—cen--1 scioosly, at any rate—by which it could be said that he had prejudged this case. He had considered the evidence impartially, in

SPRING BLOSSOM TEA.

■■""'■'»i.iniiii. MM , MMM || M< . l ,, |||j|||>)|gi]> order to try and determine where the truth lay, and ha had no heHtiition in saying there was sucha conflict of testimony as made it ezceocJingty difficult for them on certain of the matters tj say where the truth did lie, acd that was the reason why he did Hot Bay " Aye" or "ho" as to who spoks the truth on these matters. In face of each a conflict of * testimony, it would have been their bounden duty had they beea sitting ss a bench of magistrates to have dismissed the case. On the other hand' the committee ■ had not hesitated to say on certain points that the complaints of Mr Fras°r had beea proved. The contention that the board should. have relegated its duSy to a magistrate was untenable—first, bscause it had no power even if it desired; aod secondly, if it were -o, the circumstances had not at any stage of the inquiry warranted the board in passing a vote of censure on itself by sayinir ie was incompetent to inquire into a matter of that sort. Tne resolution of the.board limited the inquiry to the matters contained in Mr Eraser's letter 01 November last and to all matters arising oat ot it, and it was not for them to consider tor one moment that there did adee in the school » ssS ot circumstances which caused Mr Prases rightly or wrongly to believe there was a conspiracy on. the part of the inspectors' so to damage him m the eyes or the boj-rd as practically to render-it impossible for him to teach successfully or to retain his position under the board. But if that was honestly Mr Fraser's state ef mind, why did he not challenge one report of which the board had heard a lot, and why . did he allow months ■to elapse, with the knowledge that there had been grave dereiictiou of duty on the part of the inspector befors be challenged the report? The speaker maintained there mugfe have been a reason for it. He contended also that the suggestion that Mr Goyen at any period of the day of the examination endeavoured to prejudice three members of the committes against Mr Fraser was wholly disproved, and that the finding of the corami!te« that the examination in science was perfunctory was not ]uatiueu by the evidence.in any degree. It was admitted that that examination was not as thorough or as satisfactory as it would have been if the school had been opea for the school year, but he hesitated to believe" that all the phases of the examination of which they had heard could have been conducted in the short space of time that n-as alleged, and he maintained that children were quite incapable — even if their' evidence was taken three weeks,, instead of'" three"* months after the incident—of estimating time so as to be able to say thafr an examination lasted for three or four or more minutes. As to the examination in grammar, the committee could not come to any conclusion other than to find that a question had been put which ought not to have been put. The only other matter to which he thought it necessary to refer was as to whether the evidence on the subject of Mr Goyen's general manner towards the children justified the use by Mr Fraser of the statements he had made, and the speaker contended that none of Mr Fraser's statements had bean proved in the slightest degree. Mr Goyen's manner of addressing children was one of degree it was just as anyone present at tha examination cared to regard, it. His very rapid utterance of speech might possibly tend to prevent a child getting a grasp of a •question, but that was a mannerism with Mr Goyen it might be impossible for him to grow _<s; **_ 'the speaker's own experience of examinations conducted by Mr Goyen was that it was impossible_ to follow with readiness every question pat by him; but it was within the power of a teacher, if he thought a question was pub in such a way that the child was unable intelligently to grasp it, to stay the inspeeter-and himself put the question. *Mr IHacGregor was entitled to say the report was a lame and impotent one, but it remained to be scan whether those affected by it outride would so consider it. The evidence had been fairly, considered by the committee, and tha conclusions arrived at were on the whole amply established by the evidence. As thereporb said there had been sins of omission on Me Goyea's part, for which, he was held answerable, but that either of the inspectors had so far wilfully misled the board to lead them to think that something had happened which had nofc happened was not established by the evidence, and he believed that whatever "mistakes were made in reporting on the school were not made with the slightest desire ta mislead tha board or the slightest desire to in jure Mr Fraser. : ■•■..-■ . Dr Stekhousb claimed that' he had been aompletely free from bias or prejudice. Mr Borrie endorsed everything that -wt^jontained in the report as amended, and expressed the opinion that there were many statements in Mr MacGregor's paper which were contrary ta the weight of evidence and contrary to fact. The Chairman stated that his action in connection with the inquiry was taken by him after full consideration. He saw from the papers that he and other members of the board were supposed to be utterly incompetent, and should not have taken any part in the inquiry. He had weighed all these statements, and had come to the conclusion that it was his duty to come there and take his share in the deliberations of the committee, and therefore he appeared at the first meeting of the committee, called to consider the evidence with a view to preparing a report. Ha felt it would have, been cowardly on his part to have stayed at home and taken no parb in this matter, which was so much talked about. He had got all the evidence sent to him, and had read it very carefully, and, though he was not presant at the examination, he thought that, having read the evidence, he wa3 as competent as if he had beea there. He pnt it to the' members whether he had shown the least bias in anything he had done. It might be inferred from his coming there that he had come to favour a certain party. Mr MacGregob : The mere fact of liability of people to say sacb. a thing justified my remarks. ■ The Chairman did not feel that he was incompetent to deal with the matter, and he did noc regret his action. Whatever the papers and people outside might say, he did not care. The motion for the adoption of thp report as amended was then put and carried, Mr MacGregor dissenting. Mr Green left the room before the names were taken down. Dr' Stsnhotjse asked whether the ■ board would not take action oa the report. It was always agreed to in the committee that a general finding should be come to in open board. Mr M'Kereow : The general finding is that the report is adopted. Subsequently it was resolved, on the motion of Mr Greej?—" Thst books be provided by tha board for the use of the inspectors; that such books be used by the inspectors for the notes of their inspection and examination visits, and shonld, after the reports have been made, be handed to the secretary and be preserved as records of the board."