The Moa Creek School. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2120, 11 October 1894, Page 34

The Moa Creek School. TO THE EDITOR.

Sib, — In the report of the meeting of the Edncation Board in the Otago Witness of the 27bh September, an account is given by Mr Fraser of the facts of the case re appointment of Mips White to the Moa Creek School. The committee of the Moa Creek School is report'd as having: written to the Voird, saying "that they cou'.d col; accept Miss WhHe as the teacher on account of her religion, as the only available lodgings for a female teacher were with people who did not care to ha\e one of her religion, and the bulk of the residents were Protestants." As Miss Martin, the lake teacher, had been lodging in my house until she resigned, I take it for granted that "the only available lodgings" mentioned means my house, and I cannot let this statement go uncorrected. The chairman of the Moa Greek School Committee, when

he heard Miss Martin wu about to resign, asked If I would accept, when appointed, the new teacher as a boarder, to which I willingly gave my consent, and had made all arrangements for her comfort, when the first thing I saw was the report in the Witness. I have not been speken to about the boarding of the teacher since I gave my consent to the chairman, and I fail to see how the committee coold write to the .board to that effect. I may mention thas the question of religion was never mentioned in my conversation with ths chairman, and also that I am still, and always was, willing to take Miss White as a boarder. — I am, bo., * Abthcb Wilson, Farmer. Ida Valley, October 4.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— l do not agree with your comments on the controversy which took place at last meeting of the Education Board regarding the appoint* raent of a teacher to the JSloa Creek School. You say Mr Ramsay's amendment would have been more to the point than the motion. To my thinking, Mr Ramsay began with a mistake and ended with a contradiction. Why did he suggest the lowest graded as the moat suitable ? Because he thought a 'majority of the community was Roman Catholic. So far his action was laudable, but on learning that the community was Fro* testant, and that it was necessary for 'social harmony that the teacher should be the same, why did Mr Ramsay not fall in with the motion, which I think was fair ? Instead of doing so he insisted on making his mistake public, thus suggesting some other motive besides the legal one, which I admit, but which I contend should be relaxed when the circumstances warrant it, as the legal law is imperfect, the moral law only being perfect. We have precedents proving it unwise to force appointments on communities. As an instance, in Scotland in 1*43 a small party grew so strong in a short time that they defied the British Parliament -to make what was quite a legal appointment. Mr Ramsay deprecates sifting teachers to Buit the religious prejudices of committees. Did he not at first in this case introduce sifting ? Or again, does he wish us to believe he has no religious prejudice 1 Then, if so, he can have no religious conviotions, for I agree with Carlyle that a man who says he has no prejudice is a humbug. Now, a word for the committee. In country districts a teacher is expected to take, and does take, a leading part in all social entertainments and religious meetings, such as leading the singing at church service, teaching Sunday school, &c , thereby cementing a bond of union and friendship, and gaining the confidence of parents and children alike, which must bear fruit in the work of the day school. It is true the board cannot consider .these matters, but the committee does, and I think it has a right to do so. The older members of the board showed sound judgment and experience of past history in a difficult and painful position, and they have the true interests of education at heart, while they don't forget the teacher. All must sympathise with the teacher's unfortunate position, but even her own friend will, I think, admit that the motion was the wisest, and, as Mr Fraser puts it, the same might happen if the position was reversed. We have no cause to fear that religion or morals would suffer by having a Roman Catholic teacher in our school, but I maintain we have just cause to feat the influence of the agnostic. It is impossible to teach morals without a basis ; therefore I bold our system of education should be catholic instead of secular, but not denominational. In conclusion, I would advise Mr Ramsay to be careful how he puts his foot down on committees, or they might return the compliment in the near future. — I am, Ac, October 7

Parent.