THE FORBURY SCHOOL INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2299, 24 March 1898, Page 21

THE FORBURY SCHOOL INQUIRY.

j BEFORE THE EDUCATION BOARD. t At Thursday afternoon's meeting of the Education Board the report of the committee (Mr Borrie, the Hon. J. MacGregor, and the Rev. P. B. Fraser) appointed to icquire into the complaiut made by Mrs Burgess agaiust Me Grahem, first assistant of the Forbury School, was brought up. All the members of the board were present, and Mr W. C. MacGregor was in attendance to waton the interests of Mrs Burgess. The complaint was that Mr Graham illtreated the boy Burgess for, as was alleged, insulting a girl in the playground on the evening of l*t December l&sf, when the children were practising dancing for a hobby chow. Thf. report was as follows :—: — Your committee have the honour to report a& follows : 1. 'ibe inquiry was held at tlie Forbury School on Wednesday, March 2. In the exceptional circunistances of the case your committee thought it right to depart from tho ordinary practice by allowing Mrs Burgess to b-: represented by counsel, and Mr W. C. MacGregor appeared for her. Mr Graham was offered a postponement of the inquiry for the puipose of enabling him to obtain the assistance of counsel, but he elected not to avail himself of it. 2. The occurrence that led to the punishment complained of took place on the eveniDg of Wednesday, December 1, in the playground. A hobby chow was being,got up for the purpose of raising funds for the building of a Kymnasii.m and onthis evening a number of children were gathered in the playground practising dancing for the hobby Bhow, nndfer the superintendence of Mr Bruton. The boy Burgess, who is 32 years of age, was dancing with Bella Wardrop, a rm-1 of neaily 14 years of a^e. While the danes was going on, j tbe girl left hfr p:ace aud went to Mr Button, 1 crying, and saui to him she must leave the class, • because the boy she was dancing with had insulted her. Mr Bruton then questioned the boy, who denied that he had insulted the girl. Mr Bruton ordered the boy to retire from the dance and reported th<j occurrence to Mr Maxwell, the boj's teacher (who was on the ground), informing him merely that the boy had s«id something insulting to the girl. 3. Next morning (the day of tbe breaking up of tke school) Mr Maxwell acquainted Mr Graham (t-j whose rla*s the girl belonged) with what Air Bruton had t"ld him. and Mr Graham said he would inquire iuto the matter, j He interrogated the girl, but, liuding he could S not ascertain from her the exact nature of the offence, lie asked Miss Macki'*, tha mi.stie.ss, to iiiake the necessary inquiries. Miss Mackie, after .in.twrogaHng the girl, reported to Mr Graham that the offence was one of a very grave nature, without stating the nature of it. Mr Graham then brought the boy to his classroom tobepiuiUhoA in the presence of the boya of Standard % VI aud VII, to whom he explained that the boy w»s to be punished for insulting a girl: Before inflicting the punishment Mr Giaham asked the boy if he knew what he was to be punished for, and the boy answered "Ye»." 4. The whipping was inflioted by means of a j light lsather stiap, partly as "palmies" and ! partly on the h'pa and thighs. The boy s*ys the number of "palmies" was 12 on each hand, and Mr Graham is uncertain as to the number. Next day the thumb of the boy's right hand wai swollen, s*nd his hips and thighs were found to bear red 6trip3s. It is impossible to ascertain for certain the number of the swoke.-', some of tha j witnesses who examined the boy si few days .tfter the whipping declaring that his hips and thighs j were " covered" with th<: marks. Acofcher wit- ] ness who examined the boy on the npxt day after ; the whipping says : " Tbere were ma^ks of a good! j many stripes. 'I he bruises extended from below t the waist to the thigh, and down the inside of ths thigh. Ido not think they coiild have been done with the strap produced." There is no doubt as to the strap produced beiag the one-used. The whipr/ing was certainly a severe one. H. Tbe question referred to your committee to report upon is whether the punishment wai fcxetssivr-. The answer v> this question (await from the regulations) depends upon the nature of i the offence. Now the off rnee tor which this boy was punished—insulting a, girl by making an obscene gesture to her—is ooe that calls for the severest punishment, if not for expulsion from the school; and, m tlie opinion of your committee, a teacher who allowed such an offence to pass without due pnoisbmeut would be guilty of grave neglect of duty. Assuming thtt tha boy was guilty, your committee cannot say that in thsir opinion the puni-hment Wits excessive. 6. Although the foim of the question referred to your committee may appear to restrict the inquiry to the question of tli3 severity of the punishment, it ia obvious that the real complaint is thai, the punishment was wrongful, as having been inflicted f>r an offence which the boy had not committed. .Nowyour committee are satisfied that Mr Graham actel in gooi faith, anl that ke was actuated by co other feeling than a desire to do what seem d to bim right and necessary in the interests of the boy and of the other pupils. They are of opinion al&o that he made due inquiry before punishing He believed that the boy had committed a grave offence, and your comn,ittes cannot say that he was not justified in so believing, although the question of guilt or innocence is as to whether, en the evidence .adduced befors the_ committee, different persons might well arrive at diffeient conclusions, and your committee are not railed upon to pronounce upon the question. 7. Another question arises in this case, although it is one not expressly referred to your committee!—whether Mr Graham has committed a breach of the i egulations. On the assumption that the regulations apply to the case, it is obvious they hive been infringed in several parti--culars—(l) the punishment was inflicted without consultation with the head master, (2) no emry of 'the punishment was made in the register, and (3) the whipping was not confined to the boy's hands. 8. It appejr3 from the register and from MiGraham's evidence that no punishment at all, except this one, had been inflicted by Mr Graham since 1896. When Mr Graham was asked his reason for not making an entry of this punishment, he replied : "I do not thiuka, punishment like this should be put in the punishment book. My real reason was partly on account of the school being closed, and partly because an offence like that should not be put in the book." It appears from the evidence (1) that the occurrence took place ia the playground, but not durins; school hours, and (2) thai the punisimaßt was inflicted after the school had bpen dismissed for the holidays. The school broke up for the ye.ii- at2..'7oon2n<l December, and th«s punishment was inflicted at 4 o'clock, the boys of Standards VI and VII having remained to make preparations for the hobby show. 9. _ Your committee are of opinion that, the punishment having been inflicted after the Fchool was dismissed for something that occurred outside school hours, the case is one that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the board. But the question is not free from doubt. The position, than, seems to be this ; If the offence was a school offence, the punishment should have been entered in the register ; if it was not, then Mr Graham had legally no right to inflict punishment at all, and he is amenable to the law of the land and not to the regulations of the board. Mr Graham's position seems to have been this : He believed that an offence calling for severe punishment had been committed ; the offence was against a pupil in his class, and the affair was generally known 'amongst bis boya. A teacher who thought more of his own safety than of his duty to the pupih would have made the circumstances of ths case } an excuse for doing nothing, but Mr Graham took j a different course. If the board should take the same view as your committee on the question of jurisdiction, the board should take no action ; if, however, the board should be of opinion that the offence was a school offence, then it would follow that Mr Graham must be held to have committed a breach of the regulations. Donald Bokrie, J. MacGrkqor. Duncain, 35th March, 1898, X dissent txom, the above report on the ground

. that I think the view represented is an inadequate account of the affair, and submit tbe following as more in agreement with the evidence P. B. Fraser. Mr P. B. Fraser read his view of the case as follows : — On December 1, between 7 and 8 p.m., certain of the children, boys and girls of the Forbury School, were being trained in the playground for a daoca in connection with a forthcoming hobby show. During tbe progress of this dance a boy, Wiilie Barges') (aged 12, Standard V). happened to be partner with a girl named B. W. (*ged 14-, Standard VI) She B^epprfd aside and informed Mr Bruton, the dancing instructor, that she had b^en insulted by Willie Burg»'B<i. The boy vras accordingly ordered to stand aside, and Mr Bruton informed Mr Maxwell, the boy's teacher, who happened to be at hand. Though Mr Bruton says the girl was crying, her own statement does nat indicate that fche was much affected. She ; returned to the dance. She mentioned the occurrence to two girls going home, to the servant; girl, bub did not tell her mother, and says she didn't intend to. Th« servant gid, however, informed the girl'a mother. Bui no complaint was laid by the parents to the teacher, and B. W. returned to school next day. Mr Maxwell informed Mr Graham of the occurrence, and laid he was going to inquire into the matter, but Mr Graham said he would, a? tha girl was in his class. He questioned the girl, but could not get much information, and then sent io the matron of the school to be questioned by her. This the matron did, and informed Mr Graham that it was a very grave offence. Mr Graham then got the boy aud brought bim into his room, where he had the Sixth and Seventh Standard boy 3, and gave him the i punishment that is the subject of this j inquiry. The boy says Le got 12 on each hand with the strap, and that then j Wv Graham laid him across the desk, held j his head, and inflicted another 20 or so on ! the hips aud thighs. Mr Graham kept no ] record of what punishment he gave or intended ! to give, ii'e says lie didn't count. "I cannot say what number I inflicted on the boy "a hands. I think it was 18, and I gave him some on the back." As '.o the number on the back, he says, " I gave him six on tb.fi back that had no effect," and he thinks the injuries were ii-.flicted j j with "about half a dozen blows." Again ha | says, " I gave the boy about 20 strokes altogether." Tui3 goe* to jhonr that Mr Graham was and is ignorant of the real number he in- ; flicted. The effect ttse puniehmeut had on the i class boys, who vrero ignorant of the precise ' nature of the boy's offence, is partly indicated J by the fact that some of them on vetting out ran across to Mrs Burgpss's and told her "Graham's killing 'Willie." Mrs Bargess and her daughter hastened to the school and 1 demanded o? Mr Graham the boy* offence, i Mr Graham decPned to tell and called the ' matron, who sl3o declined to tall, but they ia- ' dicnted that the ofiEeuca w*s too shocking to be described. Mr* Bar^ess and her daughter j understood ih&t bad language was the alleged j offence. | It was not until next day that the boy's [ mother knew the extent of hi» injuries. Three j j independent witnesses testifying as tothem*rka j I on tLe boy, who, jt appcats, could not lie on J hia back that night on account of them. Their ; conjoiat testimony, shows ibat the boy had I j received an unusually severe punishment, every ; : stroke of which on the hips was a, direct in- ! ! fringement of the board's regulation, which j declares punishment shall be inflicted on the j j hands only. Ia the case of % big boy rebelling ! in school and refusiug to hold oat his band, , ! much might be said fora teacher who broke the ; j letter of the law. But this punishment appears i I to have been excessive, far the boy is only a ■ j slim boy of 12 years, and the circumstances j j connected with, the infliction of it tended to > render it degrading and demoralising as much"! Jo the boy as to the other pnpils who were j ignorant of hia offence. i No doubt Mr Graham actsd with good inten- { ton, but in dealing vrith children good inten- j tions on the parb of pvcfcnt, teacher, o* magistrate will cot justify either oi them ia inflicting j punishment on the innocent cr cruel treatment ; on the guilty. It is no doubt the duty of the [ board to strengthen tha hands of the teacher in l maintaining discipline, but tlie board can con- I trnue to do so tffectively only on condition that ] it be clearly understood that every child under i its c*re will receive equal justice and considera- ! tiou with tho teachera ia its service. And as j this boy appeals by his mother to the board, not only against excossive aud cruel punishment, but against punishment at ail, the inquiry has to bs faced, whether the boy was guilty of any offence, and whether, if guilty, he received a proper puuishmenfe. { The question at once arisae, Did Mr Graham I ms.ke adequate inquiry ? H« appears co have acted precipitately from tb.a start--, and if he had referred the die c'pliue in this matter to the j responsible head master and to the bay's ! teacher, occasion for this inquiry would tot J have arisen. The boy was not in Mr Graham's \ class, and it was a case peculiarly caiiing for" j reference to the head master. Bat Mr Graham ! Hems to have contented himself wibh the ex j parte statement of tte girl filtered through the matron. As to what offence the boy committed, • it is far from cettvln that he committed any offenca at all. He used no words and laid no hand on the girl ; and the utmost that could be ! gathered, even by the board's committee, was secondary evidence from the girl's father to the tfftcb that he understood the boy had laid hands on his loins and pointed to tha girl. The act itself, assuming it to have been done, might have been a -perfectly innocent one. And it is open to say that offence may lie rather in ] an evil interpretation than in an innocent act. j Iloni soit gui mal y pease The whole question i so far as the boy is cjneerned ia begged by the ] Resumption of evil intent. Older Jieads than | the boy's, and espesially than the girl's, may I make suggestions of an offence where none wa3 > intended. Hence, as the act itself may have ■ been perfectly innocent, evidence of motive is j required, and of that there is not a tittle against ' the boy. Moreover, the alleged offence was limited to the narrowest area. Absolutely none but the girl witnessed it, though it was alleged to have occurred in daylight, in the midst of a group of children moving in regular order under the eye of each other and tho i instrucbor. | If ever there was a case that could have ■ justified the board's rather minute regulations, it is such a case as this, providing as they do ; for consultation of the head master and for a record being kept of the punishment assigned aod inflicted. All these precautions Mr Graham ignored ; and if he had displayed more care in the administration of his punishment, more faith might have been placed in his previous investigation. Apart from regulations, most teachors would have kept a private record of such a punishment as this, and an assistant 1 who ignored his head master in a case of this sort is the more liable to blame for acting so ■ imprudently. j The strap produced is light, bub its lightness ! is deceptive as to its powers of injury. Ib con- ' siets of one p : ece, tapering to a point, and is such a strap as ought never to be in common 1 use, and ouch as would bo forbidden if generally t

] used. Obviously, given equal severity of bblotw t ' the narrower the strap the more severe th« J injury, for all the blow it confined to a email surface. It was not surprising to hear j witnesses declare that they believed such » j strap did not inflict the injuries they described. My conclusion, as a result of the inquiry, ia that Mr Graham had not sufficient evidence to warrant the precipitate action ha took in punishing the boy, and thai the boy therefore suffered an unmerited, excessive, and improper punishment, in the infliction of whioh Mr Graham exhibited an extraordinary and culpable indifference to tfas regulation* adopted by tho board alike in the interests of the children in its care and the teachers in its service. The suggestion has been made that thin affair ia outside the board's regulations and beyond its jurisdiction because the school closed for the holidays at half-past 2 o'clock aud this punishment was inflicted about ♦ o'clock. Presumably the school closed early to make preparations for the hobby show for whicli the boys were detained. The alleged offence happened in the playground when tha children were under the supervision, more or less direct, of the teachers, and the punishment wat inflicted in school in the presence of the boys of Standards VI and VII. To suggest on this account that the teacher is not answerable to the board for entire neglect of its regulations seems to ba trifling with the business for which the board ex'sts — to sea that children are properly treated by competent and careful teachers. The board ought to be the last to appear to seek escape from Its daly by a subterfuge of this kind and to suggest to parents that -when a teacher is accused oE ill-treating a boy in the manner and at the time here alleged redress can be had oaly in the law courts. I »ttach the evidence as my etrongeit grounds r A dissent from the majority report of the committee. P. B. Fraseb. Danedin, March 17, 1898. It was agreed to receive both reports. A motion to go into committee to discusi the matter was lest. The Chairman moved and Mr MacGregob seconded tbe adoption of their report. Mr Snow remarked that the offence was committed during tha holiday*, and for that reason he thought the board had no jurisdiction over the school master. Mr J. F. M. Fraser moved us an amend-ment—-"That Mr P. B. Eraser's diisent ba adopted in lieu of the report." Mr Fraser'* analysis of the evidence appealed to bis mind as a fair analysis, and after reading the report he felt that he agreed with nearly all that Mr Fraeer said. He did not agree with the report signed by Messrs Borrie and MacGregor ; they appeared to have shirked their responsibility. Practically, there wa» nofc a job or tittle of «vtdence against' the boy. As to what was to be done, that was another matter. Mr P. B. Feases suggested that the question of subsequent action should not then ba discussed. Mr J. .F. M. Fraser said that would perhaps ba as well, and probably the best thing to do now would be to send the whole of the evidence to the school committee, who had not yefe inquired into the case, and leav9 them to deal with the question He did nofc think Mr Snow* contention was .correct. The board had jurisdiction over their servants from one end of the year to the other. The complaint appeared to him to be a very flimsy on 8; it was so flimsy ife could hardly stand upright. The whole thing appeared to him to be the outcome of some action on the part; of soma old women who had iosb their heads. Mr Clark seconded the amendment. Mr MacGregor said the position of the committee did nob appear to be understood. Tha first question to consider was whether tho teacher acted in good faith, and the next was whether he acted a reasonable parent would h*ve done ; and the conclusion come to w»s in the teacher's favour on both points. The committee, of course, did not say they found the boy guilty of the offence. It was not proper that the board should go into that question, and they would make a great mistake if they went into that branch. The committee had deiibarately refrained from saying that the boy was guiifcy. Mr J. F. 33. Fraser : You were appointed to inquire icto ths whole matter. Mr MacGregor: Yes, a3 to whether the punishment; was' excessive. He went on to criticise Mr Eraser's reasons of dissent, and characterised thac gentleman's report as onesided. Mr P. B. Fraser disagreed with this, and oiid that his report aim-id at doing justica nob only to the teacher but to the children, both of whom the beard had to consider. The broad question to be looked at was whether the teacher acted wisely, and whether he had not done wrong in taking the matter into his own hands and not speaking to the head teacher about it. His (Mr Fraser's) honest view of tha matter was contained in his report, and he left it' to the judgment of the boird. As to whether it was fair or not the public would form their own opinions a*id say whether it was preferable to that brought up by Mr Borrie and Mr MacGregor. Mr Ramsay, who -was present at the inquiry, considered Mr Fcaser's report was somewhat biassed. Mr Gallaway said that as members of ths hoard their duty was to consider the evidence as it appeared before them. They had to answer these questions — Did the teacher act in a bona fide manner, and, if so, did he act reasonably ? All other questions were subsidiary. He had given the e»idenc3 careful consideration, and the conclusion he had come to was that Mr Graham behaved in a bonajide manner, but he regretted to have to say he considered he had not acted reasonably. It certainly was his duty, under all the circumstances, to have reported the question to the head master, and if the head master failed in his duty it was for the board to say ; but for Mr Grfiham to take the responsibility on himself, without consulting the head master and without having sufficient evidence to justify him, was equivalent to taking the risk on himael f , and he (Mr Gallaway) was gorry to say that he sc'.ed unreasonably. The Chairman said he had not coma to the conclusion that the boy was guilty of the offence, and he would be sorry if the public were to get the idea from the report that that was the opinion of tbe committee. His own opinion oE the boy, judging from his demeanour before tho committee, was rather favourable ; but, as mem> bers would understand, it was impossible from the nature of the case to get all the details of it. He was satisfied that whon the girl went to Mr Bruton she was crying, but whether she had sufficient reason be offended he could 'nob say. He agreed altogether with the report oE the majority, and he would repeat that he was, not clear that the boy was guilty. He did noVi. think it was his duty to consider that point.' Ibt was really not possible to get evidence to buoijm whether the boy was guilty or not. Mi- J. F. M. FHA.SER : Then why did ha flojfc

the boy ? i'ou say yourself you do not kno^ whether the boy was guilty. The matter was put to the vote, and Mr P. B Fraser*s report was supported by Messrs Clark J. F. M Fraser, M'Kerrow, G«llaway, and P B. Fraser, while the report of Messrs Borri and MacGregor was supported by Messrs Scow Ramsay, B >rrie, and MacGregor. Mr P. B. Fraser's report was therefor declared adopted. Further consideration of the matter wa delayed till the next meeting.