EDUCATION BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 20

EDUCATION BOARD.

The ordinary meeting of the Otago Education Board was held on Thursday and attended t>y Dr Brown (chairman), Messrs P. B. Fraser, H. Harraway J. M. Gallaway, J. Mitchell, iW. Snow, J. Sim, and the Hon. J. MaciGregor. THE WAirOBI DISPUTE. Mr Robert Cotton, of Waipori, waited upon the board with regard to the position of the head master of the Waipori School, and his refusal to advance Mr Cotton's boy. Mr Cotton stated that the letter which Mr Ktrr lad written to Mrs Cotton went to show that it was not his intention to bring forward any scholarship candidate. The position was a serious one, and he trusted the board would con-.vj to some decision regarding it. The Chairman intimated to Mr Cotton that Jhe matter would receive every consideration. Mr Cotton then withdrew. The following legal opinion from Messrs Stout, Mondy, and Sim, which was authorised at a previous meeting to be obtained, jyas then read : — _ 1. We have been asked to advise the Education Board as to its position and powers in connection with the head master of the Waipori School, he having refused to advance the boys Cotton, Searle, and Blackmore from the Second to the Third Standard when ordered to do so by the board. 2. The board after appointing a teacher to any school, has power: (a) To remove such teacher to any other school within the education district, (b) To dismiss such teacher peremptorily in the event of his being guilty of immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour, (c) To determine the engagement of such teacher on giving him three months' notice of the intention to do so, signed by the secretary. The school committee must be consulted beforeihe teacher's engagement is determined in this way, but this does not mean that the consent of the committee is necessary; whether the committee approves or not, the board has power to determine the engagement. 3. The power of peremptorily dismissing a' teacher arises, as we have said, in the event of immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour on the part of the teacher, and the question in this case is whether Mt Kerr has been guilty of gross misbehaviour within the meaning of the act by refusing to obey the order of the board. Now, the ordinary rule is that wilful disobedience of a lawful command issued by an employer to his servant in relation to a matter within the scope of his employment justifies the immediate dismissal of the servant. 4. The position taken up by Mr Korr is that under the regulations he, as head master, is made tho solo judge of the fitness of pupils to be advanced from the Second to the Third Standard; that in exercise of the discretion thus vested in him he decided that the boys in question were not fit to be advanced to tho Third Standard, and that the board has no right or power to make the order directing him to advance these boys. 5. There is no doubt that under the regulations the duty of determining what pupils are fit to pass the First and Second Standards is imposed on the head master, and if Mr Kerr, in the honest and bona fide performance of that duty, came to the conclusion that the boys in question were not fit to pass into the Third Standard, then, in our opinion the board would have no right to interfere in the matter. If, on the other hand, Mr Kerr did not act fairly and honestly, but allowed himself to be influence by improper motives in refusing to advance the boys, and then refused to act properly when requested by the board to do so, his conduct would, in our opinion, amount to gross misbehaviour, jxistifying his immediate dismissal. 6. Before, therefore, the board would be justified in dismissing Mr Kerr peremptorily it would have to be prepared to satisfy the Teachers' Court of Appeal or a jury that Mr Kerr !had not acted honestly and bona fide in refusing to advance the boys in question from the Second to the Third Standard. It is, of course, impossible to say what view the Court_ of Appeal or a jury would take ofthis question as so muck would depend on the exact facts brought out in evidence, the demeanour of witnesses, the way in which the case was presented, and so forth. Taking, however, the facts proved during the inquiry held by the board's committee, we think that there is evidence on which a couTt or jury might come to the conclusion that Mr Kerr had not acted bona fide in the matter. Thus, Miss Loudon, who was the teacher of the boys referred to, says in the course of her evidence that the boys were fit to proceed to Standard 111. . . . " Mr Kerr has marked them as having failed in spelling, whereas they passed in spelling at this examination. The results of the inspector's examination agree with my experience of these children, and I consider they were well fitted to proceed to Standard III." In reply to this evidence Mr Kerr says : — " I inserted the failure ms-rk in the spelling column on account of the weakness in comprehenaion and in the general intelligence of the subject matter, explaining my action to the inspector" ; but Miss Loudon's rejoinder seems to dispose of Mr Kerr's alleged justification. She says: — *" As comprehension is not a pass subject, and ia distinct from spelling, Mr Kerr was not justified _in substituting a^class subject for a pass subject that the pupils were good at." Mr Kerr is thus put in a corner, and is driven to find fault with the regulations. Ho says: "My reason for my action with reference to spelling, and to which Miss Loudon referred, is that I found fault with the imperfection of the regulations, in so far as provision was rot mad:; for indicating weakness in comprehension of the matter read." j It seems clear from the regulations (IV, 6 and 7) that a pupil in Standards I and II is entitled to obtain a pass on beings present in class dtiring the inspector's examination in the class subjects, and on generally satisfying the head teacher in the pass subjects for the standard. Mr Kerr admits in effect that the childr>n satisfied him as to tho pass subjects, but he marked them as having failed in oae of the pass subjects because they did not satisfy him as to another and different subject. 7. The grounds for suggesting that Mr Kerr did not act bona fide may be summarised fihertly thus: — (a) Miss Loudon examined the children and found they were well fitted to pass to Standard HI; (b) Mr .Bosaence examined them also and reported that " the pupils failed •by Mr Kerr in Standard II passed my examination, and I am of opinion that they are iit to proceed to Standard III " ; (c) Mr Kerr did 3iot examine the children in accordance -with the regulations, but treated the children as having failed in a pass subject because they did not satisfy him in a different subject; (d) Mr Kerr after his attention has 'been drawn specifically to the fact that his examination was not conducted in accordance with the regulations refused -and still refuses to advance the children to the Third Standard. 8. On the other hand it must be admitted that Borne of the facts go to support the opposite yiovf-i of Mr Kerr'a conduct, and a serious difficult y in the way of now treating Mr Kerr's conduct aB amounting to gross misbehaviour lies in the fact that the board's committee, after hearing evidence on the subject, came to the conclusion that Mr Kerr had acted within the lights conferred on him as head teacher, but that he committed an error of judgment in not advancing the children in question to Standard IIT, and this conclusion — which by implication acquits Mr Kerr of any improper motive — was adopted by the board at its meeting on the 19th of May. Mr Korr having refused to give effect to its order, the board cannot take any steps to coinuel Mr Kerr to advance the children; it can.

hc-wever, remove Mr Kerr to another school, but before appointing him master in another school the board would have to consult the committee of that school. The board can also terminate his engagement in the way we have already mentioned or giving three months' notice, or can dismiss him peremptorily on the grcund that he has been guilty of gross misbehaviour, and take its chance of being able to establish the charge of gross misbehaviour before the Court of Appeal or a jury. We could not, however, advise the board to adopt the last-mentioned course, because we think that under the circumstances the board would run a serious risk of failing to establish want of bona fides on Mr Kerr's part; in which case the board would have to reinstate him under an order of the Teachers' Court of Appeal or pay him damages on the verdict of a jury. (Signed) Stout, Mondy, and Sim. Dunediu, 12th September, 1898. The following additional reply was read : — September 15. — Ec Waipori School : In reply to your question hi connection with this matter we have to advise you that sii.ee the Amending j Act of 1887 there is now an appeal to the j Teachers' Court of Appeal fioni the termination of a teacher's engagement by three months' notice under section 47 of the Education Act. Section 2 of the act of 1897 .provides that the dismissal shall not bo deemed to b3 wrongful if the board, satisfies the Court of Appeal that the termination of the engagement was reasonable, hpving regard to any of the^ following circumstances : — (1) The efficient and economical administration of the board's affairs; (2) the fitness of the teacher; (3) his conduct; (4) any othT special circumstances irrespective of the J board's mere legal right to determine the engagement by notice. The Chairman : Well, Mr Gallaway, you were in favour of this going to the board's solicitors. What have you to say now. Mr Gallaway said he thought the board would bear him out in saying that if the step had been taken that Mr Fraser and he wanted in the first place they would not be in their present position. His opinion was this : That in view of a committee of the board having cleared the man, it seemed to him that they could not possibly dismiss him, even if they wished to. Ho thought, technically, that the order the board gave under these circumstances was an unlawful order. Mr Snow said the board had had this matter before them month after month. Now they had their solicitors' opinion before them. Had they any power to dismiss the man? So far as he was concerned, he did not wish to persecute any man ; but his own feeling was that the children in this case had not been justly dealt with. He would not like to dismiss the master ; but, perhaps, it might be well to give him a ohange of climate a little higher up in the mountains. Mr Harraway moved — " That the matter be deferred till next month." Mr Gallaway observed that the matter was one of great importance ; and he thought they might consider the solicitors' opinion and bring it up the next day. Mr Snow pointed out that if the board adjourned the matter for a month the children would be still suffering. If they had any power to do so they should assist the chilThe Chairman said he held that the board ought to give Mr Kerr three months' notice to terminate his engagement. It was evident that his usefulness in his present position was over. He thought the board should ask their solicitors to give them a definite expression of opinion with regard to the question whether, under the circumstances, the board would be justified in terminating Mr Kerr s engagement. Mr MacGregor moved— "That the board pioceed to the next busjsess." The motion on being put was lost. Mr MacGregor said when the bill of 1895 was passing through Parliament it was pointed out that an Education Board might evade the act altogether by giving a teacher three months' notice instead of dismissing him, and then there would be no appeal. He pointed that out, but the Minister refused to make an amendment then; but the necessity for suoh an amendment was afterwards recognised, and an amending bill was brought in in 1897, and the intention was to put Education Boards in the same position in the case of giving three months' notice as they would be if they dismissed a teacher. But now if he received three months' notice he had the same right of appeal as if ho were dismissed. Tho Chairman asked what the position would be if the master were removed to another school. Mr MacGregor said before the board could remove the master from, his present position he apprehended that his present engagement would have to be terminated by three months' notice. Mr Gallaway : If you wished to give him , three months' notice, would it not Be neces- | sacy to consult the school committee? j ) Mr MacGregor: Yes; we would have to consult his committee as to his dismissal, and the other committee as to his appointment. Mr Fraser could not understand what the difficulty was at the present moment. It seemed that the board would have dismissed the teacher if they had not to run the l-isk of consulting his committee or had not to face the Court of Appeal. He could not understand for a moment why tlic board should wish for a moment to escape the Court of Appeal. It would be very seriou3 to pass a resolution depriving the teachor of any possiblo means of defence that he could get hold of. So far as he (Mr Fraser) was concerned, tho fact of the board having 1 to run the gauntlet of the Appeal Court or a jury would not deter _ him. at arty time from doing what he conceived to be his duty. These children that Mr Kerr had refused to advance had been appealing to the board for justice for eight months. Their own inspectors and a committee of inquiry both declared that a mistake had been made ; and, more than that, the solicitors had pointed out what he had pointed out long ago — viz., that the children bad passed the teacher's own examination, as they were made failures in a subject in which they could not possibly fail. He should have no hesitation in dismissing an inspector if he did the same thing. The board must absolutely cease to exist for the purposo of having practical control over schools if it pretended to be helpless in this matter. Mr Sim said he would more — " That the inspectors be cent at once to examine every child in the school, and report." The motion, however, was not seconded, and the board proceeded with the next business. LEGAL STANDING OF SCHOOL COMMITTEES. A reply was received from the Education department with regard to the position in which the Pukerui School Committee found itself when it was non-suited in a case where it sought to recover £3 5s for rent of school hall from one J. W. Gray. The non-suit was granted on the ground that the School Committee had no power to sue, not being a corporate body, and not owning any premises which they could let, the premises being vested in the Education Board. In reply to a letter on the subject from the board, the secretary to tho Education department stated that the number of cases in which annoyance and inconvenience arose from such a caune was happily so small as not to constitute a reason for undertaking at present the very difficult and

delicate task of providing by legislation for a, strict definition of the powers and responsibilities of school committees. — The letter was received. SCHOOL AT MAOBI HILL. Mr John Pollock, Mayor of Maori Hill, wrote with regard to the establishment of a school at Maori Hill. He stated that he was much disappointed at the board refusing to grant A right to at least 150 residents (many of them with large families), who had waited patiently for a number of years for a school. Furthermore, he drew attention again to the fearfully crowded state of the Kaikorai School, and he asked the board if it were right that Maori Hill children, after a long walk, should be forced into a stifling atmosphere detrimental to mind and body. To his mind it was a most serious matter, and one calling for immediate remedy. He trusted the board would reconsider its decision and grant a school, thereby removing the cause of complaint. He mentioned the case of Oamaru with three schools vritliin a comparatively short distance of eacli other. Mr Eraser thought the board might wait till there was sufficient interest taken in the matter for the householders to petition the board. He did not know how many the mayor repi'esented. Mr Gallaway stated that when the matter waa previously before the board the request for a school at Maori Hill was not definitely declined, but simply refused on the grounds that the board was not in a financial position to do the work. — (Cries of "No.") Well, was he in order in moving that the mayor be informed that the board did not see its way at present to erect a school in Maori Hill, but would keep the matter mentioned in his letter in mind for future consideration? — (Cries of "No.") What he wanted to do was to put it in such a way that the board would give this question further consideration before they spent any more money on the Kaikorai School. There waß no doubt that this school was too large, and he thought it would be their duty to relieve, if it were possible, the pressure which existed there by erecting another school in a district where one was needed. Mr MacGregor said that there was no intention to spend money at the Kaikorai School. Mr Gallaway said that at the present time the board was renting another building. The Chairman remarked that that was only temporary. Mr Sim said he would move that consideration of the matter be deferred. The motion was duly seconded. Mr MacGregor said he would move as an amendment that the board saw no reason to take any steps in the matter. With regard to the ground upon which the request was refused at last meeting, it was refused on the ground that as Maori Hill was within such a short distance of the Duiiedin schools, there could be no necessity for a school at Maori Hill. The amendment was not seconded, and the motion was carried. hoopeb's inlet schoo/,. Mr Harraway reported on the application for a new school at Hooper's Inlet. He reported having proceeded to the place to report, and after making inquiries, he had to recommend that a new school be not erected. The school required certain repairs, which he enumorated, and which had also been recommended by the architect. When he was malting his inquiries he had been told that the secretary had taken upon himself the responsibility of saying that no new school should be erected there. He could not conceive that any officer of the board should so far forget himself as to make such a statement, and, if he did make it, it was to be deprecated. When he (the speaker) was making inquiries he had great trouble with one individual, who demanded a new school and nothing else. — The recommendations of Mr Harraway were adopted, and the work ordered to be done. SIXTH STANDARD CERTIFICATES. The Secretary to the Education department wrote, by the direction of the Minister for Education, to ask whether, if the department supplied forms of Sixth Standard certificates, similar to the copy enclosed, the board would make arrangements for the issue of such certificates from its office to all pupils who passed this Standard. The reason for the request was that the Post and Telegraph department had made a representation that the forms now filled in by school teachers lent themselves to fraudulent use, now that certain Government departments and many private employers accepted the certificates as evidence of fitness for many appointments. The form now in use was in the hands of the pupils before the certificates of the higher Standards were entered therein. — The suggestion was agreed to. WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ATTENDANCE ? A circular was received from the Education Board, New Plymouth, stating that neither the Education Act of 1877 and related acts, nor the regulations made under them, defined what constituted an attendance, and as something approaching uniformity in this respect, the Taranaki Board desired to ascertain what constituted an attendance under the regulations of each board. Under the regulations for day schools in England (1897) an attendance was defined as follows : — "An attendance means attendance at secular instruction — (a) during one hour and a half in the case of a scholar in a school or class for infants ; (b) during two homy in the case of a scholar in a school or class for older children." — The board decided to reply it had no suggestion to make. COMPLAINT AGAINST A SCHOOLHASTBH. A letter was received from the Secretary of the Cromwell School Committee, and also a voluminous communication from Mr William M'Lauglilin, a member of the committee, on the subject of the local teacher entering upon a journalistic enterprise as editor and part proprietor of the Cromwell Argus. The secretary of the committee stated that the members were strongly against Mr Warburton (the teacher) holding the dual position "of editor and proprietor of the Cromwell Argus." A resolution was enclosed, which was passed by the committee, and which stated, inter alia, that in their estimation " the proprietorship and editing of a newspaper is not conducive to the best interests of the Cromwell School." Mr M'Laughlin's letter was only partly read, when it was decided to forward the communications to Mr Warburton for an explanation. GENERAL. The following claims for half-cost of improvements were granted: — Kyeburn Diggings, gravelling, £1 17s; Lawrence, removal of fencing, £3 2s 6d; Henley, flooring of playehed, £4- ss. , The application of Broad Bay for £2 5s for gymnastic apparatus was declined ; and that of ICasL Taieri for .88, for raising and altcrii.R playohed, \uis deferred. The following we're declined on the ground that the consent of tho board was not obtained before the expenditure, was incurred : Highcliff, renewal of fences, gates, etc., £6; Kurow, fencing, £5 18s. Mr Little waited upon the board with the request that a small school be erected at Akatore to accommodate about 20 pupils, and also a teacher's residence, — The application was {xr&uted.

The application of the Kyeburn School that the grant be increased to £15 was granted. The return of the cost of the new offices, as asked for by Mr Fraser, was laid upon the table. The cost was : — Labour, £1322 8s lid ; material, £164-7 8s 9d; office furnishings, £158 3s 3d; architect's fees, £11 lls; — total, £3189 lls lid. There is still a payment of £81 to be made on the building, bringing up the total cost to £3270 lls lid. The cost of the building, as estimated by the architect, was £2000. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr Sim, seconded by Mr Snow — "That the Government be written to pointing out the insufficiency of the building vote for the Otago Education Board, and asking for an increase of same to enable the board to erect and repair school buildings." The adjourned meeting of the Education Board, held on Friday, was attended by Dr Brown (chairman), Messrs J. M. Gallaway, H. Harraway, Jas. Mitchell, W. Snow, J. Sim, and tho Hon. J. MacGregor. BjGSIGSATIONS. The following resignations were accepted : — Duncan R. Matheson, head teacher, Inchholme; Susan J. H. Williams, bead teacher, Rae's Junction ; Elizabeth M. Harrison, head teacher, "Whare Flat; Jessie H. Rutherford, third assistant, Caversham ; Janet Highet, third assistant, Green Island. APPOINTMENTS. The following appointments were made: — Susan J. H. "Williams, Evans Flat, vice Agnes G. Donald, left the service; Jane M. Bowie, head teacher, Houipapa, vice Mary Loudon, promoted; Alice Greaves, first female assistant, Waipori, vice Mary Loudon, promoted ; Duncan It. Matheson, junior male assistant, Port Chalmers, vice Parker M'Kinlay, promoted. OAMAETT MIDDLE. Mr Gallaway moved — " That under the circumstances of the Oamaru Middle claim for fencing, and it having been agreed to that a concrete fence is the proper description to be erected, that the board contribute two-thirds of the expense." He said that the committee had not asked for a concrete fence, but the architect had said 'that it was the proper fence to put up. Under the circumstances, as it was the board and not the committee that asked for the fence to be of concrete, £45 was too much to ask from the committee. Mr Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr Snow: Will this apply in all cases? Mr MacGregor said he would like to know why the case was exceptional, and why it was so selected. It was a distinct departure from the rule, and if the proposal were agreed to in future applications for fences from committees would be for concretefences, and the board would be expected to p\y two-thirds of the cost. Mr Harraway said the committee had asked the board to put up a fence. The board decided to put up a permanent fence, and that would relieve the committee from expense for all time. That point of the case should not bo lost sight of. Mr Snow did not see that it would be any use to ask the committee to pay half if they had not the wherewithal to do it. Mr Sim thought the board would not be ] justified in passing the motion in the present j state of their finances. After further discussion, Mr Mitchell ex- ! plained that the Oamaru Middle School Committee had not yet met, and he was prepared, if Mr Gallaway agreed, to allow the matter to stand over until the committee had met. Mr Gallaway intimated that he would be content to allow the matter to stand over, and it was allowed to stand over accordingly. THE COBPORAL PUNISHMENT REGULATIONS. Mr Ramsay's motion with regard to rescinding the corporal punishment regulations was made an order of ihe day for next meeting. SCHOLARSHIPS. It was decided to communicate with the parents of three boys, who were holders of scholarships in the Boys' High School, intimating that unless better work was done during the next term the scholarships would cease. the architect's department. Mr Harraway said at last meeting of the board the report of the committee appointed to report with regard to the architect's department was adopted. The report contained the following clause :—" That a competent draughtsman be appointed to prepare plans and specifications, check accounts, and generally make himself useful in carrying out the duties pertaining to the architect's office." He was told that the board could obtain the services of a competent draughtsman for £160 a year. He moved that the recommendation of the committee he given effect to. After some slight discussion, the motion was carried. PAYMENT OF TEACHEBS' SALAEIES. _ Mr Harraway moved—" That if any teacher in the boards service makes application to have his cheque for salary forwarded by post it shall be granted; such cheque to be payable on order." -Mr Snow said that was so now. Mr Harraway stated that ho brought forward the motion at last meeting of the board and he was surprised that it was negatived.' ile could not see what interest any member of the board had to interfere in a matter of routine. He had good reason to know that there was great dissatisfaction with tho manner in which some of the teachers were treated at the board's office if they wished their' cheques sent to their homes. He was not going to mention any names, but he could if neoessary. There was no reason why cheques should not be sent to teachers' homes if they wished them to be sent. If he did not get the motion carried he would have to go further with the matter. Mr Snow said if Mr Harraway knew anything against the board's officers he should come straight out with it. He (Mr Snow) did not think it was right to insinuate something against their officers without stating a case. Mr Sim thought that Mr Harraway should have some very good ground for what he said before making a charge. He should name the parties. The Chairman : I think we should all have voted for the motion if Mr Harraway had not given any reasons. Mr Gallaway seconded the motion, which, after some further discussion, was carried.