GISBORNE SCHOOL EXAMINATION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 971, 9 December 1879, Page 2

GISBORNE SCHOOL EXAMINATION.

[To the Editor of the Herald.] Sir, It cannot be considered strictly en regie for a Sehdol Committee to appoint two of its own members as examiners, as has been done m the case of the Gisborne School. There is no desire on my part to question the ability or the impartiality of either of the two rev. Keutlemen appointed, but what I principally wish to refer to, and protest against, is first the violation," thoughtlessly enough perhaps, of the principles of the Education Act, which is strictly Secular, and should therefore be administered m the spirit it iaj, intended that it should be ; and secondly (and here possibly there may be a design), the objection I have to urge is the too apparent exclusiveness of placing members of their own committee m a posi- . tion m which they will be, by implication required to reflect the greatest credit on the School, and on all who are concerned therein. As to the first mentioned subject, it appears that m all time, and not less so now than m the darkest days' of priestcraft, when man waa the abject slave of clerics, there has been an at tempt, more or les& disguised, to obtain a mastery over the human mind. This perverse tendency on their part to establish a clerical doraination,*haa, as Will be evident from the study of history. -jSJjtojjil injuriously on the general diffusiolfrbf education, and kept the masses m 'bewildered ignorance. What has been attempted and accomplished heretofore may be done again, unless resistance is shewn, ab initio, and a determination not m any manner to permit clerical influence to gain the ascendancy. It m,ay be a very little matter indeed to feel concerned about, but knowing the importance of trifles, when principles are involved, it is necessary at the present time to take . the keenest notice of all that is transpiring affecting the state system of education. It is secular, and it is so by the expressed wish of the intelligent promoters of the Act, and the majority of the community. It has enemies, and among those I doubt not ; one, if not both of the clergymen appointed. If the spirit of the Act is to be maintained, no duty or office m connection with it should be m such a thoughtless manner placed at the unreserved disposal of th jse who oan only be considered its professed friends. These are my sentiments, and of all those also, I make bold to say, who enjoy the advantages of a free and secular system of education. Why should they not be those of whom we elect as custodians 1 I refrain from enlarging any further on the first topic, and proceed briefly to a few remarks as to the selfappointed examiners. Here everybody must admit it looks, to say the least, extremely ludicrous on the part of the Committee to select two of their own members to criticise the action of a body of which they are a constituent part. How would it do for instance, if an accountant were permitted to audit his own accounts, or a contractor to pass the work on which he was engaged ? No, it would not apply here, but an educated school committee hold that it is quite applicable when the result of their own work is to be examined, The present •: teacher is efficient, and m every respect worthy of his position, and the staff also are adapted for their duties. While admitting this, it must not be supposed that if they were not so, and the School m a state of disorganization that the outside public, would, from a portion of the responsible body, viz., the Committee, receive such information. On the contrary, would not a great deal about the matter be concealed from them. Besides, their exclusiveness m this instance it appears from their refusal to admit the Press, as to your knowledge, Mr. Editor, they have done, that it is a delightful portion of their task to convey as little information relative to their transactions as they possibly can. In conclusion, I would reqnestof themtodo so no longer, but to give every information that may be required ; also to purge themselves of the spirit of exclusiveness, and administer the Act according to its intent. — I am, &c, Nbmo. [Our correspondent is m error. Reporters from the press have never of late been refused admittance to Committee meetings. —Ed.]