TIMARU SCHOOL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3486, 7 June 1884, Page 2

TIMARU SCHOOL.

CONFERENCE.

A conference of the Committee and teachers on the subject of corporal punishment was held last evening in the Board room of the Public School. There were present, Mr James Bruce (Chairman), Messrs Hill, Stone, Howe, and Ingram, members of the Committee; Mr James Scott, head master; Mrs Graham, head mistress; Mr P. Ligertwood, second master; Miss Kippenberger, infant mistress; Mrs Ostler, mistress of the Side School.

Mr Hill brought forward the subject of corporal punishment, not in an antagonistic spirit but because the Press had referred to it, and because he was aware of instances of corporal punishment being too freeiy dispensed by some teachers. He thought only the older teachers should have power to inflict chastisement. He would like the teachers present to express their views, Mr Scott, referring to the newspaper article quoted by Mr Hill, observed that the statements were keen and made out a strong case against the teachers. Ho did not donbt but that all the instruments of castigation named in the article were employed. As a rule, chastisement was inflicted by himself unless for trivial offences.

Mrs Grahame, in reference to the girls’ department, said corporal punishment was rarely administered by her, and then with the utmost care and discretion.

A conversational discussion ensued, after which the Committee expressed themselves satisfied with the remarks and explanations of the teachers.

inspector’s reports.

The Inspector’s Reports were then die cussed with the teachers, who, after farther conversation on the matter with the Committee, withdrew. THE board’s TREATMENT OF TIMARtT ; SCHOOL. The Chairman took occasion to repudiate the statements made by the Chairman of the Education Board at the previous day’s meeting of that body, in regard to the Timaru Committee, and to animadvert in severe terms upon the conduct of the Board. In order to show the public the actual position of matters between the Board and the Timaru School, he read the following statement: —

“ I have to report that the resolution unanimously passed by this Committee requesting the Board to grant a maater to the Side School, was submitted for their consideration at yesterday’s meeting, and as partly anticipated, we were effectually snubbed. Our request was made light of, and declined, apparently without discussion. Now, as you all know, our request was simply for the staff allowed by the Board’s regulations, and believing, as we do, that the change would be of the greatest benefit to education in the town, we should not be doing our duty as a Committee of this important school, if we did not use every legitimate means to get what we ask for. If any similarly just claim came from Waimate or Geraldine, the representatives of those districts would take charge of the request, and it would be granted; but Timaru is treated with scant courtesy. So far as we can see from the papers, the only reason for declining it was that it would be an “ extra expense.” This is the cuckoo cry raised when a request is sent in from Timaru, but the Board has a scale in force, and we have a just right to receive payment in accordance therewith. If retrenchment is necessary it should bo made throughout the district, but we see the Board from time to time planting schools in country districts where they are absolutely unnecessary, and spending considerable sums in forcing secondary education on people who do not want it. Let me give an example or two. A school has just been built at Belfield at a cost of two or three hundred pounds, and a master will be engaged at say the minimum of £l3O with £3O house rent, and say £2O for incidental expenses, total £IBO. If 25 children attend, the Government grant at £3 15s per head will be £93 16s ; where is the balance of £B7 5s to come from ? From the earnings of the Timaru schools. And this waste is actually unnecessary, as the school is only a short distance from a good school at the Orari. Some time ago a school was built at Geraldine Flat,at what cost Ido not know but say £4OO, when there were actually three other good schools within a radius of about three miles, viz., Geraldine, Winchester and Kakahu, The attend anoe at this school is now 36, drawn from these other three schools, where they could have been taught for no additional expense, taking say 12 each. These 36 children earn by Government grant £135, and the expense of keeping the school going is about £235. Where does the balance of £IOO come from ? If you examine the reports of the Education Board you can get other similar', cases. Lately the Board had forced a hybrid secondary education on the people of Temuka and Waimate, at what cost I do not know, but the fees are supplemented £ for £ ; additions made to the staff, and the salaries increased. I challenge the Chairman to show that this means less than £250 per annum. In fact money is no object until we come to Timaru. Now the side school has an attendance of 123, and would have more if under a good master. The benefit of giving the school an efficient staff would as you know be very great both to the district in which the school is placed, and to the Main School in relieving thehead master and giving healthy competition. The attendance of 123 earns £4Bl 5s per annum. The insufficient staff we have had to be contented with for years past costs £263, including incidentals, If we had the staff given by the Board’s scale it would cost £438 per annum, so that onr poor little Side School gives the Board nearly £175 surplus for the benefit of the 36 children at Geraldine Flat or elsewhere. If we had the staff the Board’s scale prescribed, we should not cost the Board a penny, but would still give a surplus to the weaker country schools. Where then is the justice of the Board’s cry of extra cost ?’’ The Committee resolved that the report bo published, and the meeting then terminated.