HEAD MASTERSHIP.

Colonist, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7680, 12 July 1893, Page 3

HEAD MASTERSHIP.

To the Editor of the Colonist. Sib, — I was extremely surprised at the Eduoation Board'departing from their usual custom, that of advertising for applicants, in making the appointment of head master of the Bridge street Sohool. I was also surprised at wbat I consider Mr Ladley's very injudicious expression in the latter portion of his letter to the Board, when he trusts " that the Board will nob suffer him to lose the reward of so many years faithful servioe." I don't see exactly how this position comes to be " the reward " for Mr Ladley any more than for other teaohers. The reward feature should not enter the case ; neither this nor any other position should be looked on as such. Why should this position in the city, and the best of its kind, be appropriated aa the reward for servioes, however long and faithful, at Wakefield ? The money to piy the salary is that of the Nelson people, and they have the right to see that they get the best value for it in open market, it is the education of their children I that is at stake, Against Mr I^adley I have not one word to say ; 1 do not even know him, and if he proves successful in competition I should be glad to see him enter upon his duties. It is to combat the idea of any special claim on his part, and to protest against the unusual course taken by the Board of Education that I write. In conclusion, I would like to append the names of the following teacher, with classification, now in the Board's service, vide Government return, and ask have not some of these as good a claim to " the reward " as the Board's nominee?:— C l rank, W. H. Bryant; Dl rank, A. P. Burnham, D. Cossgrove, E, Cowles, J. G: Deck, junr., B, E. Povpling, F. V. Knapp, W, Ladley, J. Naylor, P; Neve, A. Peart, R. Bay, J. B. Sadd, and W. F. Worley. — Your 3, &o. Fbee-tbade.

To the Editor of the Colonist, Sib,— The local Committee eeems to Joe under an impression rather adverse to its own position in asserting that a Dl certificate liß equivalent to an A 4. It should be a Committeemfin's first duty to If am the meaning of the letters and figures by which the certificates are distinguished. The ignorance which oaueed the question to be asked is inexcusable for the questioner and the manner in whioh it was answered not les3 so for the rest of the Committee. The letters, A, B, 0, D, E, represent the teachers' educational attainments, A bairig the highest and E the lowest. The figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, are supposed to represent their profioienoy in the art of teaching, but really represent a different thing, length of service, the I representing the longest seryioa and the 5 the shortest. An A 4 cannot help rising into Al in oouree of time, if he is at all attentive to his duties ; a Dl would have to labor hard in Btudy, and then, perhaps, fail to pass the narrow bridge from B to A. .^Clearly, then, there is a vast difference between the two certificates ; but of all ceriifioateß, those of Dl are most open to suspicion. Many of them are merely honorary, and were conferred upon teaohers whom it was felt to be a hardship, when the classification was first made, to require to submit to the examination whioh is. now compulsory, Jt was felt tha,t they deserved exceptional treatment, and, perhaps, with some reason ; but the holder of an honorary D certificate is hardly to bs reckoned on- the SBme level for active eery oe as one who has woa it in the proscribe way of examination. Now, is the Dl cert fie ue under discussion merely an honorary onu, or ha it been won ? Does it oarry any guar-Aiitet ? lours, &o , Enquieer.