The Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1898.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6125, 11 March 1898, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1898.

With regard to the application of the Very Rev Father Cummings. that the Roman Catholic schools under his supervision should be periodically examined by the Education Board's inspectors, the expected has happened. The Board has declined to grant the request. We have some sort of sympathy with the Board in doing this, but with the manner of the doing we have none whatever. Tbe rather verbose resolution whereby the Board relegated the Vicar-General's request to the. wastepaper basket, introduced matter that had no relevance whatever. The Board had : nothing at all to do with " the first prin- : ciples of the Constitution Act of New Zea- ■ land," nor was it called upon to dogma- ! tise with regard to " the letter and spirit ! of the New Zealand Education Act," or to i drag in the question of " sectarian or J denominational purposes." With regard « to the Education Act itself, it ir, as plain as the proverbial barn door that the Legislature contemplated the inspection l of private schools, section 98 of the Edu- -j cation Act, 1877, reading as follows : - c "Where the teacher or managers of any pnvate school desire to have their a school inspected, such teacher or managers a fnS- ply t0 «>• Board to authorise such 'J s3 rtf' "5* ?!? Same when authorised a rnSLf- con e ducted in like manner as the I i rM P f C *» ls ' The term t J3 Ti , shall wean and include all « pen-ons who have the control and manage- I Uteres. W* f lO ? 1 ' whether the *** veSLThemr Ch ° olllollSe is 0r is _ This is simple enough and explicit enough, * mall conscience. Further, the interpret _ c-i, i t\. Public" school means "any a IS • bl f hed ° 1 ' instituted under the $ , trol and management of the Board." The J

n Eoi »an Catholic sclioole, not being »o con- _ st 'fcuted and managed, aro, of course, pvivate schools within tlie meaning of th* i- Act, aud the Very Rev Father Cnmmingi ' w as perfectly justified in preferring hii - request, as tho conductor of anj other private school would be. Equallj tt of course the Board would be legall. *- 3 UB tified in declining to grant the request the Act being merely permissive and noi . man datory. And here is where the flaw J» comes in. For while some Boards may £ and do, conduct the inspection of privat) _ T schools, others may peremptorily refuse 4 and so an anomaly is produced that is a' 5 once absurd and unjust. If, instead o >\ doing what it did, tho Education Board o w this district had adopted the suggestioi of Mr Buddo to set up a Committer o Inquiry, it would have done well. Tli< m proposal was as follows :— ?* nr" That , a committee, consisting o at Messrs Adams, Buddo, Hardy, Munning ly and Peryman, be appointed to inquir w> into the whole question of the inspec ce tion of private schools bv the Board' -5 inspectors, whether the effect of sucl L; inspection would be beneficial to tb pupils attending private schools, and ais. « the probability of further applications fo • ; inspection by the Board's staff; whethe the result of such inspection would affec Jr State education in North Canterbury, ii e, attendance or otherwise, the probable cos of inspection, and if the present staff o r, inspectors can be expected to undertaki •s the work, and report to the Board at thi next general meeting." In this way some really useful an< j? thoroughly practical information woul< ' a have been secured. Very likely the Boar< _ would then have seen its way to do what i ■s had been asked to do, and in any case then 0 would have been something definite t< 8 place before Parliament. What we shoiilc like to see, and what we hope to see, is th< due inspection of all private schools oi e precisely the same basis as the public ones not as a matter of courtesy, but as one o: £ expediency and of justice, and as tending to conserve the highest interests of th< a State. Such inspection must necessarily be compulsory, under express Parliamentary direction.