TEACHER DISMISSED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20440, 19 October 1934, Page 12

TEACHER DISMISSED.

Appeal in Collingwood Case. COMMENT ON DISCLOSURES. Per Press Association. NELSON, October 18. The Teachers Appeal Court concluded to-day the hearing of the appeal of Hollis James Hill, head teacher of Collingwood School, against his dismissal by the Nelson Education Board. The court, consisting of Messrs T. E. Maunsell, S.M. (chairman), A. Douglas and A. Robinson, delivered its decision as follows: “The court concluded that the appeal must be dismissed, upon the ground advanced by the board terminating appellant’s engagement, failure to take adequate steps to suppress sexual misconduct among certain pupils. That being so, it was unnecessary to call on the board to establish other grounds of alleged inefficiency and alleged insubordination.” Witnesses' expenses £l6 15s were allowed the respondent board. Pupil a Sexual Pervert.

In the course of the judgment, it was stated that in 1931 there was a girl attending the school who was a sexual pervert, and who was committed by the Court to the care of the State in 1932. This girl was a potential contamination of the morals of other pupils, and it was the clear duty of appellant to have suspended her and reported the matter to the board, pursuant to Section 58 of the Education Act. In answer to the Court, appellant said he was not aware that he had the power, but the powers were clearly set out in the Act. From this time onward sexual lewdness became prevalent among a substantial number of the pupils. On appellant’s own evidence, all he did was to reprimand the boys and ask his assistant to do likewise to the girls.

Just how far the children were capable of appreciating the extent of their vice may be doubtful, but it could lead only to disaster unless sup pressed in the early stages. Misconduct of the utmost gravity, such as this, called for the strongest discip linary punishment and an arrangement should have been made for an escort of delinquents to the main highway by the appointment of prefects or otherwise. The insidious conduct called for extraordinary measures of every conceivable means to eradicate the moral canker that had developed. Fact not Disclosed. The Court held there was a grave dereliction of duty by the appellant in not disclosing to the board that a pupil had been committed to the care of the State, because of moral degeneracy. This fact was not discovered by the senior inspector until three years later, and then through an outside source. The inspector was in Collingwood a week after a constable had conducted an inquiry, resulting in serious admissions, but appellant withheld the fact. When it did come to the knowledge of the board the constable had reported on the misconduct. Appellant was asked for a report and his attention was drawn to the fact that he was responsible for seeing to the proper behaviour of pupils going from school. lie then set out to convince the board that the conduct did not occur going from school. A Report.

“ In our opinion,” stated the Court, "he was aware that it did. Upon receipt of the above communication he acted in a manner which the Court views in a very unfavourable light, lie drew up a report and asked the constable to send it in as his report. Its tenor is entirely to exonerate appellant. It concludes as follows: ‘My inquiries revealed no misconduct amongst the pupils either at school or going from or coming to school, an-'l the supervision of the teachers, from a police point of view, is all that can be desired.’ Constable Audley says this was in flat contradiction of his own report, and if he sent it in it would be deliberately untrue. It certainly would have deceived the board, and appellant’s action was inconsistent with his duty to the board as his employer.” The Court commended the assistant teachers for facing an ordeal in giving evidence of an unsavoury nature in the interests of infantile morality. Credit was also due to them for unearthing the insidious state of affairs at the school. The chairman indicated that he intended to make representations to the Minister with a view to securing some further direction to teachers, making it obligatory for them to report cases of sexual trouble in schools to the education board, which course seemed to him to be necessary.