Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1885. Teachers and the Education Board.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1765, 30 November 1885, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1885. Teachers and the Education Board.

We recently made a passing allusion to a motion brought before the Wellington Education Board at its last meeting by Mr J. Young. The motion was to the effect “ that in order to prevent injustice to teachers, arising from too hasty action on the part of this Board, it is resolved that in all oases where the removal or dismissal of a teacher is recommended, such teacher shall at once be made aware, by the Board’s Secretary, of the charges preferred against him ; and that a period of one month be allowed such teacher to make any defence to this Board he may deem necessary ; and that no dismissal shall be final until the above mentioned period has elapsed.” To is resolution was productive of a somewhat animated discussion. Mr Young mode out a strong case in favor of thejmotion, pointing out that as a simple matter of justice, any teacher accused of misconduct or wrong doing should have au opportunity of answering the charges made, and of defending himself. Mr Young also made special reference to the case of Mr McFarlane (Feathesrton) and contended that the Board acted hastily with respect to that gentleman, who had sent in his resignation as a teacher. It may here be stated that the case of Mr McFarlane was dealt with by the Board afterwards. Mr Bunny said that with respect to this case “ the reports of Mr Lee four years ago snowed that Mr McFarlane’s work was weak. Ho (Mr Bunny) had advised Mr McFarlane to leave beatherston and go to Kaitoke, but he would not take the advice. The matter had gone so far that either Mr McFarlace’s resignation should be accepted or else the school would be sacrificed.” Ultimately it was decided that Mr McFarlane should be asked if he desired an investigation as to his case, and that if he declined this offer, then his resignation should be accepted. We do not care to offer any opinion as to Mr McFarlane’s case, seeing that if that gentleman thinks himself illused, be can have his case investigated. But we are strongly in favor of the principle involved in Mr Young’s motion, that teachers who have any charges ma^ lw them should have tuo, fullest possiule oppUl tun *ty meeting those charges and defending themselves, Mr Bunny and Mr Shannon made a great display of virtuous indignation about Mr Young's motion, which they declared oast most undeserved slur upon the Board. These gentlemen declared that the Board hud over been generous and considerate towards the teachers, and indeed had treated them with even more than paternal kindness. All this is beside the question. Mr Young’s motion simply declares that when a teacher is accused of any fault or shortcoming, he is to be hoard in his own defence. That is vhat Mr Young desires should be laid down as a fixed rule, and not be a thing left to the discretion or good nature of the Education Board. We think that Mr Young is perfectly right in his contention. It is not, however, probable that Mr Young’s motion will be carried. Mr Young stated that he had brought it forward with special reference to Mr MoFarlane’s ease, and that as an enquiry would, if desired, be held into that matter, bla object had therefore been served, and he was wilting to withdraw the motion. Ultimately, the further consideration of the question was adjourned till the next meeting, whpn It will probably be allowed to fall through. We are sorry that Mr Young did not fight for his resolution on its own merits with respect to a particular case. The motion was sound in principle, and in practice would have secured justice and fair play to any public school teacher against whom accusations had been made.