EXPELLED SCHOOLBOYS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 71, Issue 261, 3 November 1928, Page 26 (Supplement)

EXPELLED SCHOOLBOYS

many who have made good The announcement of disciplinary “removals” from two public schools comes at an appropriate moment (writes “A Schoolmaster” in the Daily Chronicle). E’er it is just a hundred years since Arnold, the archapostle of “removal,” took up his duties at Rugby in August, 1828. “Till a man learns that the first, second and third duty of a schoolmaster is to get rid of unpromising subjects,” said Arnold. “a great public school will never be what it might be and what it ought to be.” Unfortunately, it is a method few headmasters use'as freely as they should. That is not altogether their fault. Alany are not at liberty to use it, and all arc discouraged by governors and trustees. Arnold set himself from the outset to combat the idea that only enormous

offences justify expulsion, and that, short of them, a boy, however bad his influence, has a right to remain in the school. His “removals” covered all shades of character from the hopelessly bad to the really good. The gravity of the actual offence was not the question; it it was good for the boy or the school that he should go, he went. The knowledge that any offense might lead to the head’s getting rid oi a boy enormously improved tone and lessened the need for corporal and othe: punishment. Remember Tom Brown! It is a relief to see Arnold’s method still used. Too often it is not, out of undue fear for the boy’s future. Yet 1 can recall a boy “removed” from my own school, who won the V.C. as a famaus air ace; another, who went into business, joining the ranks of the T.F.. was a theological student when war broke out, won the Military Cross a.s a combatant, and is now a popular parson; and many others from various schools who have all made good.