WAS IT WARRANTED ?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3306, 26 August 1911, Page 9

WAS IT WARRANTED ?

GISBORNE SCHOOL INCIDENT. PUNISHMENT OF A PUPIL. STRONG PROTEST BY AN ANGRY PARENT.

An irate parent waited, on the Gisborne School Committee at tlieir meeting last evening and complained in unmistakable language of certain treatment which he alleged had been meted out to one of his sons at the hands of the schoolmaster.

In making his complaint the parent 'said that his child had been severely punished for refusing to pick up paper in the play ground during the dinner hour. The pupil had been instructed to do this work by a and had refused. He had, lie believed, been reported and when he came home he stated that he had received two blows. The blows, he alleged, had been such as to' raise a swelling on one of his hands. .He questioned whether the headmaster had any authority to employ a pupil at the school at such a task during a recess, and he was of opinion that there had been no justification for such punishment.

Mr .Rowley, the headmaster, explained to the Committee that the boy had defied his authority, and *in order, to preserve discipline he had been compelled to punish him. He examined; the boy’s hand the next day,>. but as far as he could see it showed no signs of severe treatment. The question of the legality of the punishment was outside the province of the Committee, and he had told the complainant that the matter could be settled elsewhere. The boy had been instructed to pick up the paper just as lie would have been at any other school. It was always his endeavor to avoid being liarsli, and in this case the boy was only asked to pick up two or three pieces of paper. From the words used by the pupil after the occurrence he was of the opinion that he had been put up to it by an adult. In answer to a question Mr Geo. Wildish stated 1 that the child had been brought to bis shop and lie had been shown the hand alleged to have been struck and this was slightly swollen. The Rev. W. Grant, chairman, pointed out for the complainant’s benefit, that the headmaster’s authority extended over the children so long as they were in the school ground. Discussion then ensued as to whether the headmaster had power to delegate his authority to prefects. Mr Rowley went on to say that on his own admission complainant had instructed the child not to pick up paper and had therefore incited him to rebellion against the authority of th© schoolmaster.

The chairman said that the only point they need consider was as to whether the punishment was unduly severe. ■Hie complainant then asked why his child had been excluded from the school since the occurrence, and Mr Rowley stated in reply that the Act gave him power to exclude any child whose presence was inimical to the discipline of the school.

Complainant next objected to the pretect system, and he thought that it gave an opportunity to the older hoys kuHy-raggmg” the younger ones. Mr Rowley did not care a button what complainant thought. The system of one boy being placed over another was the essence of the cadet systern.

Tlio cliairman thought that it was totter for Mr Rowley to send the bov home, as he did, rather than let him remain at the school and be again punished for disobedience. As he had already indicated the severity of the punishment was the only question they need consider. He had had' a conversation with complainant, and the speaker had told the former that they were a little too sentimental regarding the matter of punishment in these days when, there was so much insubordination m the school. After hearing what Mi Rowley had said he was satisfied that the best course had been taken. The complainant: Do I understand y™ 1° say that the boy must do anything the schoolmaster tells him to do? The chairman: Yes, anything within reason.

Mr Wildish pointed out that if the parent had anything to complain of it would have been better for him to. have written to Mr Rowley, or even to have interviewed him, as the master was there to maintain order, and inciting his child to rebellion only meant that punishment was necessary. If . the headmaster could not maintain proper discipline in the school what was the use of the child being there ? The headmaster, as a final explanation, stated that one of the lessons that had to be taught every child was tidiness, and this child was no exception. The Board of Education expected the masters to keep the school grounds free of paper, and he (the speaker) often picked up pieces of paper and took them to the box by way of example. The prefect system was essential in a big school such as theirs, and lie seldom heard of boys refusing to do anything they were asked to do by any of the prefects.

Apparently more or less satisfied by the explanation offered the complainant shortly afterwards withdrew.