|
Kent, hereby emphatically protest
against what we conscientiously and firmly believe to be a
manifest act of injustice on the part of the present Managers of
the Ash Church of England School and the Kent Education
Committee, in giving notice of dismissal to Mr. And Mrs. Meyers
from their respective offices of schoolmaster and schoolmistress
of Ash Church of England School, after they have given upwards
of thirty years’ faithful service in the cause of education at
that school. We know from long experience that they have always
been most kind to the children under their care during the many
years we have known them, and that the children loved, and love,
their schoolmaster and schoolmistress.
To compel Mr. And Mrs. Meyers to give up their work
in our village, where they have always been respected and
esteemed, is, in our opinion, a cruel and uncharitable act.
Their ability as teachers is unquestioned, and we believe that
the punishment that is proposed to be meted out to them is out
of all proportion to any technical offence they may have
committed. We appeal to the sense of fair play and justice
in the members of the Kent County Council to set aside what we
consider an act unworthy of the traditions of that body."
There followed 195 signatures.
The clerk next read the decision of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Education Committee following an
enquiry held on complaints from the Dartford Board of Guardians,
the local School Attendance Committee, and the Managers. |
|
"We were satisfied upon the
evidence," said the Disciplinary Committee, "that the
master, upon being called upon to assist the mistress, struck a
small child of five years of age, or less, on the arm with a
stick, and caused bruises. The stick used was not a switch or
cane, but a heavy stick, which was also used as a pointer. It
appeared that it was the instrument with which corporal
punishment was usually inflicted. In our opinion, it was
entirely unsuited for the purpose. In a letter to the Guardian,
the doctor had reported that the girl was timid and sensitive.
The child’s appearance confirmed this opinion. She had failed
to answer questions put to her by the mistress; whether from
ignorance or obstinacy appears to be immaterial. In any case the
method adopted for dealing with a child of such tender years was
absolutely indefensible. The mistress showed a great unfitness
in not being able to deal with the case of so small a child
without calling in the master.
The master wrote to the Guardian’s visitor, in
defence, accusing the foster parent of the child of cruelty
towards the child, and repeated the accusation at the enquiry.
We found no ground whatever for the accusation. The witness
produced by the master in support of this statement did not
testify to anything which could possibly be called cruelty. We
considered this defence an aggravation of the master’s
conduct.
The evidence of Jessie Webb, a sister of the child
in question, had already been given at an enquiry held by the
Managers, and it is in connection with the evidence |