The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1866-09-22

The wishes of the parents are utterly d~isregarded in the
selection of men to instruct their children"
REPLY.
Sd. That is certainly a strong way Of putting the case. Let
Us see how far " the wishes of the parents were regarded I'M
der the old law. The old law Theoretically left the appointment
Of teachers with the School Agents Of the districts Kahukuta),
the parents % every school precinct; practicable. as a general
thing, the agents appointed and dismissed teachers as seemed
hest TO them. The parents had nothing to say in the matter.
1t " not considered then, any more than it is now, within
the sphere of the parents duties to examine or decide upon the
qualifications Il candldates- linen the power OF appointing
was held by twenty-four persons. Zone il each district now ii
is held by one only: the committee, by accident or design. omit
to mention that IN the appointment o, teachers unier me ne
law, more than n,ns-teIths OF the old teachers' APPOINTED d-
49, r.U. . ~ ~ @,b ,iinS bTpniej or rndaion f., bonrs,y snd
moral conduct; and that no teacher was removed except for
gross incomPetency in the performance Of his duties, or on
complaint of the parents, or to give room for a female teacher
where the sexes in a 5 school had been divided.
The Gazette does not deny the fact. Itadmits it,
though it would prefer q somewhat Inilder mode of
statement. and refers to the practice under the
former school law as furnishing a precedent We
hardly know whether to refer such a course to
ignorance. or to a wilful perversion of facts. In
charity. however. We prefer the former. Did the
writer in the Gazette not know that under the for
mer school law, the right Of the parents to a voice
in the selection of teachers for their children was
expressly recognised. and that they possessed the
power. whenever they chose to exercise il, Of Oh
incting TO any teacher appointed by the District
kahukula. and that the objection of a majority of
the parents in any district, through their own
chosen Lunas or Trustees. was decisive: The Dis
trlct hahukula5 could not appoint teachers to whom
the parents thus objected. Did he not also know
that in the new school law. nothing of the sort is
recognised Did he not know that the Inspector
General himself. a few months since, in the pages
OF the Gazette. secuted the idea of the parents hav-
ing any such right: Did he not know. lastly. that
the parents frequently exercised that right under
the old school law: 1t was not a mere matter OF
theory. The right was exercised not infrequently
on Maui. on Hawaii, and on Oahu. But under the
new school law. all this IS changed. The parents
are not allowed to take a part. and exercise res.
possibility in the education Of their children. The
natural consequence Is that they sink back into
Indifference, and are rapidly losing their interes;
IN the common schools. 1t does not require any
very remarkable penetration to see that this state
OF things must result in the gradual decay and
final extinction of those schools.
1t was our desire tc compare each article of The
Report with Its corresponding answer in the Gazette
But we find that the space required would trans