EDUCATION BOARD AND TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16141, 20 February 1918, Page 8

EDUCATION BOARD AND TEACHERS.

TO THE EDITOR Off "THK PiKSS." Sir, —There has been a good deal of correspondence in your columns of lato regarding the Education Board and the Educational Institute. Though I did not intend to be drawn into this correspondence, tho last letter, signed by Messrs Just and Shirlaw, repeats a statement already made in an earlier letter, that I feel I must take exception to. The statement is as follows: "Mr Hamilton revives the charge that the deputation to the Board wished to champion the cause of certain dissatisfied teachers. We asked the Board to discuss with us the question of appointments generally." I give below the extract from fho letter received by the Board from the secretary of the. Institute, Mr Shirlaw, which letter now lies before me:— "The deputation desires to discuss with the Board the question of appointments generally—with special reference to some recent appointments made by the Board." Now, sir, is there any other conclusion possible than that the deputation wished to criticise certain recent appointments made by the Board. I leave it to your readers to judge. Again, the Institute officers go astray in stating that the Appointments Committee refused a hearing to the deputation. No committee of the Board has sjich power; tho Board itself decided that no good purpose could be served by discussing the matter ■ and, if I remember rightly, this decision was unanimous. My last point is in reference to the statement that the Board refuses to comply with the intention of the Legislature as set out in Clause 71 of the Education Act. I. don't know on what grounds these gentlemen interpret "the intention" of the Legislature —tho Board does not worry itself with surmising "tho intention," but interprets the Act literally, and has comfilied with the Act accordingly. The nstitute would be the first to object if the Board commenced to'read "in-! tentions" into tho Act. j Sub-section 1, Clause 71 of the Act says: "The Board shall appoint teachers for the schools under its control." Clearly this does not state that the inspectors or the Institute or anyone but the Board shall make the appointment. I Sub-section 5: "Before making the appointment the Board shall consult with the senior inspector." The senior inspector must bear me out when I stato that the. Board invariably consults with him regarding the appointments. There is nothing to say that the Board must not express an opinion contrary to the inspector, or having consulted him. is bound absolutely by his opinion. It is very rarely indeed" however, that the inspectors and the Appointments Committee have failed to agree in regard to their recommendations to the Board. . It occasionally happens that the inspectors in consultation with the Appointments Committee agree to slight alterations or modifications in their first recommendations—it quite commonly happens that the Appointments Committee waives its opinions in deference to those of the inspector. This is real consultation, not the sort our friends of the Institute offer, when they suggest that the sending of one name to a School Committee without choice constitutes a consultation. Judicially it does, but they would object if that sort of empty consultation were offered the inspectors by the Board. Sub-section 6: "In any case where applications have been invited, ihe Board shall select the teacher whom it best fitted for the position." Tnis seems to emphatically reaffirm the fact that the Board makes tlie appointment, and selects tho teacher whom it (tho Board) considers best fitted. If "the Legislature had any other intention, it used strange language to express such intention. Sub-section 7: "Notwithstanding the last preceding sub-section, if it appears to the Board after consultation with the senior inspector, that two or more candidates possess as nearly as may be equal qualifications, then, but in no other case, the Board may select not more than three of such candidates for consideration by the School Committee/; This, T tiiink, is mainly the sub-soclion od which the Institute bases its complaint. Their officers publicly itM-t-asi iion» in Christchurch recently

that they objected to the school committees having any voice in the appointment of teachers. The Board, on the other hand, stands for the principle of giving committees a choice when it considers that two or three applicants am as uoar'iy as may bo of equal qualifications : and tho Act makes the Board the judge after consultation with the Inspector, no matter -what intention the Institute tries to read into it.

I havo quoted fully the provisions of the Act, because 7 feel that- the gentlemen of the Institute have taken tip an entirely unfair attitude in endeavouring to mislead the public into _ believing that the Board is not carrying out tho Act. The least such gentlemen can do is to bs consistent : for it is only a. few -weeks ago that Mr Just accompanied—l think 1 may say headed—a deputation to the Board protesting against tho appointment of an applicant to a cortnin position, in spite of the fact that in tho opinion of the Board and of the inspectors that applicant had qualifications ahead of any other applicant. But the appointment did not. suit Mr Just, and he urged the Board to appoint someone else. Did qualifications enter into the question with Mr Just? For this applicant was the hest graded under his much bolauded grading scheme. Perhaps it was personality ho objected to; for to his mind the Board is no judge of personality. And ho asserts that the teachers do hot -want to abrogate to themselves the right of making appointments. Perhaps not, hut it appears that some arc very anxious to influence tho appointments. It is beside the question to say that the Act does not permit such procedure. Wo know that is so, but that does not alter the fact that there is ample evidence that there aro teachers who yould like to seo the Act altered in this respect. In conclusion, let me offer a word of warning to the Institute officials. While the public is with the Board in urgiug the very hest consideration of teachers in regard to salaries and conditions of employment, that same public is very jealous of its local government in respect to its schools. Its interest apparently lies dormant, but touch its rights in this respect, and th© interest will be found to be very much awake. Wo recognise that tho best is not too good for tho teachers. We recognisc the tremendous, the national importance of their work, but for their own sakes, they will be wise to recognise also the rights of the public—their employers, whether direct, or as at presont represented by School Committees and Boards of Education. They may agitate for improved methods of election or a different form of government. This is their right, but if they want the support of tho public, let their agitation be in the direction of more democratic methods and forms, not in tho direction of class legislation on behalf of tho teachers only, ;;nd blind to the fact that the public, too, has rights; not in the direction of government by officials recruited from the ranks of teachers only, and possibly centralised in Wellington, but rather:" in the direction of more intense local government, so as to stimulate that local interest which means life and vigour to our schools,' and which alone can save them from the official Tedtapeism and the dry-rot of mechanical government, which is the curse of 'so many of our public institutions—Yours, etc., » E. H. ANDREWS, Chairman Appointments Committee, Canterbury Board of Education. February 18th. TO TITB BDITOIt or "THE PRESS." Sir, —It is to bo regretted that the representatives of the persist; in endeavouring to produce a taise impression as to tne action and attitude of members of the Board. I pass over their gibe as to my having a "cneap sneer" at the institute. I have great* respect and sympathy with teacners, and have always been ready to cooperate with and assist them, and feel sure that they, as a body, will accept my assurance that nothing iyas f.urtlier from my thoughts than the intention suggested. By making use of the expression referred to, your correspondents have employed tne mothod they themselves repudiate—abuse instead of argument. The allegations that the Board refused to comply with the Act, and made unjust, illegal, and arbitrary appointments, and resorted to favouritism, are, to use your correspondents' words, ''too absurd* to need refutation." Such, allegations, if made seriously, are grave charges, and should not be made unless they can be proved. If they can be proved, the ordinary legal tribunals can afford appropriate redress, and it is tliero that redress should be sought for "unjust and illegal" acts. If the Institute is not prepared to do that, it? has no business to make such charges. The Institute apparently disclaims the suggestion of endeavouring to belittle the Board by asking it to sit in judgment on itself, but says that it was the Appointments Committee whose con- ] duct was to be judged. Yet they know that it is the Board, and not the committee, that makes the appointments. We are told the Board was invited to discuss questions of appointments generally, and that the Institute intended citing certain unjust, illegal, and arbitrary appointments. Surely this suggestion, on the face of it, mars the ■evidence of its futility in asking the Board to admit it? alleged misconduct. In regard to the insinuation of favouritism, I know of no instances occurring in my district, as the Institute suggests, and I do not believe that teachers themselves believe that there is ground for this suggestion. I regard It as a taunt, fiung off, for want of something letter, to side-track the question raised —that inspectors should, not bo the sole judges of tho personality of teachers. The people themselves, whose children are under tho teachers and who know the effects of the influence of the teachers, are in many respects in a. better position to judge of this qualification, and axe entitled bv means of Boards to express their choice. I am pleased to find that at least on one point we are agreed—in hoping that the people will make a good selection of Board members at the next election. I also hope the teachers will make a wise choice in the selection of those whom they appoint to express their vie~s.— Yours-, etc., W. M. HAMILTON. -"VVaimaie, February 18th.