MARRIED TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16414, 7 January 1919, Page 2

MARRIED TEACHERS.

MORE VALUABLE THAN SINGLE.

"At the present time the State makes no difference between the married man and the unmarried man," said Dr. Arthur at the Teachers' Conference held in Sydney recently. That was all right, he said, from the economic viewpoint, but it was all wrong from the sociological viewpoint. The married man was of more value and was a more worthy unit than one who did not take upon himself the responsibilities of married life. The State, except in certain cases, did not recognise this. I>r. Arthur went on to speak of conditions of married men as they frequently are, and as they should be. He declared that there should be a flat rate of wages for married men. In the Methodist Church, he understood, they had an example of what might be made a comprehensive scheme. A single minister receiving £180 per year was granted an additional £80 upon his marriage. The spfiaker went on to detail his opinions in regard to food, clothing, and recreation,/expressing his astonishment at the clothing requirements of young women as disclosed by the Board of Trade evidence. The school teaching profession was a highly skilled and prominent profession. Its members could not bo expected to walk the streets in the garb of tho late Mr Chidley, and so, in other matters, the teachers must bu assisted to take their proper place in the community. sifter dealing with the care of children, I>r. Arthur said that ho often thought* that married persons without children be expected to take charge of other children. "There is an elderly bachelor in the State," said the doctor. "I speak of Sir Samuel McCaughey. I've reckoned it up, and have come to the conclusion that ho could support a family of be-" tween 200 and 300 children." 1

Dr. Arthur concluded by targing tho teachers to support a movement to direct tho Government's attention to tho claims of married public servants.