FINING TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19162, 19 November 1927, Page 6

FINING TEACHERS.

EDUCATION BOARD CRITICAL. Criticism was expressed at yesterday's meting of the Canterbury Education Board of the proposed amendment to the Education Act, empowering Education Boards to inflict fines for disobedience of lawful commands or neglect of duty. Mr E. H. Andrews said some provision such as this was necessary. It was no reflection on the teaching profession as a whole. There was neglect of duties in '.-ertain directions, and three or four complaints had been received from inspectors during the past month. Mr Andrews said de-grading was better than fining, in his opinion. They had teachers, particularly in the country, careless in the time they kept. They opened school late and went away early on Friday. He was not aware that all the other Boards were objecting; to the clause. He knew one had done so. Mr R. Wild moved that the Board disagree -with the clause. They had power "already to discipline teachers, he said, and if the neglect of duty was gross and continued, to dismiss them. He did not know of the fining system in private business. A member: They sack their employees straight out. Mr Wild said he was opposed to 'Education Boardu being constituted Magistrate's Courts. "Our teachers are very amenable, and we have no trouble with them," said Mr W. A. Banks, who seconded the motion. They would be mixed in all kinds of litigation if the clause wa3 passed. Complaints could be referred to the inspectors, who could de-grade if necessary. Mr T. Hughes supported the motion. Inspectors should penalise those guilty of neglect, he said. Inspector A. McNeil said this was done already. The motion was carried, and it was decided to telegraph a copy to the Minister for Education. A resolution protesting against the proposal to fine teachers for neglect of duty has been passed by the staff of the Papanui School.