THE MINISTER BACKS DOWN.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 340, 29 October 1908, Page 6

THE MINISTER BACKS DOWN.

The Minister for Education has evidently been quickly convinced that the public will not endure such a deception of the school teachers as we were able to expose on Monday last. He explains to an Auckland interviewer that in the case of every school which is at present ungraded, and every school which, under the new Education Act, rises in grade, the teacher will in January next begin to draw the minimum salary of his new grade. As for a school which is left unchanged as to grade by the new Act, the teacher, if at present paid less than the new minimum, must be content to work upwards by £5 increments on his present salary. It is satisfactory to know that the teachers in the very small schools will after all begin to draw the salary we were all led to believe that they would rcceivc. But as regards the others—the teachers in schools that do not change in grade—the injustice remains, and they are still in the position of' ineligibility for the salary for which, we have abundantly shown, Parliament and the public understood them to bo eligible. We must remind the public that Me. Fowlds's latest pronouncement is entirely at variance with his definite statement on Monday, that "those teachers"—without any distinction—-"having salaries below the minimum will receive annual increments of £5, . . . but will not be raised to the minimum by one increase." In view of this volte-face as a result of the publicity we have given the matter, the teachers will be well advised to take no chances, but to secure a complete assurance on the point without delay. Mr. Fowlds, we arc bound to say, is the reverse of candid in his allusion to "crosspurposes." His own words on Monday were as plain as they could be. And as for his statement that his views on the disputed question were "made perfectly clear in evidence given before the Education Committee and also in the House of llepresentatives," wc have only to say that the point was not made clear before the committee, and Me. Fowlds made no explanation of it to the House.