AGE LIMIT FOR TEACHERS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 644, 22 October 1909, Page 7

AGE LIMIT FOR TEACHERS.

.';■ ■ ■■' ■ ,(•; ;:..♦:■_• '\. : -!>l-</:.'[.. -:■'■: ■ "COMPULSORY: RETRENCHMENT. '•■•'.-: ACTION BY OTAGO EDUCATION' BOABD. Sγ.'.'Telegnpn—l'resa - AeßOoia'tlbn.)■■'"'."•■ .''• i '.■ ■■•'•■ ■• >■■■'•■■ .-.'. Du'nodin, October! 21. .At<tho meeting of the' Education Hoard' today, Mr. W.. Scott moved:, "That "after, the 31st, day of December,: 1909,a1l teachers and : servants of. the board who , haVo reached the . retiring ago' uhder the. Public Service' Classifi- .. nation , and Superannuation. Act, a?()8, shall be cp.mpulsorily; retired." ...■,..,. V- '■: .-'•■■ Letters' were received from tho School Com- ,; mittecs . Association and the Education Institute concurring with the motion. 'c' , .: . '.■".■.•■ : -■•Mγ.' Scott, contended ;that ,tho. board '-had power;to retire/officers at 65 and 55 years for males and females'respectively, and .'he sub- , mitted that if 'in.' the. superannuation scheme :. retirement; was not; niado, compulsory then' it was robbed of one of its vital.'principles. '.The . teachers asked '.for- superannuation : to provide for old age and effect more rapid promotion', and if teachers were to be'allowed to remain in the service of the board after they, passed' the. ages mentioned, ono of these objects' was thwarted. The service would bo impaired, and the promotion would not' be. rapid." lietirement, under the scheme .must be- either voluntary or compulsory,: No distinctions could made, . and if it remained voluntary a teacher from a selfish standpoint, would'.naturally : hans -on, with ; the rpsult-\that the children would■ be handicapped, and deserving teachers would not get promotion. Some time, ago tho speaker contemplated this motion, but when ho had looked up thb' Act and found how" paltry,' the allowance was.he had not the.heart to : bring it up; but now the allowanco was a sixtieth, so that a man with thirty-two- years got thirtytwo sixtieths; of his salary. He thought there could bo nocomplaiut. The older men who were approaching, the age .would 'only pay for , a few years and the whole burden fell on the younger teachers, so that the, fact!that the ■ young teaohors. wore, willing to-assume the burden and practically provide superannuation.for', the older ones showed how., urgently .the 6chemo was heeded. He held' that it was necessary to make retirement compulsory. l He /believed the Act gave them: ample power to do so, aud did not think any Court could find that the decision, was not valid. ' . . ■": \ •■■•.- - ■. "Mr. G. C. Israel seconded the Ho , ' know it would be hard, on a few servants, but tho wholo basis of the original scheme.which' he had helped teachers, to draw up was to provido sufficient allowance to make ft possible to retire everyone at, the ago fixed,. They would ■ have to pass this motion, and, ■: though its passing would press,hard on:one.or two servants, there would bo much greater hardship oa a much;larger number if it was not passed. Mr. Snow/questioned tho power.of tho bbard to make retirement compulsory. , " :: , ■"■■ Mr. Borrie said'he believed'.he knew ' the reason why the compulsory clause''had been omitted. Ho had been in Wellington, "and was one of the deputation talking to the Priino • Minister when the subject enmo up.: It .was pointed out to Sir Joseph Ward that.-thero v was doubt ■ whether the- compulsory, claiucs ap-' , plied to: old. servants .who had been in .the i .service before the'passing , of tho'Act. Sir 1 Joseph then said thosa clauses were never in- ■ tended to apply to them, and that ho'would see that the Act was amended. For. this reai son : the speaker'did not; think tho board'had power to enforce retirement. -..'. Mr.. Mitchell supported the motionr "He believed it was in accord with , the intention of • the ! Legislature, and: certainly itTWas in the" best.interests of education, .since\it would :.in- : ■ dnoe the brightest youna nien to enter the: tcubhing profession.' A , number of schools were suffering because , of. tho'presence of teachers ■•■ who were long past.the period cf usefulness. 11r.A.-M'Kerrow expressed the opinion that the board had not power to.do this. .• '' . Mr.'l); T. Floming supported the motion. Thoso affeotcd by it immediately would havo had-to retire in a few years anyhow, and with-, out the scheme they would not. havo,enjoyed the pension , fund'to: which they hod had to ! contribute bnt little.' ".'■. '..':..'. .' , Mr. Snow , thoußht.it was'wronß to make re- , tlremerit. compulsory.:. There were teachers, of , Csyears quite- able' for work, and: if they were , still willing -to; servo,' why should they not be' I allowed , to?. . ':/ ■■.- ■ :■.':•';'■ .'- •''• .Tho Eev. J. B. Frascr also favoured the motion,, but he - considered it «s a disgraceful thing that the Government had madc'it'riecev saryfor the boardto pas's! "this motion. It hao been quite evident when the matter "ca'riie .. before. Parliament what the intention was,- ( and that a scheine with voluntary retirement wheroso huge an , , allowance' wss made would .. be ,the stultification of itself.'. Influence must have been brought to bear upon the Government to alter the intention of rnaking retirement compuUdry.; .. ■■ '■- ■:, •.■'•■ '■;.■■. ' Hon. T. Fergus also voted for the motion. He held ■that,.\vhat was applicable in one branch of. the service shoula be. in another.' In one way,teachers were being made to suffer a hardship which every, other branoh of the servicewas immune from. .In counting years of: service, they could not oopnt thoso served under 'the Provincial Government. This was injustice,to. the servants of,education.':," ■.■.'.'.;•'•. .';': •'•■;■ "•'>' ■"■'.'■ ■''■;■' ."'.'.'.V- , .'" '. : : •'.; The motion was .carried. by .'6 votes to' 3. ''*.