SCARCITY OF MALE TEACHERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1754, 20 May 1913, Page 4

SCARCITY OF MALE TEACHERS.

Sir,—No doubt until salaries are increased male teachers will steadily beoouib scarcer. But oiib of the greatest l-iots in our' present system of payment is reduction of salary through no fault of tho teacher. A school is reduced in giade. What is tho result? Tho statf is roduc-ed. What does that mean? Thw remaunler of tho statf have really, in .most ciues, more work to <10, and how aro they than, treated? Why they eventually yit less pay. "More work, less pay" is tho present, system. The extra work is accepted chtMully, but the reduced pay is a bitter pill. That is one of tho big factors operating to keep boys from takinp up teaching. It is a cruel thing to rcduco an efficient man's salary. Another blot. Teachers, it is well Mown, frequently can't afford to take' transfers or even other positions, because ol the cost of removal which they lAve to bear. Why should other public servants have their removal expends paid, and not teachers? Some people say that a teacher causes his own removal by applving foT another position, and other public servants aro <*-nt without 1 their applying. Therefore, these same people say the teacher should pay his own expenses. • lliat is no argument. Tho teacher is bound to apply if he lvants to get on, and other public servants are bound to go if they wish to yet on. Thero is no justice m treating teachers differently. Now for reform. The present hard and fast rule of payment by attendance is obsolete and wrong. It matters not whether payment by averago attendance* or averago roll number is adopted. Both are wrong. A teacher is entitled to bo .paid as a _.eael'w, rjnito as justly as any other public servant is paid. There should bo a hied unary for a beginner, rising by increments to a fixed salary for a teacher ot long and efficient service, provided he maintains his efficiency. In other public servico long and faithful service is recognised, but because there are not nearly sufficient bigger positions offering for good teaeliers, a man has to go without a sufficient salary to maintain himself and family properly. I don t argute that a teacher's inurements should go on for every year of his forty years service. That "would destroy emulation and effort, but J do say that an efficient teacher of 15 or 20 vears (and upwards) faithful service, provided l'e Wisps up his efficiency, is entitled ; n the=e expensive days to ,£3OO a year (or .£270 and ,£3O house allowance). I say ,£3OO a year advisedly, because everyone knows that tho cost of living has pone up ovor 50 per cent, in tta last fifteen or twenty year 3, and «£3OO a year is now required wiieire <£200 was sufficient a few years ago. We must bear in mind also that the cost of living is continuing strongly to riso as tho years go on. A thoroughly trained young man should start out at 01150 .1 juar, while the positions worth over AIM a year would Ira available for the vc-ry bsst men in the service., Women's salaries are also sadly in need of attention. I have touched vfciry briefly on only some of tlie present defeots, and I would like, in conclusion, to draw attention to an excellent article on tho subiect in the April number of th'e Journal 'of Mdueafaon. Thanking you for publishing this letter—l am, etc., REFORM.