TEST SCHOOLS CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1862, 23 September 1913, Page 7

TEST SCHOOLS CASE.

TEACHERS' PROMOTION.

POWERS OF BOARD & COMMITTEE. (Br Telecjrapli.—Press Association.) AuoUland, September 22. An important case involving the question what is the proper oourso to bo followed by tho Auckland Education Board when it haa to appoint a teacher to a position for which applications havo been' called, came before Mr, Justice Cooper at tho Supremo Court to-day. The plaintiff was the City Schools Committee (Dr. Bamford) and the defendant tho Education Board (Mr. J. It. Reid, K. 0., with him Mr. Mooro),

Case for the Cdmmlttoo. During the course of his argument Dr. Bamford produced an affidavit made bv F. E. N Gaudin (chairman, of the City Schools Committee) wliioh 'stated that, wheu a vacancy oocurrcd, the Education Board sent to the committee the name of tho applicant with tho highest qualifications, together with testimonials, it also sent the names of other applicants, but in no oast, with their applications and qualifications. Dr. Bamford said that tho material question aroso in tho Act ameuding Soction 55 of tho Education Act, 1908. Tho amending Act providod that, when a teacher was removed from one position to another, whether in tho same school, or in different schools othor than to tho position of Lead teacher in the samo school, the jiarao of tho toacher, together with a statement of his length of service and other qualifications, should bo sent by the board to the committee. In any oilier case a list containing not more than four names (in order of merit was determined by the board) of teachers whom tho hoard considered best fitted for the appointment was, with statements showing longth of service and the qualifications of each teachor, to, bo sent to the committee. If names had been invited the board was to send tho names of all applicants, together with tho applications and testimonials of eaeli teaolier whoso name appeared on tho above list. Sub-section b, of the amending Act provided! that if there was only ono namo on tho list, tho cominitteo moroly had the power to mako a. recommendation—it had: no power to select—but, if there was more than ono namo, tho committee could mako a solection, and tho board' was bound to take that selection. In oonclusion, Dr. Bamford said that tho obvious intention, of the Legislature was to givo tho committe a right of selection —at any rate betweeni two porsons —but tho action of the board in sending only olio namo completely nullified the puraoEG of tho Act. No doubt tho board had deliberately adopted a policy of not allowing a committee to have the right of solcction. Wherever possible, a school committee should havo the right of selection, and oounsol strongly urged the view that tho reference in. tho Act to a list was not satisfied by a dboument containing only ono namo. Tho Board's Case. For the defence, Mr. Rcocll mentioned flhat, when it was necessary for tho board to send' a number of names to a committee, a certain amount _of influence was exercised' in connection with appointments, and a man of a retiring; disposition never obtained such rapid promotion as others who were prepared to get their friends to work for them.' The board had now adopted' tho policy of making promotions entirely by merit, and counsol submitted that that was tho intention of tflie Legislature. Tho subr fission of a namo to a committeo and tlio board's desiro for tho comniitteo's expression; as to the applicant's capabilities was statutory consultation. Judgment was reserved.