WHOSE THE DUTY?

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3063, 26 April 1917, Page 3

WHOSE THE DUTY?

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS NEW MEMOD SUGGESTED Proposals for a change in tho method of appointing teachers were discussed by the Education Board yesterday. Mr. Forayth moved: "(a) That an Appointments Committee be sot up to consider all applications for appointments, and to report to the board. (2) Ihat the committee consist of the members of the executivo and the senior inspector." His object in moving the mttion, he said, was to ensure that the board should give more consideratioi/to the appointment of teachers, for he believed that not sufficient attontftn was given to this, the niosc impoitant function of the board. The procedure he suggested was practically the same as that adopted by the Auckland and Canterbury Boards. . Mr. W. Allan seconded the motion pro foima, but said that he would vote agtinst it. He diii not agree with Mr.Fortyth's statement that the board did not jive sufficient attention to the apjsointmsnt of teachers. The present plan had. worked very well. If Mr. Forsyth's scheme were adopted the country members would be unable to take part !n the selection of teachers, as they weio not on the executive. He was sure tiat the proposal woukl not I give 'satisfaction to teachers. Furthermore, it vraiid mean that teachers would be "bxtfconhoiiug" every member lof the executive. "It is bad enough now," he sail, "but it would be ten times worse.'.then." ." ■ ' Sir. A. W.:Hogg, opposing tho motion, said he was well satisfied with the present nieihod of appointing teachers. The board had always had g< od advice from the' Chief Inspector as to the suitability of teachers for positions to be filled, and it was better, he thought, that the board should accept the. advice of expert advisers. Be agreed with Mr. Allan that if the new plan were adopted teachers would canvass members.of the executive. ' Mr. G. T.. London said he vnuld support the motion. He held i'-at tho board had shirked its responsibilities in regard, to the appointment of teachers. Hi did not accept the doctrine that the board should always do as, the chief inspector advised,, nor did he fdmit that the chief inspector was more competent than the board to make appointments. If the new_ plan were adopted it would often happen lint tlie executive would* be able to assist tl-e inspeotor in coming to a wise decision. Nor was it necessary to .suppose that the inspector would be thwarted, or his opinions flouted by the executive. Mr. A. Mackay said he would not support the motion. The executive consisted; of seven members, a majority, of the board, and in view of this it would not be safe for the board to delegate more of its authority to that body. He urged that as three members, were absent the motion should be held over. ;,, Mr.vR.,A. Wright said that he would oppose the motion, because he himself —and ha presumed the other members were in the same position—did-not feel competent to decide as to the qualifications of individual teachers. He thought it better that , the' board should he guided on.-these matters.by the inspectors. He also agreed with Mr. Mackay that an executive of seven 'members was a source of .danger.. .In all public bodies committees ought to consist of a minority of members. Mr. Kebbell also supported the mo.tion. , _ After Mr. Fofsyth replied' the motion was put and declared lost on the voices. , v '