GRADING OF TEACHERS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 224, 16 June 1919, Page 6

GRADING OF TEACHERS

I INTERESTING APPEAL CASE GRIEVANCE OVER LOSS OF MARKS By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, June 11. A matter of much interest to teachers camo before Mr. Justice Stringer 'it the Supreme Court to-day, when Henry Cecil Jati'rey, teacher, of Mangere, applied for a writ of mandamus against ten inspectors of the Auckland education district and the Director.of Education, compelling them to amend the 191S Dominion graded list of teachers by awarding him certain marks in accordance with, tho decision of t.lio Grading Appeal Board for the Auckland district. It was explained that the plaintiff was one of 49 .-teachers who had- a common grievance in that the graded list had not been amended after their appeals had been sustained by the board. The "interest: taken by teachers in tho case was shown by the fact that over thirty were present in court.

Mr. Elomfield stated that the ten inspectors were cited in their capacity as grading officers under the .Dominion grading scheme. In the 1915 list the plaintiff and a number of other Auckland ■ teachers were deprived of two marks each upon an allegation that, in certain divisions of their classification the Auckland teachers in grades 3, 4, and , r i were graded too high in comparison with teachers in other education districts. Forty-nine teachers appealed against this decision to the District Grading Appeal Board. ' The appeals were heard on September 7 last, and the board allowed all the appeals, and passed a resolution urging the Department to regrado all the' teachc-rs w 110. had been reduced by two marks. Subsequently tho plaintiff was informed in a letter from Mr. Caughley (Assistant Director -of Education) that liis appeal had been allowed, but that "no alteration in t'he grading had thereby .resulted."

■ John Caughley, Assistant Director of I Education, called' as a witness, stated that the Gazetto list did not contain the results of the.appeals and alterations to the grading which took place all through the year, and wero not gazetted. The real record was in the,set of personal cards held at Wellington and in duplicate at the offices of the various education boards. These contained all the particulars of each teacher, and alone were used when appointments were made. The cards showed reasons for all changes in marks. The markings shown in the Gazette would have no effect for practical purposes. Witness explicitly denied that the list had been published early for any ulterior purpose, and stated that the intention of getting it out in March or April had been iormed tho previous year. ■His Honour: That is a definite assurance, I think it ought to be accepted. ■ Mr., Caughley went on to say '-hat ho merely sent the decisions of the appeal boards to tho grading ofneers concerned, and this was taken as a formal direction to give effect to the decisions. In this case it was plain that if these' teachers were regraded,. teachers who had not appealed against thß loss of their two marks would be penalised.' .He-had, therefore, informed the grading officers that it would be in order if they reported that effect could not bo given to the recommendations of the board's resolution, which was beyond its powers. His Honour remarked (hat as the printed list had been shown not to be in actual use for Departmental purposes plaintiff, could not suffer to any extent on account of what appeared in it. However, it seenied clear that section 19 of the regulations had not been carried out. Ho would reserve his decision.