EDUCATION SYSTEM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 278, 18 August 1921, Page 6

EDUCATION SYSTEM

METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION

DIRECTORS’ STRICTURES RESENTED TEACHERS’ APPOINTMENTS IN WELLINGTON The Education Board, at its meeting yesterday, had before it a memorandum dealing with the recent strictures passed on education boards, and the Wellington Board in particular, by the Director of Education (Mr. W. Cnughley). The memorandum generally followed the lines of the statement made by tho Ixiard chairman (Mr. Forsyth) in reply to Mr. Caug'hley, and published in The Dominion yesterday. It claimed that the board’s system of appointing teachers, “instead of confining appointments to Wellington teachers, has actually thrown every position open to the whole profession. An honest attempt has been made to use tho graded list as a promotion list, coupled with,a desire to fully comply with the requirements of the Education Act. It is unquestionably correct to say that in drafting the scheme tho board kept in view the spirit of the Act, viz.; that every teacher in the Dominion should have an equal opportunity in competing for vacancies.” The presentation of tho memorandum led to some discussion. Board Members Indignant.

Mr. E. D. Eishworth said that ho found it difficult to realise .that a man in reviewing a report should set up etraw dummies to knock down. He thought that there was a lack of dignity in Mr. Caughley’s correspondence with the board, which was doing its very best to carry out the intention of the Act. It seemed to him that it was a laboured attempt on the part of the Director to get at the board. The chairman said that the DirectOi bad been so long a headmaster that ho had not grown out of the idea that he was supreme, and that he was talking to a lot of children. The finest evidence that the board’s scheme was the best was the praise given it by both the Minister and the New Zealand Educational Institute, the members of which were the only people concerned. Not only had they done everything in thoii power to comply with, and not evade, the Act, but they had gone past it in doing all they could to follow out the spirit of the Act. Air R A- Wright said that it seemed to him that the whole business was a difference of opinion as to tho interpretation of the spirit of G ll * . e J’" haps ft conference with the Director would clear the air. „ , Mr. J. J- Clarke spoke of too frequent changes of teachers as being bad for a. school. . , Mr. R. M'Callum said inat tho Director was not justified in using the word "farcical.” In his opinion, Mr. Caughley owed Hie board an abject apology. Such an insult was not deserved, even if tho board were wrong, which lie did not think was tho case. Indeed, it soemod that the board had gone out of its way to do the very best it could.

“An Underlying Motive.” Mr. T. Moss thought that the Director was most indiscreet in rushing to the newspapers to find fault with the education boards. It seemed to him that there was some motive behind it rll. Perhaps the Director wished to centralise the whole control of education in llie Department, and was using these methods to ' weaken and undermine pub io faith in the boards. He moved that the letter which had como from the Director be received with regret. Mr. W. H- Field said that the newspaper report seemed to indicate that Mr. Canghley had gone far beyond his powers. It was only a move in the game to do away with Gio boards altogether. It was indicated by the Minister the other day that this idea was working. The language Air. Caughlcy used was not at all what such on official should uso in’ discussing the boards methods of appointing teachers. Air. G. L. Stewart (secretary) defined the legal aspect of the ease as between transfers within a district and other appointments. “Highly Improper!” Finally, Mi'- Moss withdrew his motion in favour of a more comprehensive one, as follows:— , , “'That the board regrets the lone used bv the Director of Education .in bis recent statement in the public Press, and in 'his letter to ibo board in regard to teachers’ appointments. Eui’U’er, it considers it highly imptoper that the Director should describe as ‘farcical any system adopted by the board after due consideration; and that the Director be. invited to meet the board in conference to disquss the whole position. This was passed unanimously.