INJUSTICE TO TEACHERS

Evening Star, Issue 19791, 15 February 1928, Page 5

INJUSTICE TO TEACHERS

PARTIAL REVISION OF GRADING COMPLETE LIST DESIRED The injustice alleged to he dime to a large number of teachers by the early issue of a partial revision of the grading list, by means of which students leaving college have an advantage over teachers whoso grading is not announced until 'April, was referred to at this morning's meeting of the Kducatiou Board, which carried a motion suggeesting that the complete list .should remain in operation until the complete revision was made available. The matter was brought up by Mr J. Mitchell, who moved the following motion:—“That in the opinion of this board the early issue of a partial revision of the grading list is calculated to cause injustice to he done to a large number of tea icrs, inasmuch as their earned advance in the scale is practically deferred for three months after that of a section has become operative. The board therefore suggests that the complete list should remain in operation until the complete revision is made available, with the addition of such new entrants thereto as may accrue in the interval.” In speaking to the motion. Mr Mitchell said he was not enamored of tho present system of grading, but it was incumbent upon them to see that the system, while it existed, was administered in such a way that no injustice would be done to any of the teachers. Tie instanced tho case of teachers who were still awaiting publication of their grading. The only way to overcome this was to make the existing list current until a complete revision was made.

The motion was seconded by the Hon. D. T. Fleming. Mr J. H. Wilkinson said that the matter was one that could be discussed with good results by the conference of Education Boards. They should endeavor to consider the interests of all the teachers as far as possible. “ 1 think we should make the position’ clear to the public, who don’t quite follow what is going on,” said the Chairman (Mr J. Wallace). Mr Wallace went on to explain that all probationary assistants were graded at December 1)1. They had been provisionallly graded .when they left college the year before. The new grading was given to them, and in their applications for positions they used this new grading, which put them one or two marks ahead of teachers graded in April last year, and whose new grading was not due until this April. This was most nnlair, and when the hoard approached the department about it the latter stated that the board was entitled to consider only the first grading of such teachers—that was to say, their grading when they left college. He understood, however, that another hoard was making appointments from such teachers on their new grading. The Chairman later said .that when the teachers came out of college they were given provisional grading, hut this could he used only among themselves and not in competition with graded teachers.

Mi; Mitchell said that a simultaneous grading of all teachers was what was wanted.

Tho Senior Inspector (Mr F. G. A. Stuckey) said that teachers were being graded all through the year. If a teacher’s two years finished in May he was entitled to a certificate, and thus he must be graded, as this could not be held over.

The Chairman said that what the Board was really dealing with was the question of probationary assistants whose grading should not be altered until April, when the whole list was issued. ■

The motion was carried, and it was resolved to send a copy of same to the Education Department.