EDUCATION BILL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 23 November 1927, Page 3

EDUCATION BILL

TEACHERS’ OBJECTION TO CLAUSE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF FINES. DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT. Wellington Nov. 22. With reference to th e clause embodied in the Education Bill, now before Parliament, which empowers education boards to impose a fine not exceeding £lO on teachers who are guilty of wilful disobedience or neglect of duty, th e Education Department states that the necessity for this clause arose out of representations made by several of the- education boards who found themselves without sufficient power of control over their own employees. Under the present law the only penalty an employing board can inflict on a teacher is dismissal, and it is necessary that some less drastic punishment should be provided, so that the board can impose some check on offences’ of a minor character without depriving the offender of his means of livelihood. A teacher cannot even be suspended, except for immoral conduct or gross misbehavour. A case occurred early this year where a teacher who was refused an extension of the midsummer holiday still persisted in taking the extra holiday applied for. The board suspended her, but the institute took up her case, with the result that the board was compelled to reinstate her and to cancel the suspension. The teacher thus escaped punishment of any kind. Occasionally teachers are- persistently lato for duty, take half hours off without leave for their own purposes, are negligent in furnishing returns or in keeping school records, and are neglectful of duty in other respects, and the board has no effective remedy. SYSTEM IN OTHER BRANCHES. If officers of other branches of the Public Servic e offend in the respects mentioned above, the controlling authority bad adequate means of dealing with the offenders by inflicting punishment suited to the offence. They can be reprimanded, fined, deprived of annual salary increments reduced in grade, suspended or dismissed. The only punishment provided for in the Education Act in dealing with teachers is dismissal, and as teachers are protected by right of appeal, a board that dissmissed a teacher for the minor offences named would find that its action would be held by the appeal courts as too drastic. Boards consequently are powerless and pupils and schools suffer m consequence. Teachers contend that offenders can bo dealt with by boards through their grading, on which depend a teacher’s chance of promotion and to a small extent his salary in the position held, and the inference is that similar action cannot be taken in the Public Service. But what are the facts? The promotion of a public servant depends upon efficiency and attention to duty just as much as that of a teacher. Further a public servant cannot get an annual increment unless he is recommended therefor by his cotrolling officer, and there is no such provision relating to teachers.

SUGGESTED REMEDY INADEQUATE.

The argument that teachers can be dealt with through grading more effectively than public servants will not bear inspection. The grading is done by the inspectors, not by the board, and even if the inspectors were to inflict a penalty through grading, say for wilful absence from duty for half a day, it would be found that so few marks in grading could be deducted that the result on the salary would bo nil or negligible and even if sufficient deduction could be made the effect wbuld not be felt for probably twelve months. To be effective in such a case, the panishment must be certain and immediate, and the suggested remedy through grading would be quite inadequate. But the teachers say the proposed fine would be a slur on the character of teacheis as a whole and that the punishment provided for public servants would be an indignity if inflicted on a teacher. Could any argument be more illogical? They might as well contend that the punishment of a thief is a slur on law-abiding citizens or that the punishment of the guilty damages th 0 character of the innocent. Teachers, they say, are professional men and women and should be exempt from discipline of the kind and should not be subject to the same penalties as ordinary civil servants. Even if this extraordinary contention is conceded, and it is admitted that teach ing is on a higher plane than clerical work, what about the large body of medical men, solictors, engineers surveyors scientists, architects and other professional men and women in the public service? Can the teachers claim superiority to these offleers or over the large body of teachers in the native schools and special schools, who, in case of default, are liable to bo fined, degraded, suspended or dismissed? NO REASON FOR EXEMPTION. There is no reason why offending teachers should bo exempt from the disciplinary provision applicable to th e Public Service. If inquiry is made into the practice in other countries, it will be found that offending teach ers can b e dealt with more drastically than is proposed in the clause in the Education Bill. In Tasmania, for example, teachers may bo fined, reduced in salary, deprived of promotion or dismissed, and there is a simi lar provision in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. In Canada and the United States again, the controlling authorities have effective means of discipline in dealing with negligent and disobedient teachers. From whatever point of view the proposal is viewed, there is no reason why means should not be provided for dealing with the few negligent 'or disobedient teachers In New Zealand, or why they should bo exempt from' the same disciplinary measures that are applicable to other employees in the Government service or tachcrs in other countries. They should hot be able with impunity to ign.'rg the lawful instructions of thrir head teachers or employing boards, and the fact that there is sonic provision to deal with offenders ernnot possibly affect the great majority of the teachers, who carry out liheir duties in a satisfactory man net