EDUCATION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 24 November 1927, Page 6

EDUCATION

AMENDMENT BILL A NEW CLAUSE ADDED. NELSON SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. (Special to “Tribune.”) Wellington, Nov. 24. A new clause added to the Education Amendment Bill by the Education Committee of the House of Representatives makes provision for the Nelson system of religious instruction in schools. The clause is as follows:—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act or in any direction given by the board, if accredited persons approved by the Minister desire to give moral and religious instruction of a voluntary nature in the school buildings the ordinary opening hour of the school shall be postponed or' the ordinary closing hour m the afternoon shall be advanced on one day in each week as agreed upon for not more than half an hour, in order to enable the instruction to be conveniently given; provided that no alteration shall be made in the opening or closing hours which would reduce tjje number of hours to be devoted on that day to secular instruction to less than the minimum of four hours fixed by the principal Act.

DISCIPLINING OF TEACHERS. DISCUSSION STOPPED BY ADJOURNMENT. Wellington, Nov. 24. Mr. R. P. Hudson (Motueka) brought down in the House of Representatives to-day the report of the Education Amendment Bill, which,, the committee recommended, be allowed to proceed with amendments shown. He explained that the amendment provided that clause 2 should be cut out. Clause 5 was amended so as to provide that any teacher who was fined more than 40s should have the right of appeal. There was a slight amendment in clause 9, and there was a new clause added to the bill whih practically made provision, for the establishment in schools of what was known as the Nelson system of giving religious instruction. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) regretted that the Minister had not seen fit to grant after the repeated request on the part of the teachers, the right of appeal against non-ap-pointment. He had not heard a single logical argument against such right of appeal. He objected to clause 5, which provided for the fining of teachers for a breach of discipline. This seemed to be a part of the mad rush for “uniformity” and was strongly resented throughout the service. The clause was a grave reflection on the high sense of duty which at present prevailed in the ranks of the teachers. The Hon. R. A. Wright defended the clause providing for fines on teachers, on the ground that there was no power to discipline teachers short of dismissal, which no board would enforce, and if they did the teacher would appeal and no appeal board would support the board in a case of that kind. Now that teachers had discovered the boards had no power to punish them bases of insuhoidination were increasing. Mr. R. W. Smith (Waimarino) and Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) opposed the clause to provide for fining teachers. Mr. Glenn said he would do his level best to knock it out of the bill. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said the Minister could only ouote two or three cases of insubordination, yet for these two or three cases he was casting a slur upon the whole teaching profession. The discussion was proceeding when the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. THE TEACHERS’ VIEWPOINT. N.Z.E.I. SECRETARY’S COMMENT. Wellington, Nov. 24. Comment on the Education Department’s explanation of the “fining” clause in the Education Amendment Bill was made to-day by Mr. H. A. Parkinson, secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The points as they occur in the department’s statement were referred to as follows:— ‘‘Representations were made by several education boards.”—Two of the most important boards have definitely repudiated the clause, and another is known not to have been concerned in it. “The only penalty an employing board can inflict on ‘a teacher is dismissal.”—By no means, The expressed censure of a board is a thing that no teacher worthy of the name would incur willingly or regard lightly. If that is not a sufficient check on “offenders of a minor character” these cease to be of a minor character and the proper punishment is dismissal. It affects the teacher’s prospect of promotion and may affect his salary to some extent. “The teachers say that the proposed fine would be a slur on the character of teachers as a whole, and that the punishment provided for public servants would be an indignity if inflicted on a teacher.”—The teachers have not referred to the Public Service in this connection. They have said, and they repeat, that the character of their own service has not deserved this slur and never less deserved it than now. “They should not be able with impunity to ignore the lawful instructions of their head teachers or employin- boards.”—Certainly they should not. Dismissal is the proper treatment for those. Paltry monetary fines are no remedy, nor will the spirit and tone of the teaching ser vice be raised by this proposal to inflict them.