DISCIPLINE OF TEACHERS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 November 1927, Page 4

DISCIPLINE OF TEACHERS

NEW CLAUSE IN BILL. DEPAHT-MENTAL UK PLY TO OBJECTIONS. WELLINGTON. No vein), or 22. With reference to the 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., the Education Department states that the necessity for this clause arose out of representatives 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 hoard can inflict on a teacher is dismissal, and it is necessary that some less drastic punishment should be provided, so that a hoard can impose some check on offences of a minor character without depriving an offender of his means of livelihood. A teacher cannot even be suspended except for immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour.

A case occurred early this year where a teacher who was refused extension of midsummer holidays still persisted in taking an extra day applied for. The hoard suspended her. hut the institute took up her case, with the result that the hoard was compelled to reinstate her and to cancel the suspension. The teacher thus escaped punishment of any kind.

Occasionally teachers arc persistently late for duty, take half-hours off without leave for their own purposes, are negligent in furnishing returns or in keeping school records, and arc neglectful of duty in other respects, and the hoard has no effective remedy. If officers of other branches of the public service offend in tbo respect mentioned above, tbe controlling authority has adequate means of dealing with offenders by inflicting; punishment suited to the offence. They can lie reprimanded, lined, 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 the right of appeal, a board that dismissed a teacher for ilio minor offo nces named would find that its action would be held by the Appeal Court as too drastic. 'l'lio boards consequently arc powerless, and schools and pupils suffer in consequence.

Teachers contend that offenders can lie dealt with by the boards through their grading, on which depends the teacher’s chance of promotion, and. to a small extent, his salary in the position held, and the inference is that similar, action cannot ho 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 for it by his coni rolling officer, and there is no such provision relating to teachers. The argument that teachers can lie dealt with through grading more effectively than public servants will not bear inspection. Grading is done by the inspectors, net by the hoards, and even if the inspectors were to endeavour 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 would lie deducted that the resuli on salary would he nil or negligible. Even if sufficient deduction could be made, the effect would not lie fell for probably twelve months. To le effective in sin-h a case, punishment in list )>' certain and ini mediate, and the suggested remedy through grading would be quite inadequate. Tl e teachers say that the proposed line would be a slur on (ho character of the teachers as'a whole, and that the punishment- provided for public seivanls would lie an indignity if imposed on a teacher. Could any argument he more illogical ? They might as well ifinleiid that the punishment of a thief is a slur on law-abiding citizens. They say that they are professional men and women, should be exempt from discipline of the kind, and should not he subject to the same penalties as ordinary civil servants. Even if this .extraordinary contention is conceded, and it is adipitted that teaching is on a. higher plane than clerical work, what about the large body of medical men, solicitors, engineers. surveyors, scientists, architects and other professional men and women in the public service? Can teachers claim superiority to these officers or over the large body of teachers in Native schools and special .schools, who in ease of default, are liable to he lined, degraded, suspended or dismissed? There is no reason why offending tcaclicm shotil lie exempt from the disciplinary provisions applicable to the public service.

If inquiry is made into the practice in other countries, it will be found that offending teachers can be dealt with more drastically than is proposed in the clause in the Education Bill. In Tasmania, for example, teachers may he fined, reduced in salary, deprived of promotion or dismissed, and there is similar provision in Queensland. New South AYales and "Western Australia. In Canada and the United States again, the controlling authorities have effective means of discipline.

From whatever point of view the proposal is viewed, there is no reason why means should not he provided for dealing with the few negligent or disobedient teachers in New Zealand, or why they should be exempt from the same disciplinary measures that are applicable to other employees in the Government service or teachers in other countries. They should not be able, with impunity to ignore the lawful instructions of their head teachers or employing boards, and tbe fact that there is some provision to deal with offenders cannot possibly affect the great majority of teachers who carry out their duties in a satisfactory manner.