SCHOOL INSPECTORS

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1933, Page 8

SCHOOL INSPECTORS

EDUCATION BOARD’S DECISION

POSITION OF A MARRIED WOMAN TEACHER

CHRISTCHURCH, November 18

The> assertion tliat thd inspectors hav,e a stranglehold on the Canterbury Education Board, and that the hoard might just as well cease to function, was made by a member, Mr J. J. Hurley, at the meeting of the board yesterday. Mr Hurley’s remarks were made when he introduced a 'motion which had the effect of dismissing from the board’s 'employ a married woman teacher in favour of an unmarried one.

Mr Hurley said that there were several members on the board who devoted 12 whole weeks, in every year to educational matters, and then in a case like the one under discussion the inspectors were the men who actually determined what should be done. Not only with appointments was this so, but in matters of building also. It was no wonder that it had been suggested that the boards should be abolished. The unmarried teacher in question had received notice of the termination of her employment with the board before the meeting at which the matter was first discussed. Apparently the decision arrived at by the board’s officials had been adhered to and no notice taken of the discussions of members.

Mr G. Benstead said that it appeared to be of little use to have the appointments committee discuss a subject when it was entirely under the jurisdiction of the senior inspector. “It’s a silly way of doing business, .1 think,” he added.

Mr S. 11. Evison said that he took exception to the remarks of Mr Benstead. The appointments committee certainly had the power to express an opinion. To suggest that the committee sat for hours and did no business was ridiculous. “We have had these opinions before from Mr Benstead, and know that they are not worth much,” he said. Mr Hurley’s' motion referred to a clause in tile confidential report of the appointments committee, but.'so much of" the discussion had been taken in open board that it was agreed tO' discuss the clause in open meeting. Mr Hurley explained that the reason he did not ask for a committee discussion was that the whole thing would be made public very soon. The school itself wanted the unmarried teacher, who was most efficient. If it was merely a matter of hardship, she must again win easily against a. married woman whose 'husband' had a business of his- own. who could afford .a car. and who employed a servant to' look alter her child. ■ " It . all revolved .round the'question'or the employment cf manned woman, said Mr J. W. Preen. Until the board got rid of a lot of married teachers many young men and women would remain out of jobs. 'The board had ,power to dispense with their services. Mr C. Kirk, secretary to the board, then read a copy of a formal notice sent to an unmarried teacher notifying her of the termination of her employment, if a suitable transfer could not be arranged.’ •'< .

Mr A. McNeil, senior inspector, expressed his sorrow that the question had been discussed publicly. There were two questions at issue, he said:

the first was that when a school fell in grade, it was the,inspector’s respoi£ sibility to see that one teacher was dispensed with, and as long as the regulations placed that responsibility on him, he would see that it was carried out. However, he was at all times pleased to hear what the board had to say about it. The other question was the board’s power of dismissal. It certainly had that power after receiving a report from the senior inspector, and whether the report recommended dismissal or not, the board could still dismiss, subject of course to an 'appeal. ' The principle under which the regulation was carried out was generally that the last teacher‘to join the staff should be the first to go, unless there were exceptional circumstances. In this case he has failed to find any exceptional circumstances. Mr It. Wild explained that it was considered by the committee that there would be less hardship on the unmarried teacher than on the married one, because the unmarried teacher’s grade was such that she would have little difficulty in getting a good job.

On Mr Benstead returning to his attack on the inspectors, discussion became free, until the chairman, Mr W. P. Spencer, said that the only way to get over the difficulty would be to dismiss the married teacher altogether. He himself did not believe in retaining the services of married women teachers, while there were girls walking about without jobs. Mr S. Smith declared that he did not like to hear members say, because one case had arisen, that the board was absolutely useless. • Mr C. S. Thompson said that be took it that the unmarried teacher would be given a permanent position. If the board adopted Mr Hurley’s resolution, it would mean that the married teacher would be dismissed from the board’s service for good. A voice: Until the appeal is heard.

Mr Hurley finally said that if he could be given an assurance that the unmarried teacher would not be out of a job, he would be satisfied, and would withdraw his motion.

Mr Smith asked that the,, names of the teachers, which had been freely used throughout the discussion, be kept out of the papers, and the’.-chair-man-handed this appeal on to the reporters.