GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 June 1919, Page 5

GRADING OF TEACHERS.

INTERESTING APPEAL CASE.

GRIEVANCE OVER LOSS OF MARKS. By Telegraph.—Press Aasn.—Copyright. Auckland, June 14,

A natter of much interest to teachers came before Mr. Justice Stringer at. the Supreme Court to-day, when Henry Cecil Jaffrey, teacher, of Mangere, applied for a writ of mandamus against ten inspectors of the Auckland Education District and the Director of Education, compelling them to amend the 1918 Dominion graded list of teachers by awarding him certain marks in accordance with the decision of the Grading Appeal Board for the Auckland districtIt was explained that the plaintiff was one of 49 teachers who had a common grievance in that the graded list had not been amended aiter their appeals bad been sustained by the board. The interest taken by teachers in the case was shown by the fact that over thirty wore present in court, Mr. Blomfleld stated that the ten inspectors were cited in their capacity as grading officers under the Dominion grading scheme. In the 1918 list the plaintiff and a number of other Auckland teachers were deprived of two marks each upon an allegation that in certain divisions of their classification the Auckland teachers in grades 3, 4, and 6 were graded too high in comparison with teachers in other educations districts. Forty-nine teachers appealed against this decision to the District Grading Appeal Board. The appeals were heard on September 7 last, and the board allowed all the appeals and passed a resolution urging the Department to re-grade all the teachers who had been reduced by two marks. Subsequently the plaintiff was informed in a letter from Mr. Caughley (Assistant-Director of Education) that his appeal had been allowed, but that "no alteration in the grading had thereby resulted." ■John Caughley, Assistant-Director of Education, called as a witness, stated that the Gazette list did not contain the results of the appeals and alterations to the grading which took place all through the year, and were not gazetted. The real record was in the set of personal cards held at Wellington and in duplicate at the ofTir-i of the various education boards. '1 iiese contained all the particulars of each teacher, and alone were used when appointments wore made. The cards showed reasons for all changes in marks. The markings shown in the Gazette would have no effect for practical purposes. Witness explicitly denied that the list had been published early for any ulterior purpose, and stated that the intention of getting it out in March or April had been forced the previous year. His Honor: That is a definite assurance. I think it ought to be accepted. Mr. Caughley went on to say that he merely sent the decisions of the appeal boardn to the grading officers concerned, and this was taken as a formal direction to give effect to the decisions. In this case it was plain that if these teachers were re-graded, teachers who had not appealed against the loss it their two marks would be penalised. He had, therefore, informed the grading officers that it, would be in order if they reported that effect could not be given to the recommendations of the board's resolution, which was beyond its powers. His Honor remarked that, as the printed list had been shown not to be in Retual use for Departmental purposes, plaintiff could not suffer to any extent on account of what appeared in it. However, it seemed clear that section 19 of the regulations had not been carried out. ! He would reserve bis d«ciiion.