SHOULD TEACHERS SMOKE?

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 29, 4 February 1928, Page 11

SHOULD TEACHERS SMOKE?

NOT IN SCHOOL HOURS.

THE QUESTION OF EXAMPLE,

NO TROUBLE IX AUCKLAND,

"Should tcachcrs smoke?" The topic savours somewhat of the "silly season," but a surprising amount of interest has been raised. Some time ago there was a storm in a teacup in a South Island town because the chairman of an education board had detected a newly-appointed lady teacher smoking a cigarette at playtime. All sort of complications ensued, and at one period there were the makings of trouble between the board and the teachers' organisation, but the affair died a natural death, as, indeed, it deserved to.

Since that date the question has been resurrected through the medium of newspaper controversy, but it is comforting to know that there is not the least likelihood of trouble arising in Auckland or in any part of the province. An eminently common-sense point of viewis taken by the local authority. The question is left to the teachers themselves, and there are no regulations, either general or local, but the profession is practically unanimous that it is undesirable for a teacher, whether male or female, to smoke during school hours and in the presence of the children.

"The question has never come before the Auckland Education Board," said Mr. A- Burns (chairman) to a ".Star'' reporter to-day, "but I think if it did the board would object to teachers smoking during school hours. We have never consulted them 011 the matter, but I think I am right in saying that most headmasters and mistresses discourage smoking during school hours. I am not a smoker myself, but I don't object to other people enjoying a pipe er cigarctte. Still* I should be opposed to teachers smoking in the presence of tl.e children, and I think the teachers themselves realise that it would be undesirable." The Example of Parents. An interesting point was raised by one of the newspaper correspondents, namely, 1 whether it was not equally the duty of parents to set a gOod example by refraining from smoking. The writer* took the view that the main question should be not whether people (including teachers) should smoke, but whether smoking was or was not a harmful practice. This, of course, reopens a very debatable subject, and one which will probably never be settled once and for all. As the correspondent put it, "if smoking is harmful, let us have a campaign against it. If it is a harmless recreation let people continue to burn their money." The father of a family iu their early teens was consulted on the important subject of example. His opinion throws new light on the question. "I certainly smoke in the presence of my children,"] said he, "and I expect nearly all fathers do. There is this important difference j between the example of a parent and that of a school teacher; the parent is nearly always with his children in their hours of leisure, and also in his own, whereas the teacher is with them during] school hours. The examples, therefore, are set under different circumstances. Still, so far as example is concerned, i! don't think it matters much. Children have been seeing their ciders smoke for generations past, and they themselves will smoke when they want to, I expect." Mothers Who Smoke. Paterfamilias was, however, sufficiently! "old-fashioned" (as he put it) to retain a prejudice against smoking by women and girls, especially when in the presence of children. "I don't for a moment suggest that the mother of a family should be barred from enjoying a cigarctte," be said, "but I don't think it looks well for her to smoke in front of] the youngsters. The example of a I mother makes a big impression, particularly on the girls, and the girl of the present day certainly does not need any extra encouragement in the direction of smoking."