APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17459, 20 May 1922, Page 15

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

DIVERGENT VIEWS. j DEPARTMENT AND BOAED. Matters connected with the present system under which teachers are appointed were discussed at yesterday s meeting of the Canterbury Education Board. East month the Board placed its views before the Department and Mr J. Caughley, Director of Education, replied as follows: — '1 have to state that even if friction is caused between the Board and the Committees through the dissatisfaction of the latter with the present system of appointment, that would not indicate that the system is no better than the one previously in existence. The claim by a committee to select a teacher even from among the best of the applicants would infer that the committee was in a better position than the inspectors to judge which was the best teacher. Further, except in special circumstances which are provided for under the present Act, the Dominion system of promotion can be secured only by giving the positions to the teacherhighest on the grading list. It is noted that the Board expresses the opinion that the present principle of appointing teachers is detrimental to. the best interests of education. _ The Department will be glad to receive the Board s reasons in support of this opinion." Mr T. Hughes, a member of the Board, was asked by the Board, in conjunction with the secretary (Mr H. CLane) to prepare a reply to this communication, and at yesterday's meeting he submitted it. The letter was as follows: — ■ ■ j * "In reply to your memorandum or Maroh 28th with referenoe to the appointment of teachers, the Canterbury Education Board respectfully begs +o submit the following statement for your consideration: — "The Board desires to reiterate the statement of fact that the present system of appointment is giving dissatisfaction to the committees in this dw trict. "While admitting that the former system of making appointments _ was not faultless, this Board's experience is that the existing mechanical and automatic system often fails to secure the best and most suitable teacher for positions, the special needs of winch ' vary eo widely, since in general practice appointments are rigidly assigned to the teacher graded highest on the list of applicants. ''With regard to the' contention that the claim by a committee to select a teacher from among the best of the suitable applicants would infer thai the committee was in a better position than the inspectors to judge which waa the best teach«r, with no desire to discount either the ability or earnestness of the inspectors, the Board would submit "that from their local knowledge, and the care for the ft«lround welfare of their own children, five or nine local men could be trusted to eeleafc the best teacher for their .special need from among two or three who, by their position on the graded list, are all suitable and practically equal as to professional qualifications. "The last paragraph of your memorandum asks for the Board's reasons for the statement that the present principle of appointing teachers is detrimental to the best interests of education. "The Board would respectfully submit that any teacher by long and efficient service, in the course of time gradually must attain a high grade in the service. In the course of time too, such teacher's physical energy, alertness, and power of initiative, must decline to a more or leas extent. Certainly as a general rule this happens before the age of retirement arriVes. A position which demands ' vigorous mental and physical powers as well as professional qualifications of the highest order, becomes vacant. Though the candidate referred to above may be without serious disability except such as nature imposes, yet he cannot' be passed over, and under the Department's, system he must receive the appointment. The Board cannot agree that such are in the best interests of education. "Under a rigid system in which, the highest graded teacher receives the appointment, this Board has considerable misgivings as to whether the best and fittest teacher for a specific task always gets the position. In the Board 8 opinion it is beyond human skill to assess 'personality'—the main dynamic force in education —within a limit <>? one or two marks. Therefore, although the present method of appointment is in the interests of some teachers, it is not neoessarily in the interests of the children. This criticism is riot dictated in any spirit of hostility to the system, or in a spirit of carping criticism; indeed, the Board recognises the great value of the grading system as. a guide to the merits of -teachers; such a scheme is an absolute necessity, as is lihe teachers' register in Britain, but. the Board again respectfully asks: "That a wider interpretation of the 'special circumstances' should bo permitted, and that whenever possible, within the limits of a few marks, tho Board may allow committees a selection from at least two or three suitable candidates who, from their position in the graded scheme _ and in the inspectors' and Board's opinion, are best suited to local conditions." Mr Hughes moved tSxat this should be the Board's reply. Mr W. A. Banks seoonded, and said that every school oommittee was interested in tho subject j the committees were kicking against the present method, and the Board was getting the blame lor sending along only one name. Tho Sydenham and Wnarenui Committees and almost school to which appointments were made were kicking. Tho whole thing was governed by the Department's regulations. . Mr G. W. Armitage, tho chairman or tho Board, suggested as an addition to the motion: "And that a copy of this letter be sent to the Minister." If this were not done, he said, the letter might get as far as tho Department and remain there. Mr John Jamieson strongly supported the chairman's remarks. The Hon. J. Grimmpnd, M.L.C., also endorsed them, and iisked to be supplied with copies of tho letter to take with him to Wellington. The motion, with.the chairman s addition to it, was agreed to. The chairman thanked Mr Hughes for the thought and care (he had given to the reply. ' The secretary said, that in respect or the appointment of teachers tho Board had maintained that under sub-section 7 of section 16 of the Education Act, 1914, it had discretionary power, subject- to the concurrence of the senior inspector, to forward to a school committee the names of not moro than tiirea candidates, • even if there was a slignt difference in respect of tho grading or the candidates. He, suggested that if tho Board's solicitor agreed with this interpretation a paragraph to that effect might be added to the letter. IV was agreed that this should be done. The Board decided to endorse the resolution from the Waltham Committeo regarding appointments, urging that where applicants' names are graded within five of the highest graded applicant, those names shall be sent on to the committee for selection..