APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21024, 28 November 1933, Page 17

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

TO TEE EDITOH OF THE PHESS. Sir,—Mr Kirk has gone to some trouble to prove that the senior" inspector must simply follow out the department's rulings in connexion with transfers, yet the senior inspector said at the board's meeting that it was his I own idea of the interpretation of the 1 act to transfer the teacher who had peeri at the school the shortest time, if that school fell in grade. Is that always done? I think not Then, in the matter of appointments—all things being equal, the highest-graded teacher should have the position. However, that does not always suit the department or the senior inspector, and they get round it by making the position a special one and pushing in the man they want, even if he is graded lower than other applicants. You see my grievance is that the Earents do not receive a fair deal, ecause as often as not most unsuitable teachers are appointed to schools and the children suffer. The inspectors know that there are teachers who are not cut out for the job, but because the teacher makes a fuss of the inspector or plays on his weaknesses or plays up to his fads, he or she go up the grading list often faster than the earnest worker who studies the welfare of his or her pupils from year's end to year's end. These inspectors were teachers themselves, sometimes not altogether successful ones, but once in the inspector's saddle they ride some hobby horse to death and become departmental officers first and last instead of becoming friends of the pupils and advisers to the teachers and parents, Mr Kirk knows that while our present Minister for Education holds the portfolio the parents cannot do anything. He also knows or should know that Sir James Parr, Mr Atmore, and others were not the type of men suited for Ministers of Education; in fact since the Hon. J. A. Hanan was Minister, we have not had anyone holding the portfolio who studied or knew anything about the needs of primary education in New Zealand. — Yours, etc., PARENT. Ashburton, November 26, 1933. ■to th» »prro» of tb* f*»m. Sir, —If more parents were to come forward and support Mr Hurley in his protest against the present system of appointing teachers to the primary schools, we might soon be on the way to getting the Education Act amended. At present boards, school committees, and parents are helpless even when they know that rank injustice is being done to the children by one unsuitable or inefficient teacher. Such teachers can snap their fingers and stay till it suits them to move on, either for superannuation or another appointment. As for the inspectors who inspected two country schools I know of, one wonders why they are paid good salaries to pass work done in those schools. Not only the children have suffered as a result, but the freshlyappointed teachers have had a most trying time and have stood up to it splendidly, which proves they have some principle, in which the former ones were entirely lacking. It seems certain that teachers are being nursed by the Teachers' Institute with the Government's approval, while other teachers and the.' children are secondary considerations. If the parents want the best for their children, they must demand local control through the school committees and boards. This could best be

, accomplished by enlisting the interest C and sympathy of the local members of . Parliament, i Trusting more parents will come for- ■ ward to discuss a matter of eucb. > vital importance.—Yours, etc., ■ ANOTHER PARENT. November 27, 1933.