SUSPENSION OF TEACHER

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21746, 31 March 1936, Page 7

SUSPENSION OF TEACHER

CANCELLATION BY COURT

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN

The order for suspension of Miss E. M. Livingstone by the Canterbury Education Board from the teaching staff of the Phillipstown School for two weeks was cancelled by the Teachers Court of Appeal, in a reserved decision on Miss Livingstone’s appeal, given yesterday. Mr H. A. Young, S.M., presided and with him were Mr H F. Penlington (nominated by the North Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Educational Institute) and Mr William Brock (nominated by the Canterbury Education Board). Miss Livingstone had been suspended for alleged refusal to co-operate with the headmaster in the training of a student. The court held that it.was unnecessary to order Miss Livingstone’s transference to another school. It was suggested that the board might still consider warning her against any further act of disobedience or fining her (with the consent of the Minister) a sum not exceeding £5, under the provisions of the Education Amendment Act. “We find that Miss Livingstone did refuse in one respect only to co-oper-ate as required by the headmaster in the training of a student sent to the Phillipstown school for teaching practice," the decision stated after .outlining the circumstances of the case. “It has not been proved that generally she has shown herself not amenable to the discipline required of members of the board’s teaching staff. “Unnecessarily Humiliating’* , , “In our opinion the sentence of suspension in this case was too severe from the point of view of probable loss Of salary. It was unnecessarily humiliating and was probably prejudicial to 'the school and pupils. Miss Livingstone has had 28 years’ experience as a teacher and is in charge of the sixth standard in one of our largest primary schools. The inspectors’ annual reports and the evidence of the headmaster and others 1 show that she is a very capable teacher. Her relationship with the. headmaster with respect to actual school, matters has always been satisfactory. In and out of school she has done her utmost to develop her pupils in all. respects to their utmost capacity. The third term is, in ordinary circumstances, the most trying for teachers. Jn'adldtion, about the middle of the term, Miss Livingstone, with her pupils, had taken a large part in preparing for a school concert and also for a school fair; this and the occurrence of one or two holidays had somewhat dislocated her class work. These matters, however, afforded no grounds for her refusal to bold the Training College student’s criticism, lesson.

which would have occupied about half an hour of her time. Her request for exemption from assisting in the training of students, when made on special grounds, had in the past been favourably considered by those who could grant exemption. It was not' for her to decide whether or when she could arrange the student’s lesson. When required to do so she had in the past fully assisted in the. training of stu*. dents. In our opinion, by reason of certain personal matters set out in the evidence and absorption in the welfare of her pupils she had, for the time being, lost her sense of proportion. , • ■ “The question as to whether, suspension for a definite period can be used by the board as a punishment in itself was not discussed before us. Assuming, however, that it can be so used it should in our opinion, if used at all, be used only in very exceptional cases, and even then should be made to take effect only during the school holidays. It is a form of punishment that is not in the best interests of the school, the teaching profession, or the pupils. The absence of the teacher from the school whilst it was open Would naturally, result in enquiries being made by the pupils and their parents. Unfounded rumours would probably circulate, and at the least through loss of respect the authority and prestige of the teacher would be weakened. Other forms of punishment , provided are adequate to meet every possible situation. “Order Should Not Have Been Made” “In our opinion, therefore, the,order for suspension should not have been made and we cancel it. We probably have power to order that she be transferred to a position .in another school carrying the same or a lower salary, but at present we do not think this necessary or advisable. “If it is thought advisable, the boajrd might still consider the question of warning her against any further act of disobedience or, of fining her (with the consent of the Minister) a sum,not exceeding £5 in terms of section '4 (III.) of the Education! 1 Amendment Act, 1932-33.

Costs Awarded Against Board "The representative of each party has infermed us that witnesses' expenses are not claimed. This court, however, has power to fix the amount of oilier costs and to direct by whom they are paid.. We fix these costs at £ls 3s, and direct that they be paid by the board. These costs would have been directed to be so paid even if the board had fully succeeded in .this appeal, as -the board did not hold a full enquiry. Although it had before it the letter from Miss Livingstone addressed to the priricipal of the Teachers* Training College admitting in effect disobedience, she should have been given the opportunity of appearing before the board or its committee for the purpose of hearing and meeting the statements made with respect to her, and of making any further explanation or placing- before it mitigating grounds. The New Zealand Educational Institute sponsored this appeal believing that by this means only could the defect in the board's procedure be remedied.".