Discipline Of Teachers

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30559, 30 September 1964, Page 16

Discipline Of Teachers

The president of the Canterbury region of the Post-primary Teachers’ Association (Mr H. C. Evison) has not disproved the contention of “ The Press ” that the new Education Bill “does not impose “harsher sanctions” on teachers. The new Bill specifies penalties for “minor offences” (clause 159) and penalties for “major offences” (clause 160) For minor offences the maximum penalty is still £5, as in 1933. For major offences, the maximum penalty is still dismissal; but lesser penalties, including a fine of up to £lOO, are now provided. It is sheer fantasy to claim, as Mr Evison does, that a teacher could be fined £lOO “ for any offence at all, “ if the board decided it was not of a minor nature ”, Any education board that attempted to impose a £lOO fine for “ any offence at all ” would soon find that clause 160 does not give boards the latitude Mr Evison professes to believe it does. The investigating committee to which Mr Evison objects so strongly does not try the teacher charged, but merely investigates a charge already laid and denied. We fail to see anything sinister in this provision, or in the abolition of the right of the Minister of Education to veto a fine of up to £5. The nub of Mr Evison’s objections appears to be an employer’s right to discipline his employees. Professions of predominantly self-employed workers, such as medicine and law, can and do discipline their own members; but, whether Mr Evison likes it or not, “the old context “of master and servant ” remains the only appropriate one for the teaching profession.

The four “important matters” in the report of the Royal Commission on Education which Mr Evison says have been ignored in the bill have in fact received the attention of the Government since the commission’s report was brought down. The most serious of Mr Evison’s four points is that the school-leaving age has not yet been raised to 16; but such a change should not be made without adequate preparation. It is difficult to imagine how a government could legislate for the teaching profession to have a special claim to a high professional status ”, as Mr Evison apparently wishes. He must be aware’ though, that salaries for higher positions in the teaching profession have recently been substantially increased with the likelihood of increases in other teaching salaries. Claims to high professional status are not furthered by individual members of the profession who work full-time for weeks on end in freezing works, or who take part-time employment as barmen for the greater part of the year. Professional status is earned, not granted by Acts of Parhament.