SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 121, 20 February 1928, Page 10

SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS

Sir, —I am pleased to see the prompt reply issued by the Education Department to the criticism of the School Committees’ Association, as it enables me to give this statement as to alterations made, and their effect upon the future welfare of our school children.

Up to three years ago the system of training students was to place them lor two years as pupil teachers in the larger schools, then two years in the Training College; they then graduated as' teachers, and sought, or were given, positions as permanent, or impermanent, as teachers of twenty or thirty years’ experience. While serving as pupil teachers they- were never given sole charge of any class, but had the benefit of a qualified teacher superintending and helping them to learn their work.

The system inaugurated, and now working ( ?) is to give the student one year as pupil teacher and two years at Training College, and then to send him or her as “substitute assistant” or probationary- assistant to one of the larger schools, where they- take the place of a duly certificated teacher (who thereby frequently joins the ranks of the unemployed). Please get this quite clearly, that they- in no sense take the place of pupil teachers. The school staffs have been reduced, and headmasters are compelled to give them sole charge of classes, and that theyreceive less than a teacher’s pay. In the school of which I have been chairman for the past teu years we were first inflicted with this policy in 1925. In 1926 we were given a substitute assistant and a probationary assistant. The probationary assistant stayed twelve months in sole charge of standard 2 (boys) ; the substitute assistant got a job, and left in May. His successor got a job in October, arid his successor left at the end of the year, as no probationary assistant is allowed to stay on after twelve months. This was the Department’s reply- to the Parliamentary- Act which compelled qualified teachers to stay two complete years in a position, .and leave only at the end of the school year. In 1927 we were given three probationary assistants, who stayed twelve months in sole charge, respectively- of standard 3 (boys), standard 2 (boy-s), and primary i (infants). Please note that in this case not one of them had anyteaching experience at all, even as pupil teachers. This year we are given two substitute assistants, who are placed in sole charge of standard 3 (boys) and primary- 4 (infants), both of whom have applied for other positions, as instructed by the Department.

This system of reducing the training period of students from four years to three years and then placing them in sole charge of classes is a serious menace to our children’s education, and as so much importance (wisely or unwisely-) is now placed upon the proficiency test it is obvious that our children are not getting a fair deal. When a young girl, without any- previous teaching experience, is placed in charge of a standard of boy-s, would it be a matter of real surprise if the boys were some time found to be in charge ? I note the Department state that their scheme is not yet in full operation, as they seem to be following the classical instance wherein the horse died before his owner’s .policy of reduction was fully- developed, I can only hope that saner counsel will save the educational life of New Zealand’s children.—l am, etc., L. HENNESSEY, Chairman of Te Aro School Committee. Wellington, February- 11. [The education authorities, replying to the above, state: “It is quite unnecessary to traverse the whole of Mr. Hennessey’s letter, which is based on conditions that are exceptional, and on information that is quite incorrect. The question involved is whether the former pupil teacher or the present probationary assistant is preferable and the more useful member of a school staff. Formerly, schools had on their staffs pupil teacher during the first two years _of their training, and their places are being taken by young teachers, probationary assistants, nearly- all of whom have spent one year in teaching in the schools as probationers and two years at the Training College, the latter including a good deal of practical teaching. The new system has been approved as a great improvement on the old by almost everyone who is concerned in school administration. If it were not so it would be difficult to justify- the retention of the training colleges. As explained early in the week, it is not possible this year to provide the full complement of probationary assistants or to put. the new scheme in full operation, but it is expected that next rear the full supplywill be available, and that each probationary- assistant will remain a full year on the staff.]