M.P.’S MEET TEACHERS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 269, 14 August 1928, Page 12

M.P.’S MEET TEACHERS

VIEWS ON STAFFING AND CLASSES GOVERNMENT’S WANT OF MONEY School teachers’ girevances relating to the right of appeal against nonappointment, the size of. classes, the cleaning of schools, stability of staff, and sick leave, and other regulations were placed before local members Parliament —Sir John Luke, and Messrs. T. Forsyth, P. Fraser, R. MeKeen, and W. 11. Field—by representatives of the New Zealand Educational Institute in the presence of a large number of its members last evening. Mr. H. F. Penlington presided ami dealt with the question f the right of appeal against non-appointment. He said that teachers were appointed according to a grading list. As that grading list was the Department’s ofiicial record, the institute considered that when a teacher lower on the list supplanted a teacher higher on the list, the latter should be at least supplied with a reason and have the right of appeal against his or her non-appoint-ment. Position of Probationers. The necessity for the stabilisation of the school staffs was referred to by Mr. J. B. Hopkirk. Nobody would deny, he said, that stabilisation of staffs would be good, for the schools. “Continuous changes,” lie continued, “are brought about by the appointment of probationary and substitute teachers, and by the fact that all teachers must seek promotion by application for vacant positions.. We should like to see probationers attached as supernumeraries. They would then not be gaining experience at the expense of tlie children. If there was a.system of payment by annual increments it would preclude the possibility of a teacher securing promotion by moving from place to place. I fully believe that the Education Department could perfect the system in this direction if it had the money. The parents are not to blame, neither are tlie teachers to blame. As far as I can see tlie members of j Parliament arc to blame. They are sympathetic but apathetic. Cabinet ’ much more to blame. It is continually pleading poverty, but will not arrange the finances of the country to ensure the future welfare of the children. If a few pounds is to stand between the welfare of tlie child, then other countries will outrival us. There should be a system of payment to preclude the possibility of a teacher having to move from place to place to secure promotion.” Cleaning of Schools. Mr. J. K. Edie contended that some of the primary schools in New Zealand were not properly cleaned, and that more attention was paid to the cleaning of secondary schools. Provision was made for primary schools to be washed only three times a year. This he thought was disgraceful. Miss J. G. Park took exception to several of the sections of the Education Amendment Act, 1919. She referred to the fact that regulations might be made by Ordors-in-Council for the grading of schools, the number and grades of teachers, and prescribing the rates of salaries ttnd allowances and conditions of leave of absence. She considered it was repugnant to all the principles of British justice that an Order-in-Council could override au Act of Parliament. “The Depart ment,” she proceeded, “thinks that the best way to economise is by exploiting the teachers, who realise more and more that the machine that threatens them threatens the children’s first line of defence. Many of these regulations are unnecessary, particularly those in regard to leave of absence. We hold they are essentially inequitable, and instead of improving, wo find that the inequitable principles are being extended.” Size of Classes. A reduction in the size of classes was advocated by Mr. P. M. Jackson, who said that such a need was realised from whatever aspect the subject was viewed.

There were classes with as many as GO pupils. In such a way individuality was crushed and it was impossible for a child’s originality to shine out. From the present Government one heard that too much money was going to education. That was granted, but it was on secondary schools that: too much money was being spent. What a saving it would be if more children could be diverted into the trades and to the agricultural life, and smaller classes would give more time for instruction in the value of children taking up these callings for a livelihood. Large schools were an economic waste. The whole system of large classes was based on a false philosophy, built on one of materialism. A country was not built on the size of its population but the quality of its people. New Zealand would never be a great nation while there were large classes. The members of Parliament present briefly replied to (lie representations made. “What has been said.” said Mr. Field. ”1 am sure Ims sunk into the minds of all I lie me.mbors here. Anything that we can do to improve edit- . cation. mffiklcuL .with LJic tmuply of

money available, will be done. In the case of most of the requests I would like to say that they involve the expenditure of more money. I should like to see the money found for the purposes outlined. Although other avenues of taxation might be explored, a vast number, of people are grossly taxed to-day. I know people who are taxed to such an extent that they find it difficult to live. But 1 will not say that there are not some people who are undertaxed.” Mr. Field agreed that teachers should be supplied with a reason if supplanted by teachers with a lower grading. An endeavour should be made to see that classes were reduced in number. Sir John Luke stated that the question of the right of appeal would have his earnest consideration. As far as cleaning of schools was concerned finance should not stand in the way of the proper sanitation of school buildings. He favoured smaller classes. Mr. Fraser agreed with the teachers right of appeal against non-appoint-ment, and added that with any section of workers there should bo some tribunal by which they could obtain elementary justice in their vocation. He considered it a reflection on the educational system that schools should not at least be cleaned up to the standard of the best offices. Mr. Fraser endorsed the representations regarding smaller classes, and was opposed to government by Order-in-Council.

The views of Mr. Fraser were supported by Mr. McKeon, who said that some of them had been fighting the making of regulation by Order-in-Coun-cil ever since the /Act was placed on the Statute Book. He knew the problems ,f education and was prepared to co-operate in providing better, opportunities for the children. “I think it a good move to get members along to hear your views,” said Mr. Forsyth. The cleaning of the schools was purely a matter of capitation, which, he said, he would like to

sec raised. He was entirely in sympathy in the representations for the stability of the staff, and similarly those made for smaller classes. The original plan laid down by Sir James Parr was for smaller classes and more teachers, but unfortunately the economic position had not allowed this to be carried out. The education vote was large, but as far as the primary education was concerned it should be larger, particularly the building vote. Mr. E yth said that lie could not agree with some of the previous speakers in respect, to the right of appeal, lie sail, that flic teacher had the right of appeal against his grading every twelve months. The grading list governed the appointment of teachers and all appointments were made on grading. except in cases where a lower graded teacher was recommended for a position on account of exceptional qualifications she might have for the vacancy. On behalf of the institute, Mr. Combs proposed a very hearty vote of thanks to the members of Parliament for being present. "We look for political support irrespective of party,” he 1 said,