TRAINING COLLEGES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 196, 16 May 1930, Page 6

TRAINING COLLEGES

SYSTEM OF APPOINTMENTS PROTESTS DEFEATED The present mode of making appointments to positions in the training colleges was discussed at the conference of the New Zealand Educational Institute yesterday. A remit from the Wellington branch that a strong protest should be made against the regulations governing appointments to training colleges, was considered, but was eventually defeated. Mrs. Fouhy (Wellington), in seconding the motion, said that prior to October, 1929, applications were considered by a committee of advice, which then made its recommendations to the full board- If approved, the application went forward to the department for confirmation, but the department could refuse to complete the appointment.. In April, 1929, in a case in the Wellington district, this had happened, when the nomination of a candidate unanimously selected by the committee of advice and unanimously approved by the full board, was rejected by the department. Then there was a deadlock. Some months intervened, and on October 31 new regulations governing the appointments were gazetted. These contained a clause giving the Minister power to appoint anyone whom he chose. This was not the happiest solution of the problem, and it introduced a new principle into the appointment—the principle of centralised control. The department gave no reason for refusing the approved applicant. The remit was a protest against the new procedure which had taken away from the boards the power of making appointments. There had to be some solution of the difficulty, and it seemed that those regulations had been made especially for the case then under consideration. A candidate had no. means of redress, and no claim to state his case in answer, after the proclamation had been made. One of the reasons why the Wellington branch had forwarded the remit was that the regulations had been made retrospective. Miss J. G. Park (Wellington) asked why two laymen should overrule the committee of advice, which was loaded by experts. In opposing the remit, Mr. P. M. Jackson said that with the committee of advice the local aspirant was the most likely to be appointed. Mr. H. F. Penlington (Christchurch) expressed the view that the position under the old regulations was similar to the appointment of teachers in the old days. Did they want to put the appointment of inspectors in the hands of the boards? There had to be some element of finality in the regulations, and this waß not contained in the old regulations. An amendment that a protest should be made against those clauses that give to the Minister sole power to make appointments was defeated, and this was also the fate with which the original remit met.