TEACHERS’ LEAVE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 52, 25 November 1930, Page 8

TEACHERS’ LEAVE

Ab sence Through Sickness FIGURES FOR DOMINION Education boards throughout 1 New Zealand have been supplied with a table of graphs and a report by the Education Department setting out the particulars concerning general and sick leave granted to teachers during the year ended May, 1930, and concern has already been expressed by the Canterbury Education Board at the amount of leave extotal number of teachers in all districts at the end of last year was 6438. and it is shown that 28.4 per cent, of these were on sick leave during the year under review, while 6.3 per /('ent. were on special leave. ' These figures appear remarkably nigh at first glance, but an important ..point has to be taken into considerntion in arriving at a deduction from them. The department points out in an explanatory note that teachers on leave of absence in more than one month are counted separately m each month that the leave occurred. This means that a teacher who had a protracted leave might be included several times in the computation, as only leave periods of one we?k or over nre included. In view of this the department makes it clear that thee percentages given are not to be taken as showing the percentage of teachers in any particular district that had sick or special leave. The percentages are, to be used only ns a basis for showing thejvarying amounts of leave taken in the several dl On Ct this basis Wellington, with 796 teachers, had the highest percentage on sick leave during the year, namely- 30.4. Southland with 376 teachers rome- next with 32.4 per cent on sick leave throughout the period. Auckland with 1940 teachers had 30.9 per cent, absent from school on sick leave. Particulars for the other education board districts nre supplied as follow: Wangamn 512 teachers. 27.1 per cent.: Otago, G3O, 26 I , Taranaki, 373, 26.5.; Hawke’s Bay, 484, 25.2; Canterbury, 1077, 23.9; Nelson. 250. 16.8. . . . , , Discussing the incidence of sick leave a member of the Canterbury board said that the curricula were being loaded up more and more, and many teachers were being forced to secure leave through nerve troubles. There was also the personal factor to be taken into consideration. An educationist pointed out yesterday that all boards might not treat their teachers the same in regard to sick leave Some might be more lenient in granting it than others, with the result that the percentage in their districts would rise accordingly An interesting graph prepared by the department shows the rise and fall of the numbers of teachers on sick leave between June, 1929. mid May, 1930. As was to be expected. July provided the greatest number of absentee teachers, the number being about 300 in that month. It fell sharply to about 175 in August, and was down to less than 100 in the following month, the holiday period. By December the number had fallen to about 100, and it commenced to rise again with the commencement of the school year. , The information concerning teachers leave has been sent to boards by the department in order to acquaint them of the position in their districts, and to give them a lead in nny action they might take to investigate reasons for high percentages of absence. The Canterbury board has already set up a. committee to inquire into the position in its area. .